over how the chair has abused unilateral subpoena power has led to the disclosure of private medical information and i would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from ricky member johnson from the science-based technology committee dated june 23, 2016 and expense how this decision -- explains how this decision impacts other issues and how does an illegitimate approach on state sovereignty. insert into the record a letter from ranking member cummings on oversight and government reform. chairman chick that said -- j fits -- chaefetz using power to tarnish the democratic candidate for president. >> those will be submitted into the record.

any other material submitted for purposes of the hearing will be printed into the record. without objection, the committee is adjourned. >> mike debonis covers congress with the washington post. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> excuse me. my name is jim lange, from the congressional institute? i e-mailed you about congressional reform. >> right. [indiscernible]

adams was not a good president, not a successful president. if his career had ended at the and of his presidency, i don't think i would have written a book about him. "johnight on "q&a," quincy adams -- militant spirit ," about the life of the sixth president of the united states and his career afterwards. >> the thing that strikes you -- not as a politician, he is a politician, he's held elective forme, he didn't alliances. he didn't do anything you would do in order to be able to persuade people who otherwise might not go along with your agenda to do so. so, his four years in the white house were just pain. everything was hard. he achieved almost nothing.

tonight, at 8 p.m. eastern on "q&a." >> it's that time of year to announce the 2017 studentcam documentary competition. get your message to washington, d.c. help us, what is the most urgent issue for the president and congress to address in 2017? with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone and in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven minute documentary on the issues selected, exploring opposing opinions. 100,000 dollars in cash prizes will be awarded between 100 students and 153 teachers. the grand prize will go to the

student or team with the overall best entry. marker calendars, help us to spread the word to student filmmakers. here's an article from "the new york times," telling us what we do and don't know as of right now about that explosion in new york city last night. it took place at 8:30 p.m. eastern time and there was a second unexploded device found away.-- four blocks we have a picture of what it looked like there. you can see that it looked like a pressure cooker device. of the have a picture bomb squad removing the device. motive not known, suspects not known. the mayor is wrapping up a press conference at this time asking new yorkers to be vigilant. we will, of course, keep you updated on the story.

at therning we looked clinton family, their foundation, and the 2016 campaign. want to welcome joe coniston and his latest book, "man of the world." when billbegin clinton is no longer the .resident of the united states you write -- guest: it's true. that's what happened.

the press was facing him about theh rich and overtime outrage over the pardons became so powerful it drove his approval rating down 20 points and his speeches that were scheduled were being canceled .ne by one the head of the company apologize. others -- other source came out, .ome of which were false the looting and the band was him of the white house was proven to be wrong. ofn, there was the issue

office space he was going to rent and meant town manhattan and eventually they thought better of that and decided it was something of which they are to retreat. a lot of negative commentary not just from the right, from the center and even democrats there was quite a bit of anger and dismay over that time. the things he read morning, that on the they go to a local diner. what happened? chelsea was there, hillary was there.

they were all in the house and clinton said that go get coffee. so, quentin and doug band got the the suburban with secret service and went into the deli. told him to clear some of the security. he got a very nice greeting at the deli, but when he came out, the press was waiting and that went on all day. he had nobody. he did not have the apparatus .xcept the secret service in terms of the press, there was

no protection. clinton had nothing. here's my question. martin rich into damage his presidency? guest: i think it had very media to do with what the coverage at the time suggested. all of the coverage without exception played to the theme that this was a quick -- quid partyo to the democratic and the clinton campaign's and

the years pass. somehow the theory was if you could press the timeline enough, she had given the money. at thes really happening time was that clinton was involved in middle east peace negotiations. it was about as close as we have come to an agreement. --

the reason was when i that marcd him was rich had been an asset of mossad for many years. he had done all kind of work for israeli intelligence and some for the u.s. back then, there were hundreds of jewish families. for what he got in trouble with israel made him useful to the u.s. subjectid it is another , but he was able to operate in those countries and get officials to use the other way

when he was taking jewish citizens out. in the eyes of the israeli government, he was what they would call a helper. he was someone who helped them a lot. i think clinton felt he owed him for the stride they make towards peace. they went to egypt to try to continue to negotiate and i think clinton felt it was important to do this after what he did for him. the problem that arose was that clinton did not feel free to talk about this publicly. that some to the fact people in israel one of this to happen but would not talk about this specifically.

