an attorney with the united states justice foundation. i'm here to represent mr. drake and mr. robinson and those clients alone. it is the purpose of our appeal which is one of the two appeals combined for hearing today to seek a remand back to the trial court so that we can separately pursue a resolution of this issue so that we can have the case heard on the merits and not dealt with on the various technical issues that have been raised or on issues that relate to plaintiffs not my own. as part of my presentation i will only be dealing with the parts of the ruling by judge carter that deal with my clients as there's a variety of issues raised by the other plaintiffs which i have no stake in. fs which i have no stake in. > can make it clear >> could you make clearwh what relief you're seeking? timately.

>> we are seeking the second amended complaint that the court reached a determination as to whether mr. obama is eligible to serve as president of the united states that is the ultimate what we are seeking. >> what remedy flows from that that you are seeking? >> we are seeking a declaration and is so. what would you expect or what are you asking the federal district court to do to issue that declaration? what would be the next thing though it had been? [inaudible] >> let's just talk about where we are. >> if the court were to go back

to the procedures and had a trial on the merits and the court found mr. obama was ineligible to serve it would be our expectation the office will ultimately not necessarily by the court the office would be vacant and take over as president of the united states for the 20 amendment. >> your clients are former candidates? >> he was the candidate of the american independent party on the california. my other clients who was at the time the chairman of the american intention california and person mant to the decision both individuals mr. robinson on behalf of his party and mr. jury was a standing to challenge --

>> but after the election was over. >> yes i am aware of that. >> one of the different than anybody else? >> pecos firstly can't speak to why. >> i'm not saying why. i am saying because of what is brought after the election they don't have an interest. so, what is it that distinguishes them from anybody else? >> first this is a matter -- >> they aren't declaring that they want the next election so what is their role? >> we are not asking it to be rerun. we are asking the government be shut down. >> and you're not alleging -- you're not seeing you on this release because you're planning to run next time clocks >> it's to speculate whether mr. drake will run next time. we're you different from anybody

else? >> first of all because there is a ruling that is challenging from the federal court. number two -- >> i'm sorry -- was in that somebody challenging -- to make it wasn't a candidate, it was a general citizen this matter could come up again. we could never again in 2012 the issue of mr. obama who's already been cleared for the reelection for the commission running for president and we have the same issue is the eligible -- >> but the other half is incapable of review. it's likely to repeat incapable of review. that wouldn't be incapable of review then somebody with standing could in the course of that election raise the issue if they wanted to. islamic if we want to run this

again >> that's been done so far you filed a complaint and the district court challenge standing. that's all we are kuran today. so running it through doesn't seem to be a consideration. the question is on standing. you can't argue that it is in incapable review. that's the only point i'm trying to address. >> i have other requests, your honor. your honor, i entered this case september 8th after the government filed the motion to dismiss. in the short amount of time i had to prepare and when the motion was dismissed we filed a demotion to be allowed for the proposed second amendment complaint. it is our request if the court

is willing to grant remaned we go back and proceed on those issues separate and apart from the other issues. now the issue that was -- one of the main issues was the issue of the political pressure. estimate isn't standing large ackley prior? >> i can deal with that first report is -- >> notwithstanding we don't have a standing. >> it's involved in several issues. one of the most the redress and the permanent justice -- >> the first is what i need to know. >> it is that my clients, then the independent party and mr. jury who was the vice

presidential candidate were not given a level playing field so they could run against a candidate -- >> but didn't file until the election was over, the results were certified and president obama was sworn in. what does that have to do with of the election? >> again, your honor, i will have to defer to the doctor on that. she's the one who filed the complaint and i was brought in for a variety of reasons leader in the process. i came in at the request of dr. gereed and mr. robinson to try to salvage the situation and we wound up with this appeal laughter argument >> but we don't understand. i mean it still doesn't see why you have a standing. >> and as judge carper pointed out, the ruling and the arguments made the department of justice have great ramifications for the minor parties.

