the hands of the ayatollah trumps global warming. but having said that, would like as a republican, to come up with an environmental policy that does what basically general clark talked about, find as much fossil fuels within our reach from friendly sources as possible, but over time set emission standards that are pro-business in nature to move the economy one day from fossil fuel dependency to more cleaner sources of fuel. there's the place for coal there's a place for gas. but from a republican point of view, we're -- this is -- we need to be better stewards of god's planet and need to have a rational and environmental policy that is pro-business. from a republican point of view, young people buy into the fact that the planet is heating up and manmade emissions are causing harm to the planet. to the american young people, if you're worried about the environment, count me in. my goal is to pass on to you a stronger economy, clean air and clean water and create jobs in , the process. michael: thank you.

forgive me for turning this into a lightning round. but general clark we talked , about systemic financial risk. i wish we had five minutes to devote to this. we're basically out of time, but you talked about a book you wrote that discuss this and maybe you can give us the kind of elevator version of it. gen. clark: don't wait for the next war. we create an awful lot of debt in the financial system and we haven't addresses the systemic issue. still hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives based on interest rate and if you ask the inside banking crowd, when are we going really raise interest rates? when are we going to get away from quantitative easing? the answer is never. and it's only a matter of time before some smart young hedge fund guy says, you know what? this debt is not sustainable and will spread like wildfire through the financial community and we'll be back in some trouble again. we have to take our financial resources and invest in real projects. we need petrochemical projects. we need energy projects. we need infrastructure projects

and highway, high-speed rail aviation. these are things that create jobs. derivative trading is great and you make a lot of money if you're a banker. i'm a banker. i know something about it. but it is not creating jobs and wealth in a real economy. if we are going to do what prime minister blair says, we have to use the financial system to fund and drive the economy, not the opposite. and what has happened is there's too much of the opposite right now. it takes from the real economy plays the financial games. so don't wait for in the next war. it's my book. please read it. michael: ok, great. thank you for that. thank you for coming. we have to wrap up. [applause] the state minister would like to make a concluding remark, very briefly. minister nakayama: last word from me, yes. and i am general for parliamentary friendship league between japan and israel and i went to simon center yesterday

and i really touched by what she sees said -- by anne frank. she cannot say anything right now, so through me i will send a message. she said, how wonderful it is that no one has to wait but can start right now to gradually change the world. this is what she told me to us. michael: a great note to close on. thank you minister. thank you, everyone for coming. we appreciate it. [applause] >> and we take you live now to the national press club in washington dc. googles chief internet evangelist is one of the people widely recognized as being cofounder of internet. he is being introduced right now by the national press club. >> it was the earliest version

of the internet. one of those involved in the demonstration today is today's speaker. since 1972, vint cerf has developed the architecture of the internet and ushered the continued spread of the web and has become one of the most widely expected -- respected authorities on internet policy and governance. many call him the father of the internet. since 2005, he has served as the chief internet evangelist for google. he says he took that monitor because they wouldn't approve the title of archduke. [laughter] dr. cerf is well versed the values and capabilities of internet. the voice concerns that the 21st century could become an information blackhole unless we find ways to preserve photos, documents, and other digital

content, which is hard because we don't know how computers of the future will function. his solution for now -- if you want to make sure that some important information survives for posterity, printed out. -- print it out. [laughter] dr. cerf's current project is the interplanetary internet which way is working on with nasa and it is likely what you sound like -- it sounds like. it is a computer network for planet to planet communication. his list of awards and commendations is as you can imagine quite lengthy. if you want to learn more about them, you will just have to look them up on the internet. [laughter] vint cerf: google it. [laughter] >> please give a warm national press club welcome to google's chief internet evangelist, vint cerf. [applause] vint cerf: well, first of all,

thank you very much. this is number 208 which is if you feed them, they will come. that is my favorite dram. second, i'm not going to use presentation charts because power corrupts and powerpoint corrupts absolutely. you will just have to listen instead. i want to tell you in an attempt which i think is relevant to especially this population. i worked on something called mci mail way back in the 1980's. we turned it on on september 27 1983. among the first people to sign up for this electronic mail service or reporters -- one of them was william f oakley. i maintained a lovely correspondence with well before he passed away. i remember that had come and gone to join and then i rejoined nci to help get into the

internet business. it was very clear that charging people for e-mail was not a great business model anymore. we shut down the mci mail service and i got a whole bunch of angry e-mails from reporters who said that i had my mci mail address since 1983. how could you do this? the honest answer was that it was time for that service to go. i have two games that i would like -- themes that i would like to address this afternoon. the first one is technology and i will drop into a geek. i apologize but it is the only way to be precise. then we will talk a little bit about policy. i have a point on the tech side and four or five points on the policy side. let me start on the technology side. i'm really proud of the fact that the internet continues to evolve. this is not a design which was fixed in time for years ago. but rather it is one which has adapted to new technology and has swept in the communication capability and become an important element of the smartphone, both the internet and the smartphones are mutually

reinforcing in many ways. one of the things that bob and i do not quite get right was the amount of numerical address space that is needed in the internet. when we designed it 40 years ago, we did some calculations and estimated that 1.3 burly and terminations ought to be enough for an expanded. -- 1.3 billion exterminations ought to be enough for the internet. we got it wrong. the -- we ran out of the ip address experiential address space around 2011. the ceo of america's registry for internet numbers is right over there. you can wait to him. if you need ip addresses, he is the guy to talk to about that. i am proud to serve as the chairman of the board, but we need ipv6 now which has 128 bits of address space. it is to 10 to the 34th power of

address space. it is a number that only congress can appreciate. it is absolutely vital to get all the ip's to turn on. the laptops and software is on. but the internet service providers need to turn on which is parallel with the service that you are using today. you can do me to favorites give one as individuals, talked your eyes peas and demand an answer on when i'm going to get these addresses. i want dates and times. as reporters, will you kindly do the same thing? but do it with the megaphone that is afforded to you by the for the state. why do i care about having more addresses back no one answers the next wave of stuff is the internet of things. you know that. this is real. every appliance that you can possibly imagine is shifting from electromechanical controls to programmable control. once you put a computer inside of anything, there is an opportunity to put it on the net. there are good things and bad

things about that. the good thing about the internet is that everything is connected. the bad thing about the internet is that everything is connected. we really need the address space in order to accommodate this explosion of devices. cisco says that there may be 50 billion devices by 2020. it may not be as crazy as it sounds because every lightbulb to potentially have its own ip address. some of them already do like the lightbulbs made by phillips called hev. -- h you need. -- yohue. we need to get that info mentor. the second one is even more obscure. the label is buffer bloat. you might think -- what is this? when you are watching streaming videos have you ever noticed that a get real jerky and think slow down and the delays are going up and used that they are for things to reload? it turns out that it is not true

that having more buffer memory space is always a good thing. let me explain. you have a router home typically . maybe is supplied by a table -- cable or telephone company or you bought one and installed it or hired a geek to do that. so this thing has memory in it. imagine for moment that you are running a local network at home and it is running at media 100 megabits a second or maybe 10 megabits or even a gigabit per second, but the connection that you have out to the rest of the world is not running that fast. unless you happen to be on one of the google fiber networks which is a gigabit per second, but most of them don't get to that speed. what happens? the programs that you have running inside the house are pushing data like crazy into this buffer is is filling up an empty and slowly because of the data rate on the other hand lower than the rate at which your pumping it in, which means that there is increasing amounts of delay from the standpoint of the sender over here, waiting to hear acknowledgments coming back from the other end.