the incoming on it. host: why did you write the book? guest: in 2005, i was assigned a profile of clinton for esquire magazine. that summer, i went to africa with him. i have not been paying a lot of attention to the foundation and what they had been doing. i went over with him and some people, toward several countries .nd saw what they were doing i thought this was interesting. it was the best-selling story for esquire that year. over the next couple of years, i was following what he was continuing to do. i realize there's a book with

this. host: this is a quote from your book. confirmatione hearing for hillary clinton become secretary of state, he said the following. means to gain favor with the secretary of state, even well-intentioned for donations kerry the risk for u.s. foreign policy. guest: i do not know if there was a risk, but senator lugar was certainly correct that there was going to be a risk for perception, particularly given the way that it was covered by the media. most of the foreign donations, the great full cook them came long before she was even considered becoming secretary of state. alliesonations from u.s. like norway, canada, sweden, united kingdom how more focused becauseon's aid work

the prime ministers of those 2002, 2003 said, we're going to try and provide this treatment even though the wall decided it was too expensive and we are going to let all these people die. aboutd, i'm going to the what to do this, but i need money to do it, and these prime ministers who knew him, tony blair and others, their norwegian prime minister said, go ahead, and they provided tens and eventually hundreds of millions of dollars. where they trying to influence hillary clinton in advance? i do not think so. knowing your she would be secretary of state, so that is a great bulk of the money that came between 2001 and 2009. the other thing about this issue is people can be upset with hillary clinton, but as i explain in the book, she did not want to be secretary of state.

barack obama had to press are hard to be secretary of state. have been dropped statement she put out that she was working on that basically declined the office. host: because they could not reach each other, it was delayed. guest: and then he persuaded her and she felt, as most americans do in the president asks you to do something, you say yes, what she said to him, whatever going to do but my husband's foundation? there are hundreds of people's who depend on the work he is doing. what will we do about them? it was obama's team who came up with the parameters around the foundation and they have a memorandum of understanding about how that will work. 90% of the well over time, they lived up to that memorandum. and they did not, they corrected it. , you wouldunhappy

have to address the president because it was he who set up the conditions in which they operate. host: we will get to caller the -- the callers in the moment. our guest is joe conason, out with a new book on the clintons. caller, theyy point out over $200 million and clinton foundation donors brought in 205 invitations to white house state dinners. they goes up because to the earlier point about how this is covered from the media from all sides. guest: i have this i don't put a lot of credibility into "the daily caller." i think their motives are clear. and ire who they are would say would want a more independent evaluation of any statement they come up with with the clinton foundation or anything else. and a lot of the media coverage, great weight is given to whether

someone is invited to the state a millionthe could be reasons why anyone who happened to be a clinton foundation donor could be invited. maybe they knew that for 20 years, supported something us the clintons did, i mean, i would be shocked if there was a list of quick quote pros for people who gave, but why are they not more interested in what the actual work of the foundation is? you asked why decided to write the book and it was because i thought they were really doing. it is stunning to me how little interest there is in the fact else, theyeverything have saved millions of people's , the caribbean and asia, who otherwise are going to be left to die. they made a big contribution to stemming this, if not ending the aids pandemic, which was set to kill 100 laypeople. -- set toproject of kill 100 people. host: project of president bush. guest: yes, and i discussed this

in the book, interesting story. when people do believe and i believe that it was one of president bush's greatest accomplishments. president clinton played a big role in that. you can ask independent experts. they will tell you. why are we not at least as interested in that as we are in fairly trivial stuff about the foundation and e-mail and well, she talked to the crown prince today, well, no, maybe it will be tomorrow? what difference does that make? i do not know, but sitting this people's lives made a huge difference in not just the future of africa but the world. host: "the further endeavors of bill clinton," the subtitle for joe conason's look. good morning on the line. caller: good morning. happy you are taking my call. i have a question. i have been listening to everything you say.