i represent a candidate and then chairman of the party and judge carter talked at length and in the transcript stevan further and i argued that some of linked about how a ruling such as this where for whatever reason a minor party cannot challenge simply because they are a minor party. the ability of a major party to perform a candidate that isn't eligible can in fact deprived relevancy and status. >> he was sympathetic to the bristol had the same concern the judge was raising the we are not in the posture of a campaign. that is not the posture of this case. there is a campaign in which the minor parties feel that they are being unfairly disadvantaged for any number of reasons have in the past and there's no reason

they couldn't in the future raise the challenge you're trying to make. you keep saying you are brought in that league and have to deal the hand you're dealt. we have to deal with the hand that exists, you didn't file a claim at the time when the kind of relief the you would be talking about might be plausible but it doesn't do anything for your candidate now. we don't know whether they would run again and 2012, and if they do, and they have the concern that they are expressed now there's nothing to prevent them from filing a lawsuit at that time when a the circumstances would be accountable to some kind of evidence as to injury and we wouldn't have to speculate but that's what i'm having trouble with. >> i would direct your

attention, your honor, to the case from north dakota in which the states and of north dakota after the election, after inauguration, after the governor of north dakota had taken office and was acting as a governor signing legislation, the supreme court would move to office because he didn't qualify, didn't satisfy the recall humans for the state of north dakota. it's the most analogous situation i can come up with. >> but the result of that would be the vice president biden would become president. >> constitutionally -- >> the clients have no more, quote come a level playing field and they did before because this isn't about an election. >> it's not the constitution -- >> when you are really saying is anybody ought to be able to bring the case and unfortunately that is and the law.

i am trying to see how your different than anybody else. it begins on the premise somebody walking down the street doesn't have a standing. estimate they disagree, your honor. they have a fundamental right. >> under the case many years of presidents in the supreme court can anybody bring the case. >> we have had cases on this issue. you're talking about the case that i understanding. we have a situation right now which is unprecedented. we have a man who whether it is true or not arguably is not a naturally born citizen of the united states and isn't eligible to serve. if we said the election is over basically the people of the united states by a general vote of the majority can amend the constitution without falling the requirements in congress and the three-quarters of the states to

do so. >> it isn't quite true. i think the argument, and this gets to the political question, it's not that the people don't have a way to force the constitution, and i don't recall what the north dakota constitution provided by dalia understand the argument this being made is that the constitution of dresses the issue, it has various stages at which the kind of challenge you're making could have been raised or could be raised at the college at that point and under the 25th or 26 the amendment there are procedures. the question is what is the role of the federal courts? because that's why i asked you just to be clear why i asked you at the beginning what your ultimate relief is because when you want to do is to take an

action through the federal court to remove the sitting president and the constitution has provisions that address how a sitting president can be removed from office and that is the difficulty as federal judges of limited jurisdiction we have to abide by. >> first of mr. obama isn't a naturally born citizen, then he never was elected president because he couldn't qualify. some of that is an issue that would be identified or don't with by the congress or arguably perhaps the attorney general. >> my point is once you have a sitting president you can't impeach. number to call it was the argument in the department of justice that was up to the electoral college or the congress to deal with the issue.

number one, 26 states in the district of columbia have laws which have criminal or civil penalties for the electors that do not vote in accordance with the majority of the plurality wishes in that state or district so they have no discretion to challenge. and under which they argue that provides for the challenges by congress to the electors whether they were properly selected. whether the paperwork is submitted by the court. there is no provision for any dealing with eligibility, no provision for anybody with of the electoral college. so the only recourse is the court otherwise in the article to the requirement for the president are unenforceable and therefore meaningless and that is the result that to me is the

concept of the republican form of government. the people have to have a way to challenge somebody when the majority party of the case the democrats and republicans care about the libertarians are the natural law party or whoever it is only weekend and we are not going to be a will to do anything about it because next time there will be republican who isn't eligible. john kane was a subject of lawsuits under his ability. congress held hearings on whether john mccain was eligible, natural born citizen and the actually made it binding that helps in the case we have because the findings as you have to have to american-born citizens as parents before you can be a natural born citizen, but i mean, this has all been done in the last couple of years but nobody is willing to take it on. nobody's willing to ask the hard

questions of him. john mccain says okay, not mr. obama. >> how did the mccain hearings come about? >> the people on the democratic party initiated hearings in the majority party in the senate and the initiative hearings and held hearings of senator mccain and ted olson if i remember correctly. they submitted briefs and the matter was voted on and was made that he was a natural born citizen. >> i recall that. the question is have you sought to initiate that kind of process? >> through congress? we don't have the right to do that, your honor. only members of congress. >> you don't have a right to petition congress? >> we can petition them but only a member of congress. >> so you're saying that --

nobody pressed them to do that? >> i don't know, your honor. but the ruling by converse was in essence non-binding. it didn't have the weight of the wall. >> i would like to reserve my time if i may. >> thank you, your honor. >> to start the clock again. each side gets ten minutes. >> ten minutes?