at some point, the program inside your house is saying, oh my god, they didn't get what i sent. i better send it again. you keep retransmitting and producing and creating a highly congested conditions. it is counterintuitive, but when you have to do is design the system so that it does not put too much buffer space in the path. it should put only enough to deal with the differential between the high-speed and low-speed side. this also works in the other direction. here's the code word for you. the letters that you want to refer to are called codel-fq. that is the kind of thing and technology that you want in your routers. while you are pounding on the table for ipv6, i want codel-fq in my router and i want a pony. [laughter]

next point. all of you are familiar with the fact that we are bad with picking passwords. some of us still use password for password because it is easy to remember, but everyone else does that so it is not a good thing. so you're told to make a complicated password with punctuation and other stuff and keep changing all the time. you can never member them and you a list and stick it on your computer, or you put it in your wallet. ok, so i googled, you will remember and some of you reported that we were attacked in 2010 and penetrated. so we decided that we needed to do something about that. in addition to username password , which we still ask people to change on a regular basis, we also have a piece of hardware that is called a gnubby/ . don't ask me why. it is a two factor identification device. it creates a one-time password using an algorithm system. and i log into my google

accounts, and you can do this to if you are gmail, when you log into the account if you're asking for two factor authentication, it will do one of several things. if you have this little device you will take a live because the light will come back on and it will send the data back and forth. or it sends a random number your mobile or you have an algorithm running on the mobile which generates the number for you. all those cases imply that you have to have this other thing in your mobile or gnubby or a message coming from google giving the latest password, in addition to knowing the username and password. that is why it is two factor authentication. if they have your username, they can't get in because they don't have the second factor. we would like to encourage everyone to adopt that practice because that would make it safer for you and for me. the fourth point -- security and safety of privacy are really important. one way to achieve that, in part, is to use what is called ht tps.

hypertext transport protocol was invented in late 1989 and released in part of the world wide web. there is a secure version of this called https. and the purpose behind it is to increase the traffic between you and your laptop and desktop and mobile or tablet and the server on the other hand -- google in my case. the ideas that everyone should be making use of this cartographic means of the transmitting data back and forth. while you're using web-based applications, the information is kept in encrypted form and only decrypted on it reaches the other end. this is called encryption for transmission. which leads me to the fifth point, which is that google and others believe that all transmissions, regardless of whether it is from your edge device to our services, or between our data centers or any other place, and ought to be encrypted in order to protect confidentiality. we see crypto as a very important technology, which should be incorporated into

normal use on the net. no, i don't have a much time, so i won't tell you stories about how i work with nsa back in 1975 to design and build a secured internet. the only problem was that the details were classified at the time and i cannot share it with my colleagues. so i felt schisms rent for a long time, but now we have the technology available to make it so much more confidential and environment. we think also that it is important to encrypt data once it lands in place. your laptops should be encrypted. it describes should be acquitted. your mobile should be encrypted. we will encrypt data as it lands into our data centers as we move it back and forth between the data centers. we keep getting credit so if the data center were penetrated or you lost your laptop or your tablet, the information would be very hard for someone to extract. crypto is important. the seventh point is another geek thing. it is called dns sect. use domain names all the time.

it is the security extension. how do i do this in a couple of seconds? when you do a lookup of a domain name, you may not see that happening, but when you type www. google.com, your computer says, where the hell is that on the net? it will look it up on a big database. what it gets back is an ip numerical address. these two pieces of information then the main and ip address are very important. what happens if someone can go in and change the numeric address associated with the domain name. you may think you are long into bank of america.com, but if someone has hacked the system, you're off to some bad site, which is distracting -- extracting your username and password in every thing else. the solution to use is the digital signature. some have heard public cryptography. digital signatures arise out of that technology. we can digitally signed a binding of the domain name and

ip address. when you get that pair back from doing a query, you can check if anyone change the binding or alter the numerical part. i checking the digital signature, you can verify it has not been modified. this protects against all kinds of attacks that would otherwise be harmed. we think it should be a fomented. it is being an fomented -- implemented throughout the domain name system, but we need more of the mentation as a goes down into the hierarchy. the a thing on the geek side -- you're going to love this. it is bcp 38. what the hell is that deco it is basking indications practices number 38. -- what the hell is that? it is best indication practices number 38. if you are operating a network and accepting traffic from people that will eventually be set out to the rest of the internet, the first thing that you should do is check to see whether the source internet address -- the miracle internet address --is coming from a

legitimate source. is it coming from a network that owns that address space? bcp 38 basically says don't let traffic into the net that has fake source addresses. it is possible to fake the source address by stating that this is coming from that place over there even though it is common from here. we don't want people to do that. we think the isps should be executing this bcp 38 thing. you can tell that i have a very strong message, which i ask you to amplify, to tell the icp's to get on the stick. improve the safety, security, and confidentiality of the net. now we switch over the policy. they told me they were going to tell me when this thing was going to die. it says i have 19 minutes left? >> it is 19 after, seo got -- -- so you have got vint cerf: seven minutes. eight things and seven mins.

[laughter] some of you may be reading and writing about this idea that the ntia has to transfer whatever response ability it still retains to the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers. this is called the iana transition. the multi-stakeholder bodies of the internet, all of us, become part of the operation and policy development for the internet rather than having a specific agency of the u.s. government taking place of that. when it was created in 1998 that was the intent. it was supposed to be a two or three year period and then it would settle down in the ntia would relinquish response ability. it has been some years since 1998. it is now time. the ntia has proposed to do that. it would show how to operate

without the benefit of this oversight. although there is controversy over this, i am a strong believer that we should -- the government should step away from the special responsibility or authority and return this to the community which has created and operated the internet since its inception. that is point number one. second -- i cannot imagine that you would disagree that freedom of expression and access to information is absolutely fundamental to our democratic societies and we need to make sure that the internet continues to support that. i would like to add one more freedom to this and that is freedom from harm. we don't often speak about that but unless people feel that they are safe in using the internet, and they will not use it. if they don't, and some comedies business models including mine, may very well be undermined. it is very important in addition to freedom of extortion and assembly and access to information that we do everything we can to protect people from harm, which is why i was talking about all those

other geek things that little while ago. point number three has to do with nine discrimination. -- and on dissemination. in particular, none of the isps or broadband providers should have a say on where the traffic is coming from or going. everyone should have equal access to the net. you should have the ability to go anywhere you want to on the net, and in principle do whatever it is you want to do. if it turns out to be a legal, that is a different problem. none of the providers who have access to the system should be telling you what you can and can't do. that is a nondescript nation element and trolling up in the net and trolley borders -- net neutrality borders from the fcc. user choice is fundamental to the internet's utility. the fourth item on the policy list is equal access to performance features. if you have the need for low latency because you are playing some kind of videogame or you need high bandwidth because your streaming video, you should have access to that.