it is very substantive. i believe every time hillary , sheon waiting on anything is right substantive and you can see that she has a plan and understands and it is well thought out. on the other hand, the candidate trump,other side, donald i think he is probably one of the worst campaigns that he is running in my lifetime. i'm not that old, but i think he is kind of running his campaign like the capitalist style, any any news is good news, and it is working for a certain group of folks in this country. i do not think that he is really running to them. i think hillary is lucky to have as the candidate on the other side. i think he is running mainly to run his business interests and

cash in at the end of this, even by losing because i do not think he is going to make enough money as president. he wants to start his own tv network and to connect with his and maybe withk russian tv, too. host: thanks. we will get a response. well, the latter part of it interested me, where he said he is running to enhance his business. we saw that in washington the other day when he learned reporters into his new hotel, which was opening, and then did not hold an actual press conference about the birther issue, so there is something to that. i have known donald trump for years. i do not try to psychoanalyze him. it is too hard. host: our guest is currently the editor in chief of "the national memo." he has written a number of books.

i have been on the "the new york times" best sellers list. jamie on the republican line. caller: good morning. this guest isthat completely biased. he sounds like [indiscernible] for the clinton and says, look what the foundation has done. of course, that is the foundation and their job. it is the job to be done anyway. i do not believe he is being objective and i believe he is peddling for the clintons because he travels with bill to africa, i mean, hello? littlethere are situations about the banking company and they did not enrich themselves? of course they did.

it is about the lawyers and of course it would not be a paper trail, they know what they are doing. it is obvious and people see that. i don't know what he thinks people are thinking and talking about in america, but that is what we are talking about. host: thank you. guest: she alluded to issues raised in an earlier book called "clinton cash," about the foundation with the ericsson telephone company and your ramie dealeal -- and uranium that involved some company in russia. host: you say in your book, most of the most damming materials turned out to be either factually inaccurate, melodramatically it exaggerated or revoked within weeks of publication, major media outlets reported significant errors discovered in its pages. guest: no doubt about that. there is no substance to them at all. we could go into detail if

someone wanted to, but with the uranium deal, for instance, the linchpin of that accusation against him the clinton is that money was funneled to the foundation because she was going -- cast a vote and approved the uranium deal as secretary of state. the truth was that deal had to be approved by something called committee on foreign investment in the united states, which most people do not know anything about, a major cabinet subcommittee, basically, that business deals that might affect national security. it is chaired, not by the secretary of state, but by the treasury department control by the treasury department and the pentagon, not the state department. the state department has one vote on that committee. it could not have controlled him of the tilde done anything to stop this deal, which was approved again by this and committee after she was no longer secretary of state.

the idea that millions of dollars were funneled into get one vote on that committee is ridiculous, and anyone who knows how that functions,that. that story was blown out of the water. right.ler is people talk about what they want and leave what they want. as far as my bias, yes, i saw what the president was doing. what president clinton was doing. i was interested in it. if that makes me bias, i plead guilty to do have read the book, steve, there's plenty of criticism of the clintons in the book. host: let's go to joanne in maryland on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. george stephanopoulos wrote a book years ago after the clintons left the white house, and there was a line in there i thought was interesting. i was going to ask if you agree with the assessment. he said that bill clinton is hard as nails on the -- sorry, soft as jell-o on the outside and hard as nails on the inside

and secretary clinton is the opposite, that she is hard as nails on the outside and soft as joe on the inside. do you agree with that assessment? guest: i read george's book called "all too human," and it was very interesting. clinton is a compassionate person and i think hillary clinton is, too. i think like any other human being, they have their hard and soft moments. you can see both. if you spend any time around them. i will claye the perception of hillary clinton is somebody you steely and calculating all the time is certainly wrong, based on not just what i know about her but what other people who have known her for many years much better than i have have told me about her. people from arkansas will tell me how many times she called to