>> each gets ten minutes. >> 20 to push a button? i'm sorry. >> it's right below you there. you have it on your podium haven't you? >> one, two, three, go. >> i am representing ambassador alan keyes who actually has unique spending because he ran against mr. obama twice for the senate in 2004 there were two finalists and if indeed mr. obama as the evidence shows committed fraud and the evidence that we have shows doesn't have a valid social security number

he's using a number that was never signed and it doesn't have the original birth certificate he was provided to the public and i believe greatly influenced the country as a whole and somehow influenced air the court in the future proceedings publishing this computer image is of original birth certificate issued in 1961 and issues that it's not, it isn't it true image of the of original birth certificate. it's a very invented computer art where pieces were taken from different documents, put together and the damage was created. he created this psychological map.

he called us [inaudible] and the start of mass hysteria in the media saying we need to go away, get out of the country and so forth the investor has perfect standing and if fraud was committed and mr. obama doesn't have the proper paper he could never become president or become the senator from the state of illinois and investor keyes and president obama were the finalists in that competition in 2004. additionally members of u.s. military. most recently a fellow member was in present to afghanistan and was after his birth certificate he stated why should

i show but i would be willing to go if i have a legitimate commander-in-chief and he was denied his right to fair trial, the presiding judge said he cannot bring the issue of eligibility. this high ranking officer is sitting in prison in fort leavenworth. he lost his pension so my clients, some of them are here and are members of u.s. military are greatly concerned that all the evidence shown mr. obama of of being eligible and of him not having heuvel with service documents or social security number, not having a valid birth certificate or the with educational records sitting in the white house and they are questioning in prison in fort leavenworth just as the gentleman sitting there.

lastly, as you know, your honor, there is a member of issues being heard in different states and among them are the health care reform. the states have balanced budget amendments and the need to know whether indeed when they are trying to implement different measures or executive order coming from the white house they want to know they are legitimate when they are implementing those orders in their states'. additionally this case is different from all together cases and as a matter of fact doesn't even tell why because i try this case on inauguration day and before mr. obama did anything as u.s. president he never filed an answer and we had a an equal hearing on july 13th

2009. now if mr. obama were to file an answer and state will there's a problem with those plaintiffs we would have been arguing spending, however in spite of the fact that he was there for a time during the hearing i had on the issue of default, mr. obama couldn't be the u.s. attorney on his behalf because then it would have shown he served. so he served assistant u.s. attorney and it was a trait that said well he's here but he's not representing the president, he's representing the united states of america and pressured the judge and me [inaudible] threw him and they refused to do it and judge carter stated on the

record well, if you refuse and going to dismiss and it's going to be sitting in the ninth circuit for a year and to allow it to the country to have this case heard on the merit. we are losing due process. you can either give me the judgment or denying. do not pressure me and meet me serve, mr. obama, for the fifth time for the u.s. attorney's office. and the hearing last i think over two hours and repeatedly pressuring me and he had the new process and violation right for [inaudible] because i was pressured again and this particular instance was an instance of the court exceeding

the judicial discretion to read additionally, there was no spending to be there to begin with. he wasn't her% and the plaintiff, he wasn't representing the defendant so he had no standing to argue anything for the case to begin with and there was a judicial discretion and judge parker to go and demand u.s. attorney's whatever part of the case. additionally, as that was done, judge carter made a deal and stated if you surf the government -- i stood correctly for the role of ease, and the u.s. attorney provided the