it's a not be possible for the broadband provider to pick and choose who gets access to that and who doesn't. it should be openly available to everyone. i do not say free. but what i said is that everyone should have equal access to those capabilities. and finally, i think it is very important that we encourage not only here in the u.s., but everywhere around the world, the adoption of policies that would encourage the creation of more internet. of course, i say that, but look, here's my problem. i google, my job is to get more internet built all around the world. and talking to eric schmidt the other day, he said, you cannot retire. i said why not? he said, you're only half done. we have 3 billion people, but we have 4 billion people to go. i could use some help in case any of you are interested. we really need to help countries recognize the importanverce of investment in internet structure for the benefit of their citizens. that is the fifth and last point

of my internet policy. since i am out of time, i will stop there. i will turn the floor over to you to ask willing questions. thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, very much -- thank you very much. they internet was created by darpa but no one really owns the internet. is it possible that a multi-stakeholder governance can work? vint cerf: that was a nice you've me. he is right. darpa did sponsor this initially. the answer is yes. how can i possibly prove this? we turn the internet on in 1983. do the math. how long ago was 1983? 32 years. who do you suppose was actually running it at that point? it was not the defense

department. i was sitting ducks of -- i was sitting -- i was doing nci handling of the time. my colleagues were parts of universities and they were in the private sector, running, building, and operating pieces of internet and it has been that way ever since. it has always been the private sector's role to build and operate these pieces. of course, the defense department has pieces of its own . so does the national science foundation and the nsf. it does not run it anymore, but they actually started in 1986 and shut it down in 1995 because they didn't need anymore because they were other services available. the private sector and the civil society and the technical community and the academic community and governments all have a responsibility am including you, to be a part of the policymaking apparatus for the internet. the things that you do to protect your own safety and

privacy affect me, too. because if you don't do a good job, you become an avenue through which attacks can be made and phishing attacks occurred and access to think that shouldn't be accessible happened. we all have the shared responsibility to make policy decisions about the internet. the enforcement of policy could be a responsibility for specific organizations and individuals and the like, but the paul mason best policymaking should be the stakeholders. as far as i can tell, that has been working for the last 32 years and can continue to work if you just let it. next question. >> several questions about hacking. the white house, the state department have had networks hacked. will there come a day when such hacks are not possible? and someone else wonders who is responsible for cyber security? who can ultimately stop the hacks from happening? vint cerf: the answer lies in

the previous response as well because we are all responsible for improving the safety and security of the internet. your own choices, your practices, the practices of internet service providers are all part of this fabric. that we have to maintain. there is a visual model i have in my head. imagine you have a set of homes whose backyards are all shared. there's this big kind of park. the front doors go out this way. imagine there's some nincompoop who insist on leaving his house unlocked. even if everyone else lost the house, there is one guy who lets people into the interior. that is a risk potentially for you. i see the internet as having this character that we all have a role to play to make it more secure and safe. there are different places in the internet's architecture where attacks can be launched. it is a very laid system. still, the mechanisms that might work at one layer may have no effect in another. i will give you an example. suppose some of the says, the

solution to e-mail problem is that we should encrypt everything. as long as we encrypt the e-mail as a ghost through the net everything will be ok. well, let's analyze this a little bit. the source of the e-mails using a laptop which has become infected somehow. maybe you plugged in a usb that was infected stuck in a dvd or maybe they went to a website that had malware on board. this computer which you don't know and the user doesn't know is infected composes a piece of e-mail that has malware e-mail. we encrypt it. great. no one can see anything because it's an. it gets to the other end. it is decrypted in the malware does its damage. crypto at one level does not necessarily solve all the problems. we have to prevent various layers in the system using various technologies. this is an oddball answer here.

it is everybody's responsibility to do this. each layer and each provider of service at those layers has responsibility just as we do a giggle. -- just as we do at google. we are in the application space and we are doing everything we can to prevent against the types of attacks that could be launched that are level of architecture. there are other layers that need to contribute to the safety of the system. >> right now, we use social and credit history to verify our legal identity. if social security numbers didn't exist, what when identity verification look like and is there a better way to do identity verification? vint cerf: the short answer is yes. would you like me to elaborate? first of all, social security numbers were not intended to be identified or used in commerce. the last four digits are a most worse.

-- almost worse. second, the social security numbers don't have any check digits in them. there's no way to tell if it is a valid or invalid social securityone possibility would be to issue a certificate, which identifies a public key that belongs to you and you alone. what you would want is to have the private key that goes with it, this is public-key crypto stuff. this is a weird thing that my friends came up with a 1977. it's kind of like a door with two locks. you have to tease, one key locks the door but does not lock it. the other key unlocks it doesn't unlock it. you have two different cryptographic keys that work together to create security. you can imagine having an identifier that has been digitally signed by an authority that would issue those identifiers, that could be a

state government because that's where the ssn comes from. i guess it's a federal government, but the states issue these things -- does anyone know the answer to that? the states were federal government -- or federal government? the federal government could issue these certificates, and as long as the signature works it's a way of validating yourself remotely. someone can send you a challenge saying are you really vint cert only i can decrypted. -- decrypt it. and i can resend a response. we can verify that each of us has a credential issued by the federal government that has a public and private key associated with it. it is more complex than that. we don't have time to go into

all the details. here is another opportunity for policy. if we could agree on an international basis about the bona fides that have to be shown before you get one of these credentials, we might be able to make a digital signature as significant and authoritative as a wet signature is today. but we have to agree on a global scale what bona fides have to be presented to get this authorized certificate. i think that would be a good thing to do. it would encourage e-commerce and would also give us protection against the abuse of the social security numbers. so that is the long answer. host: in addition to printing out our photos, well should we as society be doing to preserve information or preserve our culture for future generations? vint: great question. i didn't say print everything but some people decided that's what i said.