find out about the sick family member or what was happening with their child in school who is having trouble. this is somebody who you can find scores of people in arkansas and new york to tell you how much she displayed compassion for their problems. host: let's go to morgantown, west virginia. good morning, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. good morning. i wanted to begin with joe conason" analysis --joe conason" 'salysis --joe conason analysis of the server and everything surrounding that. guest: within the last month or so, a line or two from my book generated a lot of news coverage, which is that i mentioned in the book that colin powell had advised her to use her personal e-mail and i was the first to reveal that, i think. as he had done. that led to a story in "the new

york times," and they may chose it, good covers hillary clinton, helped establish the facts of that story and then it blew up. colonel powell or said he did not remember this and then it turned out that the, indeed, dated five chilly clinton to use personal e-mail, as he had done. did advise hillary clinton to use personal e-mail, as he had done. as general powell did not and as coded clinton should have done better, but she has admitted it is clearthink that she feels that was an error and is not blame it on him. i will say what general powell did was that pfizer to use her personal e-mail and create a context where she might have thought that the decision to was making anyway was ok because he was such a respected figure and

a republican. no one had ever complained about the fact that he not only used rational e-mail with then disposed of all up his e-mails as secretary of state. we do not have any of them. none of the e-mails about the decision to go to war with iraq, the aftermath of 9/11, all kinds of things we could learn had powell's e-mails been available. i think we will never know. unlike secretary clinton, whose decision to try to sort her e-mails between personal and public has been criticized, but she did turn over tens and thousands of e-mails from her time as secretary of state when the state department asked her to do that. book, april 25 at this year, the host of msnbc's morning show, talking about a 2010 donation of the country of algeria and their desire to be off of the terror list, explain.

show was broadcasted around the time clinton cash came out, and i'm afraid my friend joe scarborough got excited about clinton cash. that day, he took donation that had been funneled through the benton foundation from algeria to haiti and the aftermath of the haitian earthquake and devastation there. and turned it into a nefarious scheme, in which the nation of algeria would be removed from the state department's terrorism list for giving money to the clinton foundation. $500,000, which in the scheme of things, is not big in the $2 billion operation, but there were several problems with the joe said. one, the clinton foundation did not hold onto that money and it went straight to haitian relief.

number two, algeria has never been on the nation terror list. algeria is an ally of the united states and has been for many years. this theory that joe invented in his mind was completely wrong, but it represented a mindset in which you could take any donation to the foundation by any country and to leave a story around it that made it seem very nefarious when it was nothing of the kind. host: let's go to lucy, pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say anyone considering voting for hillary should actually walk the clinton cash and as far as the uranium deal, he says she was one vote. we all know that the whole democratic party is corrupt. you can tell that because just from what is going on, nobody will prosecute him for anything.

that is all i have to say. hard toell, that is argue when someone says the whole democratic party is correct. i do not know what proof you think you have of that, but i would point out that the fbi director, who decided not to prosecute hillary clinton over any alleged the militants, is a republican and has always been a republican. james comey, he served in previous administrations and president obama, a democrat, appointed him as fbi director i think in part because he wanted to have a republican who would oversee his administration of the country's law enforcement he is seen i think and respected as a nonpartisan figure across the aisle. i would be careful with those broad allegations. host: to our c-span radio listeners, "man of the world" is the book and joe conason is our

guest. we have another 10 to 15 minutes with them. i want a reaction to a donald trump said last month in virginia on the issue of the clinton foundation. here is the republican nominee. [video clip] trump: clinton has made $60 million in gross income while she was secretary of state . ooing] plus, countless more to the phony clinton foundation. it is called -- pay for play. [booing] she even created an illegal private e-mail server, when easily hacked by our foreign enemies, to hide her corrupt dealings. host: joe conason, your reaction when you hear donald trump said that. he has repeated the charge. guest: he will say anything.