reconstruction of the statute. he stated that i had [inaudible] the government officials being served in regards to something in their duty. i was serving he committed before he became the president. it wasn't done as part of his duty. it was done for his own benefit. so, and also stating that the reconstruction of the statute there was an era when judge carter that needs to be overturned, the decision needs to be overturned. and the influence of a federal judge by the u.s. attorney's office or actually by the white house using the u.s. attorney's office and additionally using

his own private attorneys pleased to work as a clerk for the presiding judge. it was an partiality for the attorneys so this judge rating in opinion for the judge. i would expect this in the soviet union during wouldn't expectant here. additionally, judge carper wrote the letter that came to enter his chambers and in his final rulings he called for the plaintiff's attorney for the consideration and to have access to those letters and have a hearing to provide my part of the story. my livelihood was affected, my provisions of the state bar were affected because the judge included in his order letters

sent to him directly to his chamber and had no opportunity to respond to read this of the discussion and for all of those reasons, and i'm running out of time, this has to be the decision has to be overturned and i should get my right for the judgment and the discovery of the documents [inaudible] more information. >> thank you very much. >> may i please the court? the appearance of my counsel assistant u.s. attorney and of myself representing president

obama and the other federal defendant. this is a limit to the matter before the courts -- >> where are you from? the u.s. attorney's office. in los angeles, yes. it is a limit to the matter before the courts and unless the court directs otherwise i wouldn't respond outside of the purview that there was no undue influence addressed to anyone and the court is standing and as this is already suggested by the question the difficulty of course is that these plaintiffs didn't have standing at the time, and not prior standing in the meantime to read the problem is the need to show and this court knows the utter stability, and the dover of those elements standing in the district court

alone found can be shown. >> is there and nobody that brings this case or a case like it, a case challenging the qualifications that the president before or after the election, not before? >> in the obstruct, i think there are certainly if they acquire in the court limited jurisdiction i would hypothetically think of some instance of a person who might be able to bring the case. the first person that comes to mind is as the honor suggested a candidate and has also suggested we don't have any candidate in this case. by the time this case was brought, but the election had been run, the president certified as the president-elect and the president had been inaugurated and that is when the case was filed. not here. the time for a challenging somebody on the ballot have

launched. >> and first of all, i gather that if we accept your standing arguments we don't get to political question. >> i think that is the correct timing, your honor, yes. >> and if a case like this were brought before the election would there be a political question problem? >> there could be. i don't believe a case has been -- >> not sitting president, if you have a challenge to a candidate i assume there wouldn't be a political question at that point. >> somebody running for office declares 23-years-old or what the president has to be 35 commesso 33-years-old nobody disputes that but nobody acts.

would you say somebody would have standing to challenge that? >> depends on the timing. during the campaign i think that a candidate would have standing -- >> and it wouldn't be a political question. >> ready date candidate can challenge the qualification of another candidate assuming of course that that candidate does so in a timely manner that there is enough time and has the case like that and the court can act promptly and swiftly when it is necessary assuming that is the employer to the election in the enough time the court [inaudible] with the other candidates try this court. >> not like the chicago mayor's race when the residency f. rahm emanuel was much in dispute so there would be the kind of timing that a candidate could

challenge the qualifications of the opponent's? >> that's correct. a series of cases in challenging qualifications of the candidates during the course of the election and i would submit others kantrowitz about what and other qualifications that of course didn't happen here and to the other point about vv dress ability, the effect that they would have visit the district court were to ever get that far to the revisory and to say if the district court doesn't have the power once the president has been declared the winner -- semidey would be nice and difficult question but not decided before the election. estimate and of course the timing as much the longer the you go back in time the crew to the likelihood of the standing

might be. >> so there might be is a region which you wouldn't have a decision on the eligibility until after the election and the would be a sort of hard and difficult question but it's not -- >> that's correct on both issues, your honor. it's possible to think for a difficult issues and number two, that is certainly not the issue before the court. >> the limited's jurisdiction curtis -- the plaintiffs have standing and of course they came in this case and charlatan standing in the district court found lack of injury in fact and the redress of devotee. amid the determination was a political question of termination and doesn't seem necessary.