[laughter] vint: you can't blame them. printed photography has gotten different from the stuff that you see on flickr and everything else. everything will day when you use software and your laptops or desktops, you create complex files. if you are using a text document editor, microsoft word or something else, the file you create is actually pretty complex. in order to correctly render it or allow the document to be edited, you need a piece of software to help you. that is the application program. i want you to imagine that it is the year 2150, you are doris kearns goodman's great, great granddaughter. and you want to write about the beginnings of the 21st century. she wrote that wonderful story about lincoln and his team of rivals. if you read it, i hope you have the same reaction i did. the dialogue seemed very artful,

the opinions being stated in the words that were being used made it seem like she must've been a fly on the wall 150 years ago. of course, she wasn't. she went through 100 different libraries and collected the physical correspondence of the principles and use that to reproduce the dialogue of the time it. imagine it's 2150, you were her great, great, granddaughter. you are trying to write about the beginning of the 21st century and you can't find a damn saying because all of the e-mail has evaporated or worse you have these giant discs, full of bits that represents the e-mails, but the application program and the operating system they ran on, and the hardware of the operating system animated don't work anymore. they are gone, nobody supported them. you have a pile of rotten bits in your hand. i want to prevent that from happening. there are only a few ways to do it that i know of. the best one i have seen so far

and i lectured about this with my partners at carnegie mellon just last week at stanford university -- this guy has developed a virtual machine capability that will allow him to emulate hardware of free much any kind and then run the operating systems on that emulated machine and run the applications on the emulated operating system and it works. this is not slide where. he showed 20 different operating systems and machines, and he was showing 1997 turbo tax running on a mac. including the crappy graphics. it was really a phenomenal performance. so the ability to preserve software applications and operating systems and emulate the hardware is the best answer so far. imagine running those emulations

in the clouds of those machines are available to anyone. this is not a trivial technical problem in that also there is intellectual-property issues. how i get a hold of the software, what rights can i get? if someone says you can't do that because they didn't pay you said it's 150 years since you did anything without software, give me a break. you are never what happened when the xerox machines were created in the library and said people should have the right to copy unlimited amount of material this way and the publishers are saying no, i will publish one book and people makes iraq's copies of it and i will never make any money. that didn't happen, and this ability to employ fair use was very important. we need a preservation use like that associated with copyright so that preservation is an act is not only sanctioned but encouraged so that our digital content will survive over long periods of time.

that is my long answer that question. host: in 1979, bob kahn urged you to create a brain trust in case you got hit by a bus and couldn't continue your work. who do you view as the brain trust today? part two is do you feel there's enough technical expertise or consultation with technology experts among those who craft technology policy? who is the brain trust, and is the brain trust being consulted like it should in technology policy? vint: the answer to the last part is no. the answer to the first part is the original group that i created called the internet configuration control board. we made it as boring as possible so that no one wants a be a the board. and then i appoint to the people who were the lead researchers on the development of the internet and multiple universities around the u.s.. the iccb became the internet

architecture board in 1992 when it became part of the internet society. and now the internet architecture board and the internet engineering task force and the internet research task force, all of which are house and the internet society or the brain trust for the technical revolution of the internet. it's where the bulk of the new protocols are coming from. it's not to disenfranchise various corporate entities that are trying to develop new protocols and new applications for the net. but the core of the internet's evolution still comes from the brain trust. i've lived here in washington since 1976. i have considered it to be both a privilege and responsibility to try and help policymakers understand enough about the internet so that the policies they make make some sense. i'm not looking through technical depth here. i'm looking for simple cartoon models of how the network works that are accurate enough so that

if you reason with those simple models, you will reach the right kind of conclusions about what policies are implementable and which ones are not. the last thing you want is a policy that requires you to double the speed of light example for example or abandon the law of gravity. our job is to try and be helpful, to provide clear enough expirations for how this stuff works so that when policy gets developed, it actually is implementable and make sense. the worst thing in the world is to pass laws that can't be enforced or implemented because it encourages disrespect for the law, that's not a good thing. host: looking over the past two decades or so, what are the one or two development and the internet that you are most pleased with, and most disappointed with? vint: starting with the last one, spam is a disappointment.

i have to say, i'm very proud of my company, google. we have done a good job of filtering out an awful lot of spam. if you happen to be using gmail and you look at your spam folder, it's amazing how much stuff you didn't have to look at. especially how the large body parts and all that stuff. it is an annoying side effects that e-mail is essentially free. so it means the spammers don't have to pay for what they do. and their crazy ideas like charge point 00 two cents for every e-mail. spam is annoying, but there are ways of filtering out. the thing of which i was most astonished by how proud is a funny word to use here. in fact, let it down an alley for a moment. some of you have kids. you might have learned what i learned, which is don't take too much credit for when your kids do well, so when they screw up you don't have to take too much blame. i think that -- proud is the wrong word to use about the

internet. i'm grateful to have been a part of the story. however, with regard to surprises, when the world wide web showed up in 1989, nobody really noticed except some of the colleagues at sarin -- cern. in the mosaic browser showed up, people noticed. it had images in color and formatted text. it was quite eye-opening. on top of that, browsers had this feature that if you wanted to see how the webpage was built, you could ask the browser to show you the html, the hypertext markup language. it was open, everybody could copy everyone's web languages and they did admit the more interesting. the webmaster was a kind of role which didn't exist before the world wide web. it was sort of enhanced by the fact that everyone can share each other's webpages and how

they were built. the thing that astonished me was the amount of content that poured into the net once web browsers and html were available. it was just astonishing how much information people wanted to share, not because they want to be paid, but they wanted to know their information was useful to some alleles. you hear the story about information is power. nonsense. it information sharing that is power. we have seen it over the past 20 decades or 20 years. we are going to see it over the next 20 years, maybe the next 20 decades too. the thing i like the most about the internet is it is a vulnerable -- you'veevolveable is scalable, and invited innovation. you don't have to get permission from every isp in the world to

invent a new product or service and put it up on the net. it should stay that way. host: this questioner says you are said to a candidate for the office of u.s. chief technology officer. he wants to know if you were would have taken that job but the big question is which you consider moving to the government side in a senior role of offered -- if offered? vint: this is a hypothetical. there were news reports that i might have been on the list, i don't actually know. i consulted with some of my friends, including eric. eric said why don't you just be the chief technology officer's best friend? and so i made good friends with the niche and his successor, and megan who is now there is cdo. i thought that was pretty good advice. i have served in the government i served six years of data, i

really enjoyed that time the. -- at darpa. i worked with incredible he smart people. but my whole career has been that way. i'm a google, surrounded by incredibly smart people. most of them smarter than i am at. i learned that every single day, especially when there are 25-year-olds that run over and say let's do ask and i say we did that 25 years ago didn't work. an environment were 25 years ago there was a reason it didn't work and that reasoning a longer be valid. it could be that computers are cheaper, faster, more memory some thing else is economically feasible that wasn't before. i have been forced to rethink my own views on these things over and over and over again. nothing keeps you younger than having to rethink your own positions instead of falling into a rest. i feel the need -- i don't feel the need to become a part of the government. but i want very much to have an

opportunity to provide support and help if i can read and i will do that if i'm allowed. host: do you want to see congress passed the usa freedom act? congress had a hearing on encryption on privacy rights versus the desire for a backdoor into cell phones. what do you think congress should do? vint: first of all, this backdoor idea is indicative of a real tension here. this global system is used and abused like a lot of technology. there is an anything about the technology that determines whether or not it is constructive or deconstructive -- constructive or destructive use. it is a neutral tool. we have to do something. we wish to protect the citizens of our country and others from harm in this network. you have to ask yourself how can i do that? attention pretty obviously is

that if you use things like cryptography to protect privacy, there is a question about law enforcement people what can they do? the proposal to put backdoors and things is reminiscent of something else some of you will have reported on, the clipper chip back in the 90's. i was adamantly against the clipper chip idea. the idea was very simple. if you have a backdoor, someone will find it. and that somebody may be a bad guy. or bad guys. and they will intentionally abuse their access. so creating this kind of technology is super risky. i don't think that's the right answer. at the same time, i except the government is there in part to protect their citizens from harm. the question is how do you do that? there is a spectrum. on one end we live in a society where there is no privacy at all.