>> i think the court could have reached the issue in fact quite frankly didn't the opinion below never reaches the conclusion that there were candidates involved. is simply stops the analysis and says that according para freezing from the district court opinion that the only one with any potential standing with the political candidates to sort of stop that. i think another step in the logical process would have been to say but of course these were not political candidates of the time the complaint was brought. the court later time is that the end and then goes on to talk about redress of devotee as a means of establishing what i think it's fair to say even if the court over the fact that there is still no redress ability. >> if we did need to get near

the political question, i was a little concerned about you tried to point to the context will of commitments in the constitution to other branches, but there are a little vague are they not and what provisions of the constitution do you think are permitting the eligibility determinations of an officer of a candidate or an officer? a natural official to congress coming electoral college or someone else? >> right. will it isn't that a general, your honor. it's the sitting president. and it's worth noting because the commitment to the house is that a body as though sold under the constitution to impeach.

>> wouldn't it the high crime misdemeanor? we are in the era of no case law but i do know that if the constitution says the the only body that can be moved the sitting president is the congress in both houses -- >> where does it say that? >> you did accurately see impeachment, the house says that the house has the sole responsibility to impeach, the scent believe kucinich has the sole responsibility to convict, antonakes in case the united states supreme court has cautioned the courts to allow the impeachment proceedings as a quintessential nonjudicial elephant in a way because of this with the senate has the responsibility to do.

>> if someone discovers the candidate for president is under age or not a citizen and they discover three days before the election and they don't get to file the suit because there's no time. if it filed in had known earlier , then the judicial branch would be the arbiters of the qualification and defining what it means to be a natural born or how you measure the age or whatever. is that correct? >> i don't want to speculate, your honor, but i do acknowledge that courts to know how to act quickly and even three days

before the election -- >> dalia understand that they might have been able. i'm just saying assuming they couldn't so the fact of the alleged fact, the disqualification was discovered at a time they were not able to bring it to federal court. if the had earlier, the federal court would have been able to put the operative event becomes once the president is sworn in and becomes the president-elect, the ability to deal with the situation, the jurisdiction of ul and of the constitution shifts to congress and congress not only has the jurisdiction to decide what to do, but also to decide the interpretive issue of what the constitution means by

being a natural born or other kind of citizen. that's where the shift occurs from and in the course of deciding whether to impeach or exercising authority under article 25 perhaps or the 25th amendment rather, that interpretive process authority would be in the hands of the congress. >> i will submit that is very accurate of our understanding of the constitution, your honor. but the opportunities and is the election psp mcginn you're saying they're for -- therefore if the court had -- if they filed as we did hear that after the president was sworn in the court would have no role as a matter of declaratory relief

only use it would be in a phrase real opinion. sprigg there would be no need to enforce because the court would after destruction and the suggestion the declare a prejudgment admitted to the congress i don't think that europe reflects how the system works. there is no means by which the courts would enforce, and at that point because the election had already passed it then devolves on to congress to establish how to take appropriate action which as we point out in the brief both houses of congress have embraced both as standing committee on eligibility and i will also submit the suggestion about the senate resolution. >> eligibility is -- there's a

and amendment that seems to deal directly with the qualification question but there's another worker we haven't talked about which is between the election and the inauguration, and that amendment seems to deal with that. islamic and once again, it supports our view that it devolves responsibility to congress. islamic doesn't say who is on the qualifications, it says congress can provide the case where neither the president elect or vice president shall qualify but it doesn't say declaring who should act as president but it doesn't say who decides that. >> it doesn't say that. it says if there's a difficulty to decide by law what shall happen if either one shall qualify but it doesn't say who

decides whether they qualify. >> but congress decides by law. they would pass the mall determining who the correct president was in that even it was determined the president-elect was unfit or ineligible or not qualified. >> these are interesting questions and i don't mean in any way to discourage them, but i don't will of the answers other than to say that i do know that is not the case before the court. that these individuals were not candidates and these individuals accordingly didn't have standing >> if there is no other question from the support i would submit and i thank the court. >> thank you.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> you're out of order right now. we have a gentleman appear ready to speak. he's got two minutes and 41 seconds. you can share a minute or so if you want. >> i listened with great interest part of the comments is acting as a judicial body making determinations as to who is eligible and who is not whereas in the argument of the court he also talked about the idea of richard to the deciding who is eligible and that is how we get back into the problem of the minor parties. we have the republicans and

democrats. we have independence in congress and they are powerless except in a close vote to make any difference whatsoever. so the courts need to be involved in this and need to take a stand to enforce constitutions. regarding the political question, it is our argument that when eligibility isn't a judgment and policy decision as is required to the political question. it is a yes or no answer to a question. if someone is eligible to the system or is that person not eligible. so little respect it isn't a political question. with regard to the court involvement in the cases such as this it's very limited, but we submitted the case that went away to the united states

supreme court which refused to hear the averment of the california rulings which stated that the secretary of state had the right to move someone from the ballot read by the time this got to be done it was post election nights understand that they formed the right in the state of california in the case -- >> just because the inherent the case doesn't mean anything. >> [inaudible] >> plenty of work. >> your honor, and the work they do. sitting and thinking while he was making his presentation it occurs to me, and i don't have the experience that you do but if in the constitutional law for 35 years that another reason as lived among other instances premature because we can't reach

out to these elections if you reach out to them speak to one of the questions of what the change point is where the key changes and it's that. i would respectfully suggest my time is up and i apologize that, the case resubmitted where there is a discussion of the problem with of the elected bodies making a determination as to who is allowed to run for what in the sense of on going and political campaigns and i thank your honor for your time. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> you use your time. >> know why didn't -- [inaudible conversations] >> okay, go ahead. >> just to add -- >> i've got my timekeeper over

here. >> [inaudible] >> well, you have 20 minutes to divide between the two of you. >> he didn't speak for 18 minutes. when he started speaking he spoke for ten minutes. anyway, what is important here is my client investor keyes, was the presidential candidate running against mr. obama. additionally, we will tell congress and during the hearings in the district court letters from a number of senators specifically i recall the letter from senator sessions stating that the senate cannot decide the issue of fraud whether it

was committed for the forces to decide and specifically stated that they want to abstain because they are not a court of law. they can hold these issues and -- >> when did you submit those? is it after the election or before? >> well, before -- >> when were dosimeters the firming to the court? was it before or after the election? ..

from legal counsel for admiral marlin saying that yes, we appreciate it. this is an important issue. but because mr. obama commanding chief is not considered to be technically part of the military. he's a civilian overseeing the military and nothing they can do. so we did go and we -- we tried each and every avenue. we exhausted each and every avenue, reaching the chairman. joint chiefs of staff. we went to congress. we went to senate. and rightfully, it's up to the court to decide. the senators cannot evaluate evidence. they cannot say if this birth certificate is valid or forgery. that's up to the judge to decide. and that's why i'm asking to overturn this decision and give me an opportunity to try this case on the merits and obtain proper evidence. and then submit it to congress.

>> listen, we have your argument well in hand. ok? >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. all right. we'll now adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:00 and thank you for your attendance. >> all rise. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on friday, president obama was at a transmissions plant in indianapolis to hear about alternative energy technologies being developed there.

he talks about the technology and the impact on job creation in his weekly address. we'll also hear the republican address by massachusetts senator scott brown. he commends the u.s. military and intelligence services on the killing of al qaeda leader osama bin laden and the counterterrorism efforts that continue in afghanistan. >> i'm speaking with you from the allison transmission plant in indianapolis, indiana. i came here because this is a place where american workers are doing some big and impressive things. the hybrid technology they manufacture here already powers nearly 4,000 buses all over the world. buses that have already saved 15 million gallons of fuel. soon they'll expand this new technology to trucks as well. that means more vehicles using less oil. and that means jobs. more than 200 new workers at this plant alone. that's important because even

as the economy is growing, after one of the worst recessions in our history, even as we've added more than two million new private sector jobs over the past 14 months, i still meet and hear from americans struggling to get out of their own personal recessions. a lot of folks out there are still looking for work. and many folks who do have jobs are finding that their paychecks aren't keeping up with the rising costs of everything from tuition to groceries to gas prices. in fact, in a lot of places across the country like here in indiana, gas has reached an all-time high. so although our economy hasn't been the focus of the news this week, not a day goes by that i'm not focused on your jobs, your hopes, and your dreams. and that's why i came here to allison transmissions. the clean energy jobs at this plant are the jobs of the future. jobs that pay well right here in america. and in the years ahead, it's clean energy companies like this one that will keep our economy growing. create new jobs and make sure