everything is known, everything you are planning to do is known. it might be a very safe society to live in. but it might not be one you want to live in. on the other hand, what about a society where there is absolute privacy, no one knows what you are planning to do it all, and that stuff happens? if you'll do your safety has now been diminished. there must be some place in between, and it isn't the same place for everyone. it isn't the same place for every culture or nation. our job is to figure out where is that balance for us? i think the congress is forced now to struggle with that. they're going to have to listen to these various arguments about protection and safety on one hand and preservation of privacy and confidentiality on the other. i'm not persuaded the building backdoors is the right way forward. host: the way the fcc's title ii net neutrality rules are written, do you think they offer equal opportunity download

speeds while forbearing enough title ii rules to avoid government overreach like new fees or content regulation? vint: this is interesting. i think that tom wheeler didn't have a whole lot of choice. the sec had asserted a set of neutrality rules which were intended to protect user choice. they were essentially told by the supreme court, you don't have a legal basis to enforce your network neutrality preferences. and so i think wheeler had three possibilities. one, do nothing. in which case the net neutrality notions, to the extent that people agree that they are helpful and useful and preserve user choice would simply not succeed because of the lack of legal basis for fcc's enforcement. the second possibility would be

to get to the congress to create a new title in the telecommunications act specific internet. some of you remember there was a brand x decision. the cable companies and the telephone companies were saying we are not regulated the same way. this is correct, there are two different titles and the telecom act for dealing with these two entities. and yet they were both providing an in-service rid the complaint was we are providing internet service under different ground rules. this is unfair. so the question is what to do? one possibility might have been to get the congress to adopt an internet title that was appropriate to the internet technology. the choice that was made instead was to treat internet as if it is just an information service that had no layered structure no telecommuting nation's components. it was just an information service, and of story. while that led -- that's an unregulated title. so the sec's rule -- role was completely removed. tom trolls -- tom shows a third

path, which was to invoke title ii. they have the authority to decide it was title i, they have equal authority to decide no it's really title ii. but constrained. significantly. so what's the issue? now under the current role he have a basis for taking action if they think they neutrality rules have been violated. however, there's the potential forward-looking risk -- what happens if some new fcc in some future game decides to invoke all of the messy complexities of title two, which were designed for system for voice communication which is a far cry from today's internet and probably very much a far cry from tomorrow's internet. at some point, this tactic probably has to be readdressed.

if we're going to do anything at all in the regulatory space needs to be tailored to a network which i want to emphasize again, must still be vulnerable -- evolveable. we must not constrain the network simply in order to regulate it. we need to find a way to make sure the network treats you fairly, gives you adequate opportunity, insights competition. but the same time, allows the fcc to protect your interests. that is where my head is, i hope is a former congress woman, you think i managed to straddle this reasonably well. host: i mentioned at the national press club, we fight for press freedom worldwide. part of your job is evangelizing the internet worldwide. what do you say to governments and regimes who consider the internet a threat, and what can you do to try and shake that loose? vint: i wish i could just say

get over it, but that doesn't work. everybody picks on china, i guess i will do that too. but they are good example of attention -- a tension. i have some sympathy for their government. did you realize there are 650 million chinese on the internet now? that's close to half the population. that means the private sector and government have been investing in building the upper structure -- the infrastructure. this is even better. they have made this big investment. at the same time, they come from a long history of very authoritarian practices. they are scared, frankly, about this large population of people coming unhappy. if you study chinese history which i have not, i am told that

the last seven times there was a major regime change in china it's because it was preceded by a peasant rebellion. looking at all the conditions throughout china especially in the west, you can appreciate that things are really scary for the administration, even if they are trying to do the right thing, which is make sure that people are fed and housed in every thing else. my story is that the countries that are seeking authoritarian control over the internet will discover at some point that if they do that, they are shooting themselves in the foot. first of all, they are potentially inhibiting creativity of the population, which is what they need in order to improve gdp. second, they may be inhibiting their ability to explore world markets. i don't care what country you are, the global economy is bigger than you are. don't cut yourself off from access to it, the same message needs to get to the europeans were struggling with the digital

single market. at the same time, may be axially promoting themselves from participating in a global market and letting the global market participate in the european one. my message has always been economic. it is in your interest, mr. president, to invest in the internet to keep it as open as possible, and to allow your creative population to make use of it. no country has a corner on creativity. it is uniformly distributed throughout the population of the world. it's just that the people with these ideas don't always have the wherewithal and the support in order to explore those ideas. i will give you as a concrete example of that, how many folks come from india to silicon valley or seattle or here and do spectacularly well? their ideas with the same, but they didn't have the investment infrastructure, the willingness to take risk that we have in the united states. and so we know there are smart people out there with the possibility to improve their own

gdp if the rules could be made similar to what they are here in the united states. host: we are almost out of time. before i asked the last question i would like to remind everyone about some upcoming speakers. the tenant general michelle johnson, the first woman to lead the air force academy, will address a luncheon on friday. the ceos of american, delta, and united airlines will appear together at a luncheon on may 15. vint: what an opportunity. host: and garrison keillor, author and host of "very home companion," will address the press club. i would like to present our guest with the greatest gift of all, the national press club mug , which you can treasure for decades. [laughter] [applause] vint: that is a mug shot.

host: the final question, but we have time for two -- it sounds it could have come in over the internet. i'm not sure whether he did. his questioner says you have fewer than 5000 followers on twitter and you are not verified -- what is up with that? vint: i don't tweet all that much. just everyone's a while. i have better things to do. and besides, i get more than enough visibility as it is. i don't need anymore. i get stopped by to autograph guys as soon as i walked into they. i don't know, verification, what do to get verified? send your blood type? i remember asking the guy who founded twitter is your title

chief twit? in like that question. host: why isn't there a nobel prize in computing and should there be one? vint: the story is that mr. nobel's wife ran away with a really good mathematician. and in consequence, mr. nobel told his committee under no circumstance will any branch of mathematics be recognized by the nobel prize. unfortunately, computer science has tended to be associated with mathematics, understandably. so we in that field are not eligible for the nobel prize. we might be eligible for the peace prize, but that's a real stretch, because that's a very political kind of thing. there is, however, prize offered by the association for computing machinery, which was founded in 1947. it has now gone global, there is

a chinese and indian and european council, in addition to the one which receives the whole global operation. i am former president of acm, i serve in that role to the middle of 2016. the price is called the turing award, named after alan turing. whom many of you will know from the movies you have been made. that price is $1 million, it is funded by google, and we are proud to offer that through acm every year. i did get that price along with bob kahn in 2004. i feel more than adequately compensated. it wasn't $1 million back then, they are doing it retroactively. i asked, but it didn't work. [laughter] vint: it is a coveted and very high recognition of conservation to the computer science committee. i think that is more than enough. host: how about a round of applause for our speaker? [applause]

host: i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including its journalism institute and broadcast center. for organizing today's event. and remember, if you would let a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club, go to war website that's press.org. thank you very much, we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[indiscernible] >> remarks in questions with insert -- vint cert this that yells in a 3:00.

, you can watch live on c-span two as they were today on an override of the presidential veto dealing with union rules. and more work on the iran oversight bill in consideration of the 2016 budget resolution to go shaded by the house and senate. the houses out this week, back for legislative business may 12 tuesday. you can watch the house live on c-span. another candidate about to enter the presidential race, seeking the republican nomination, former & governor and fox news talkshow host my copy is -- mike huckabee. we will have live coverage 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on the communicators we spoke with three members of congress was shared interest in communications issues and regulation. al franken, bob goodlatte and california representative doris mystery. >> if they were allowed to buy

time warner, they would have been too big a company noncompetitive not the public interest. it would lead to higher prices for consumers, less choice, and if it's even possible with these two companies, were service. >> -- worse service. >> we are dealing with privacy and protection of civil liberties. that's legislation dealing with the nsa and the fire is a core the foreign intelligence surveillance act courts dealing with the gathering of telephone metadata. this bill which passed the house with a big bipartisan vote in the last congress. we are about to bring it up again, it bans metadata collection and storage by the government. >> if you saw the net neutrality debate also, that was unbelievable in the sense that people understand that the internet should be free.

and there should not be people who get faster access or not. so when that occurred, that whole energy that happened with that when chairman wheeler, because of the overturning of the open internet order, when he had to have a new proposal up there, when he hinted there might be privatization, that means from the internet provider to the end-user, which is a customer, that they may have to pay for faster speeds or whatever 4 million comments, that was unheard of. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> former johns hopkins zero surgeon, dr. ben carson

announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential race. he made the announcement from his hometown of detroit where he introduced his family, talked about his upbringing, and laid out his ideas on the economy and politics. [applause] [cheering] >> ladies and gentlemen, the committee for carson for president welcomes you to detroit and the music hall center for the performing arts.

for the benefit of the artists you were going to hear, please silence your cell phones. please stand for the presentation of colors by representatives of the myron h. beals legion post number 32 of livonia, michigan.

>> present. ♪ >> the national anthem is presented by cndy carson on the violin and the choir selected of god, directed by pastor larry callahan. >> ♪ o, say, can you see? ♪ ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪

♪ at the twilight's last gleaming ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ through the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ ♪ were so gallantly streaming ♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare ♪ ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ ♪ gave proof through the night ♪ ♪ that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh say does that star-spangled banner still wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪

♪ and the home of the brave! ♪ ♪ the brave! ♪ ♪ the brave! ♪ >> [cheers and applause]

>> let us pray. god of all creation. we thank you. we come to give you praise and glory today. you are the source of our strength. we ask your blessings upon this gathering, dr. ben carson, his family, especially his mother, sonja. we ask that you would guide and direct his thoughts, his words and his steps. we ask that they would be full of wisdom, productivity, and guidance. god, as you protect this country and protect us and cover us, cover dr. ben carson and his family.

protect even the committee, god. we ask these blessings upon us and we expect you to do the supernatural. it is in the name of jesus that we pray and we believe it to be so. amen, amen. now to hear two selections from selected of god. ♪ ♪ >> [choir sings]

♪ >> [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ >> [choir sings] ♪ ♪ >> [choir sings]

♪ >> ♪ you better lose yourself ♪ ♪ in the music, the moment ♪ ♪ you better never let go, oh! ♪ ♪ you only get one shot ♪ ♪ you better lose yourself ♪ ♪ you own it, better never let it go ♪ ♪ you only get one shot ♪ ♪ do not miss your chance to blow ♪ ♪ this opportunity comes once in a lifetime ♪ ♪

>> [choir sings] ♪ ♪ >> [choir sings] ♪ you better lose yourself ♪ ♪ in the music, the moment ♪ ♪ you better never let go, oh! ♪ ♪ you only get one shot ♪ ♪ do not miss your chance to blow ♪ ♪ this opportunity comes once in a lifetime ♪ ♪ you better lose yourself ♪ ♪ in the music, the moment ♪ ♪ you better never let go, oh! ♪ ♪ you only get one shot ♪ ♪ you own it, better never let it go ♪ ♪ you only get one shot ♪

♪ you better lose yourself ♪ ♪ ♪ you only get one shot ♪ ♪ do not miss your chance to blow ♪ ♪ this opportunity comes once in a lifetime ♪ ♪ ♪ you only get one shot ♪ ♪ ♪ this opportunity comes once in a lifetime ♪ >> [choir sings] ♪ you only get one shot ♪ >>[cheers and applause]

>> [choir sings] ♪ ♪ >> [choir sings]

♪ you are the source of my strength ♪ ♪ you are the strength of my life ♪ ♪ the lift my hands in your praise ♪ ♪ you are the source of my strength ♪ ♪ you are the strength of my life ♪

♪ i lift my hands in total praise to you ♪ ♪ amen ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪ >> [cheers and applause]

♪ you are the source of my strength ♪ ♪ you are the strength of my life ♪ ♪ i lift my hands in total praise to you ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪

♪ amen, amen ♪ ♪ amen, amen ♪ >> [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm detroit welcome to a powerhouse of musical excellence.

from nashville, tennessee, veritas. >> [applause] ♪ >> ♪ when you walk through a storm ♪ ♪ hold your head up high ♪ ♪ and don't be afraid of the dark ♪

♪ at the end of a storm is a golden sky ♪ ♪ and the sweet silver song of a lark ♪ ♪ walk on through the wind ♪ ♪ walk on through the rain ♪ ♪ tho' your dreams ♪ ♪ be tossed and blown ♪ ♪ walk on ♪ ♪ walk on ♪ ♪ with hope in your heart ♪ ♪ and you'll never walk alone ♪ ♪ you'll never walk alone ♪

♪ ♪ when you walk through a storm ♪ ♪ hold your head up high ♪ ♪ and don't be afraid of the dark ♪ ♪ at the end of a storm is a golden sky ♪ ♪ and the sweet silver song of a lark ♪ ♪ walk on through the wind ♪ ♪ walk on through the rain ♪

♪ tho' your dreams ♪ ♪ be tossed and blown ♪ ♪ walk on ♪ ♪ walk on ♪ ♪ with hope in your heart ♪ ♪ and you'll never walk alone ♪ ♪ you'll never walk alone ♪ ♪ you'll never walk ♪ ♪ you'll never walk ♪ ♪ you'll never walk alone ♪ ♪

♪ you'll never walk ♪ ♪ alone ♪ ♪ >> [cheers and applause] ♪

>> ♪ o, beautiful for spacious skies for amber waves of grain for purple mountain majesty above the fruited plains america, america >> ♪ god shed his grace on thee ♪ ♪ and crown thy good with brotherhood ♪ ♪ from sea to shining sea ♪ ♪ >> ♪ god bless america ♪