america remains the most prosperous nation in the world. allison transmissions is also part of the ultimate solution to high gas prices. we know there are no quick fixes to this problem. in the short term we're doing everything we can to boost safe and responsible oil production here at home. in fact, last year, american oil production reached its highest level since 2003. but over the long term, the only way we can avoid being held hostage to the ups and downs of oil prices is if we reduce our dependence on oil. that means investing in clean alternative sources of energy like advanced biofuels and natural gas. and that means making cars and trucks and buses that use less oil. other countries know this. and they're going all in to invest in clean energy technologies and clean energy jobs. i don't want other countries to win the competition for these technologies and these jobs. i want america to win that

competition. i want america to win the future. now, i know that in a tough fiscal climate like the one we're in, it's tempting forsome to try and cut back on our investments in clean energy. and i absolutely agree that the only way we'll be able to afford the things we need is by cutting the things we don't. and living within our means. but i refuse to cut investments like clean energy that will help us out innovate and out compete the rest of the world and i refuse to cut investments that makes it possible for plants like this one to grow and add jobs across america. we can do this. i don't just believe that because i see it happening in plants like this. i believe that because i believe in the americans that are making it happen in places like this. i'm optimistic about our economic future because for all the challenges we face, america is still home to the most entrepreneurial, the most industrious, the most determined people on earth. there's nothing we can't accomplish when we set our minds to it. and that's what we'll keep doing as long as i have the

privilege of being your president. thanks. and have a great weekend. >> hello. i'm scott brown and i have the honor of representing massachusetts in the united states senate. last sunday night, we heard president obama deliver the message that americans have been waiting for since september 11, 2001. it's a very rare thing when so many people across the world observe the loss of life with something other than regret. but this man, the late osama bin laden had chosen his fate long before in a life filled with cruelty. if he expected mercy when our forces found him, that was asking much more than he was ever known to give. this was a man who rejoiced in the suffering and death of others, who set in motion all of the horror and grief of 9-11 and considered it just a start. he was a teacher of evil and now for him, the lesson is over. it ends not in the fulfillment of some fant cal vision but in the depths -- fanatical vision

but in the depths of the arabian sea. none can compensate for the murder of bin laden's victims nor will ease the sorrow of those who will morn but it is victory when justice has the final word. bin laden's killing was the result of coordinated efforts going back many years. it was the dramatic conclusion of patient intelligence gathering begun long before in the work of a military that's second to none. the operation was a model of sustained, concentrated military action and the example will not be lost on other terrorists. any escape they make will be temporary. any sanctuary they find will be uncovered. those who harm or threaten the american people will be dealt with on our terms, however long it takes. this was the pledge of president george w. bush in the days after 9-11. and he kept it in seven years of relentless, decisive action against the al qaeda network. in the case of bin laden, it

fell to president obama to give the final order. he did so calm will he, swifmently and zice -- calmly, swiftly and decisively. a fine moment for our commander in chief and for our country. above all, this past week has reminded us of the skill and special courage of those who choose to take on the toughest missions in service to america. our combat forces are the ones would he call when the need is the greatest. they give their all and seek no special praise for what they do. they're the best we have. and what great news it was on sunday night that the mission to kill bin laden succeeded in every man came back safely. the men and women of the armed services have sacrificed so much already in the war on terror. and as much as we all wish it could be ended as suddenly as -- and as prmly as the career of -- permanently as the career of bin laden the war goes on. it still demands our attention and our commitment to victory.

the troop surge of last year has made a difference in afghanistan. and we can't surrender those gains to what's left of the taliban. early in the conflict, america and power allies devastated the al qaeda network in afghanistan. yet al qaeda is still at work. and that is why we need to prepare the afghan security forces to protect their own people. we must ensure that afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for trists. -- for terrorists. ar soen years a temptation to despair of ever gaining a final victory against ouren mess but if we learned anything this past week but our patient commitment to even the hardest objectives will be rewarded. we all heard it said that bin laden was beyond our reach. and some remote corner of the earth. and after almost a decade, we could surely never find him. let me tell you, it's always a mistake to bet against american