♪ land that i love ♪ ♪ stand beside her ♪ ♪ and guide her ♪ ♪ through the night with the light from above ♪ >> ♪ from the mountain ♪ ♪ to the prairies ♪ ♪ to the oceans white with foam ♪ ♪ god bless america ♪ ♪ my home sweet home ♪ >> ♪ god bless america ♪ ♪ my home sweet home ♪

♪ mine eyes have seen the coming of the glory of the lord ♪ ♪ he is trampling out the vintage ♪ ♪ where the grapes of wrath are stored ♪ ♪ he has loosed the fateful lightning ♪ ♪ of his terrible swift sword ♪ ♪ his truth is marching on ♪ ♪ glory, glory, hallelujah ♪ ♪ glory, glory, hallelujah ♪ ♪ glory, glory, hallelujah ♪ ♪ our god is marching on ♪

>> ♪ in the beauty of the lilies, christ was born across the sea ♪ >> ♪ with the glory in his bosom that transfigured his you and me ♪ >> ♪ he died to make men holy, let us live to make men free ♪ ♪ our god is marching on ♪ ♪ glory, glory, hallelujah ♪ ♪ glory, glory hallelujah ♪ ♪ glory, glory, hallelujah ♪ ♪ our god is marching on ♪

♪ his truth is marching on! ♪ his truth is marching on! ♪ [applause] ♪ >> historians would write about this critical turning point for our nation and how we responded to the dynamic forces changing our world. we can no longer afford the

continuing dysfunction of opposing politician -- opposing political rank or. if america is to survive the challenges of the modern world we need to heal, we need to be inspired, and we need to provide the exceptional spirit that will america. never before have we been so closely connected to each other but more divided as a country. we have created so many boundaries for ourselves by forcing friends and neighbors to pick sides. respect for one another has become the exception, not the rule. our government was defined to -- was designed to represent its citizens and promote life, liberty and happiness. instead, we find ourselves drowning in government

dependency and debt. our government was designed to reflect the will of its people. instead, washington has become a parlor game for special interest and the political elite. america's individual out -- individuality, both brilliant and unstoppable, that same driven ingenuity once built this nation into a world power of commerce, free expression and unbridled opportunity. these are the values that cause america to become respected and admired across the globe and it must be the same values that inspire our american revival. it is our time to work together, all of us, each with our own unique talent to bring insight to the challenges we face. it requires the full capacity of our gifted thinking, constrained only by the limits of our imagination and our willingness to see the job through.

the generations before us built an exceptional nation and we can once again become the authors of ideas that have such a found magnitude. great transformations begin from a single event and with directed focus, we can propel our nation into the future of our choosing. we the people, with a government of, by and for the people. first we must heal and healing requires a leader with call, unwavering resolve, someone concerned more about the next generation than the next election, someone who knows the pursuit of happiness is best fostered with opportunity and justice for all stop we need a leader who inspires us with these, someone dedicated to investing in the next generation of great thinkers, doers and believers in their own destiny. someone who will protect their freedom to discover and forge their own path. we need to revive the true

promise of america said running open the doors of opportunity for true advancement, giving each of us the greater chance to flourish together, engaging people in their government and embracing the mandate of prior generations to leave is utter off than the one we inherited. we have the fortitude to heal, the imagination to inspire and the determination to revive our american dream, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. we can see this through together with a leader who derives his strength from god and his duty from the american people. ♪

[applause] dr. carson: thank you. thank you very much. thank you. we have limited time. thank you so much -- this, of course is my wonderful wife, candy, who is also a detroiter. [applause] even though we are both in detroit, we had to go to new haven to meet each other. but kandi has been by my side now for 40 years.

[applause] and is my best friend and we do everything -- she even learned how to play pool because she knew i was a good pool player. she actually wins sometimes, but most of the time i beat her. i should be careful because there's some media and their headline would be "carson admits he beats his wife." [laughter] if you guys would not mind sitting down so i can introduce our son, my oldest son murray and his wife are right here. stand up please. [applause] murray is an engineer and his wife is an analyst for a polling company. my middle son dj and his wife

are here. [applause] and he is an entrepreneur. his wife owns a company that does basement. they own a lot of stuff. my youngest son royce is right here. his wife is at home with the baby. [applause] he's a cpa and they all three got married in 2011. [applause] now i have introduced my family. who are you? i will tell you.

i am then carson and i'm a candidate for president of the united states. [applause] america remains a place of dreams. a lot of people are down on our nation and want to point out all the bad things that have happened here. but have you ever noticed there's a lot of people trying to get in here and not a lot of people trying to escape? that says something.

it was a place of dreams for my mother. my mother came from a very large, rural family in tennessee and was shuffled from home to home. she always had a desire for education, but she was never able to get beyond the third grade. she married at age 13 with the hope of escaping a desperate situation. she and my father moved here to detroit and he worked in a factory. i remember one christmas being right here in this auditorium, sitting right over there. it was for gm program -- it was for gm, they had a christmas program for the kids. some years later my mother discovered he was a bigamist and had another family. they had occasion to divorce. she only had a third grade education and consequently, we were thrown into a situation of

dire poverty. she still maintained that dream of education, but now it was for us. more so than for herself. we moved in with her older sister and brother-in-law in boston. a typical tenant, a large tenement with boarded up windows and doors. gangs and murders. both of our older cousins who we adored were killed. i remember when our favorite drug dealer was killed. [applause] he drove a blue cadillac. they used to bring us candy, so we like to see the drug dealers. the rats and the roaches. in the more upscale areas, they called them water bugs, but we

knew what they were. [laughter] my mom was out working extraordinarily hard, too sometimes three jobs at a time as a domestic, trying to stay off of welfare. the reason for that was she noticed most of the people she saw go on welfare never came off it and she did not want to be dependent. she wanted us to be independent and decided she would work as long and hard as necessary leaving at 5:00 in the morning and getting back after meant night, doing what other people did not want to do to try to maintain their independence. she was very thrifty. she would drive a car until it wouldn't make a sound and then she would go collect all of her times, nichols and quarters and buy a new car. people would ask how does that woman afford to buy a car?

she knew how to manage money. if my mom was the secretary of the treasury, we would not be in a debt situation and stop -- debt situation. [applause] there are many people who are critical of me because they say carson once to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs, even though he must have benefited from them. this is a blatant lie. i have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. i have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people. [applause] we are not doing people a

service when we pat them on the head and say there there, you poor little thing, we are going to take care of all your needs. you don't have to worry about anything. you know who else says stuff like that? socialists. their programs always and up looking the same. they want to take care of people from cradle to grave, but they want to be involved in every aspect of their lives and they want most of their earnings, but they say it will be a utopia and nobody will have to worry. the problem is all of those societies end up looking the same, with a small group of elites at the top controlling everything, a rapidly diminishing middle class, and a vastly -- vastly expanded dependent class. that was not the intention for this country. this country was in visited --

was envisioned by individuals who wanted everything to be surrounding the people. of, four, and by the people. not, of, for and by the government. and the government was to respond to the will of the people not the people to the will of the government. we have allowed the whole thing to be turned upside down. i'm not an antigovernment person by any stretch of the imagination. i think the government as described in our constitution is wonderful, but we have gone far beyond what our constitution describes and we have begun to just allow it to expand based on what the political class wants because they would like to increase their power and their dominion over the people. i think it's time for the people to rise up and take the government act. [applause]

the political class will like me saying stuff like that. i will tell you a secret. the political class comes from both parties and it comes from all over the place. [applause] it includes even the media now. the press is the only business in america. it's the only class protected by our constitution. you have to ask yourself why were they the only ones protected? it is because the founders envisioned a press that was on the side of the people, not a press that was on the side of the democrats or the republicans or the federalists or anti-federalist.

[applause] this is a direct appeal to media. you guys have an almost sacred position in a true democracy. please don't abuse it. [applause] my mother's dream was for us to be able to move back to detroit and we were eventually able to do that. but i was a terrible student and my brother was a terrible student and she didn't know what to do, so she prayed. she asked god for wisdom and you know what? you don't have to have a phd to talk to god. you just have to have faith and

god gave her the wisdom. at least in her opinion. by brother and i did not think that was wise. it didn't matter because it worked. that was the key. as i started reading those books, which i really didn't want to, i started reading about people of accomplishment. i began to recognize the person that has the most to do with what happens to you in life is you, not somebody else. you don't have to be dependent on the good graces of somebody else. you can do it on your own if you have a normal brain and you are willing to work and willing to have that can-do attitude. it was the can-do attitude that allowed this nation to rise so quickly because we had people who did not stop when there was

an obstacle. that is how those early settlers were able to move from one seed to the other see across a hostile and rugged terrain. they knew how to do things. there were many communities separated from other communities by hundreds of miles, but they thrived. why did they thrive? because people were willing to work together to work with each other. if a farmer got injured, everyone else comes. if summary got killed, everyone pitched in to help with their families. americans, we take care of each other. that's why we are called the united states of america. what we have done is we have allowed purveyors of the vision to become rampant in our society

and create friction and fear in our society. people are afraid to stand up for what they believe in because they don't want to be called a name. they don't want an irs audit. they don't want their jobs messed with or their families must with. -- families messed with. it is no time we think about the people who came before us and what they were willing to do so that we could be free? nathan hale, a teenage rebel caught by the british and ready to be executed, he said my only regret is that i have but one life to give for my country. couple of nights ago, i was in mobile alabama. there were several world war ii veterans there in uniform.

i took pictures with all of them and they were thanking me for being courageous enough to do what i'm doing now. i said no, it is you we must thank. [applause] when we think about all of those brave men and women who sacrifice life and limb over the years so that we could be free and we dare not soil their efforts by being timid now and not standing up for what we believe, and to recognize one of

the rules for radicals is that you make the majority believe what they believe is no longer relevant and no intelligent person thinks that way. the way you believe is the only way intelligent people believe. that way, they will keep silent. they don't care if you don't believe what you believe, as long as you keep your mouth shut. that is what we have to start doing. we have two open our mouths for the values and principles of america. [applause] i've got to tell you something. i am not politically correct. [applause]

i am probably never going to be politically correct because i am not a politician. i don't want to be a politician. [applause] because politicians do what is politically expedient. i want to do what is right. we have to think about that once again in our country. this past couple of weeks, there has been a great deal of turmoil in baltimore. i've spent 36 years of my life there. ec the turmoil in our cities all over our nation. we need to start thinking about how do we get to the bottom of these issues?

i believe the real issue here is that people are losing hope and they don't feel life is going to be good for them no matter what happens. so when an opportunity comes to loot, to write, to get mine, they take it, not believing there is a much underway to get the things they desire. interestingly enough, many of these people by cook, line and sinker that our economy is getting much better. that the unemployment rate is down to 5.5%. you know what? if the unemployment rate was down to 5.5%, our economy would be humming. but obviously, it is not. it is one of the reasons our founders said our freedom and

our way of life is depending -- is dependent on the well informed and educated populace. what you have to know is you can make the unemployment rate anything you wanted to be based on what numbers you include and exclude. you have to look at the labor force participation rate, which is the number of people eligible for work. that number has been going down 2009 and is that a seven low. unless you understand the kinds of things, it is eminently possible for slick politicians and biased media to convince you that everything is wonderful when your eyes tell you something different. i am saying to people around this nation right now, stop being loyal to a party or a man

and use your brain to think for yourself. [applause] that is the key to us as a nation becoming successful again. not allowing ourselves to be manipulated by people who believe that they are the kingmakers, who think that they are the rulers of thought. they are not the rulers of thought. we, the people, are the rulers of thought. we get to determine what kind of nation we have. other people cannot dictate that for us. we must never allow anyone to take that right away from us and we do that when we submit to silliness. for instance, a majority of

americans who are opposed to the so-called affordable care act. and they just rammed down our throats and said this is the way it's going to be and if you don't like it, too bad. that was never supposed to be the way this country was designed. if we accept it, it will continue that way and it will get worse and we have to get the right people in place. we need not only to take the executive ranch -- i'm not talking republicans, i'm talking anybody who has common sense. [applause] we have to have another wave election and bring in people with common sense who actually love our nation and are willing

to work for our nation and are more concerned about the next generation than the next election. [applause] we are going to have to concentrate on fixing the broken economy. 18 plus trillion dollars. we have representatives who applaud themselves if the deficit does not go up as much this quarter as last quarter. they are completely out to lunch. we've got to drive that thing act down. -- back down. [applause] but it is our responsibility. we need to know who our representatives are and you need to know how they voted, not how they said they voted. if they voted to keep raising the debt ceiling and keep

compromising the future of our children and grandchildren, you need to throw them out of office. [applause] eight team trillion dollars will stop think about what that means. if you tried to bathe at back at a rate of $10 million a day, it would take you over 5000 years. we are putting that on the backs of people coming behind us. this will be the first year the national debt exceeds the gdp. economist will tell you when the debt to gdp ratio reaches 90% at that time, economic slowdown is inevitable. we have been doing this for a while now. from 1852 2000, our economy grew at a rate of 3.3% at least, even

during wars. from 2001 until 2014 it grew at a rate of 1.8%. that seems to be the new norm. you probably saw the headlines recently in the last quarter it grew at .2%. this is not good. i don't care how anybody tries to spin it. this is what happens when you have a gdp to debt ratio of 103 which is what we have now. this is what we have got to fix. we've got to fix that immediately because we cannot continue along the pathway. it will have dire consequences in the long run and i will be giving an in-depth economic speech in the weeks and months to come with a lot of details about things that have to be done. but we need to fix it. we cannot just talk about it. how do we fix it?

recognize we have the most dynamic economic engine the world has ever known right here in america. we need to use it again. we cannot work it when the time. it does not work when you have high taxation rates. which are absurd. we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. and yet some of our officials sit there and wonder why people do work overseas. they obviously do not understand business. people do not go into business to support the government. they go into business to make money. [applause] dr. carson: we obviously have to create an environment that is conducive to them making money. that means lowering the