i think we know that now. i would challenge them to prove any of those allegations. i would say something else about donald trump since he decided to use the term -- paper plate -- he accuses people often a bit think he is doing and we now know that he illegally made a contribution to the attorney general of florida from his foundation, which, by the, is not funded with his money anyway. he used other people's money from his foundation to make a $25,000 conservation when he believed she would investigate wasp university, which he afraid of having anyone investigate, said that looks a lot more like paper play than anything that i know of that involve the clinton foundation. host: let's go to john from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thanks for the call. many of the callers are the kind of sure what i was inking. i'm independent, used to be a republican.

the parties on both sides seem pay per play and what they do today. it is scary to think that secretary of state, republican or democrat, would have secret or private e-mails. why would you need those? what are you trying to conceal? i think it conceals insider trading, pay for play deals. i think both sides do it and i think it is a disingenuous for an author of a book, whether liberal, independent or conservative, to say one side is wrong or right when everybody is doing it, so my question this morning us how can you say, going forward, thought there, you seem to favor the clintons and the democrat side, but my question to you would be how do you see going forward how it would be possible to condemn president,ump or any if they used the foundation and did the same thing with pay per play? or one or only begets

the other and why do we bother investigating when we know both sides are doing it? guest: i'm interested in facts. if you read my book, there are a lot of facts. i examine all the allegations. they are without merit. there is nothing like the payoff to pam bondi that occurred from the trump foundation that involve the clinton foundation, nothing remotely resembling that, so you can save both sides do it and you have read about awful things that the foundation has done, but they had done tremendous amount of good and i do not think any pay for play has been showed. one example, judicial watch put out a press release claiming that the crown prince had given $32 million to the clinton global initiative in order to get his meeting with hillary clinton. the compressed time so heavily that they made it seem as if the $32 million was a payoff to her to get a meeting with her.

lots of problems with that story. one, the $32 million was not given to the clinton foundation. 2000 five, it was an initiative by the crown prince and american ally, to fund college scholarships for students in his own country. that is out cgi works. atple do not donate money the meetings, and he did not give $32 million to the clinton foundation. but judicial watch put out a press release claiming it happened. and they then had to correct that information. the second point is hillary clinton would never not eat with the crowned prince. she may not have wanted to meet with them on a particular date for any reason, which i guess of in the e-mails, but course she would meet with the crowned prince because he is a u.s. ally in the gulf and a critical region, so this story was fabricated out of old clock by judicial watch and i think a

lot of innocent listeners, viewers, readers leave that kind of thing when they read it and it is false. host: 70 go to another part of the book without republicans viewed hillary clinton in 2016. in december 2012, when she had a concussion, republicans, stricken for fear, that she might run for president again, should not decide how to spin her illness. where she actually farcical than the official story suggested, disabling any presidential ambition she might still harbor? for wishing merely faking? this was after testimony on the benghazi attack. host: that wasn't -- guest: that was an interesting episode to review some other were determined to spin any news about her in light of what they feared would be her presidential campaign. not all republicans, but leading republicans, include karl rove, cannot remember which

side he was on at the moment, but he and may beat rush limbaugh and others argued precisely over what you said, or is she thinking was it worse? as it turned out, she was not thinking. she had been injured. it was not much worse because she testified for 11 hours before the benghazi committee and i think most people agree she did very well. host: let's go to robin from pennsylvania, republican line with joe conason. good morning. caller: good morning. i just have a question. i can that believe that this has not come up more. , orary clinton's campaign hillary, she sent it through the mail and somehow it disappeared. do you really expect the american people to believe that? think i am not familiar with that story, but i would point out one thing about the e-mails. to the extent that secretary

clinton e-mailed with anyone in the state department or any other office of government, those e-mails were preserved another government servers, whether she had the government account she was using her not, so i think the idea that all of are supposedly incriminating and they had disappeared, is wrong. the one thing, we see e-mails that people find easy enough to spend to some kind of conspiracy, whether rightly or wrongly. i would say almost every case wrongly, but there is a lot of e-mail material that is available for her. if she wanted to get rid of all of them like colonel powell did, she would have been able to but she did not. host: what surprised you in researching this book? gonk about that and we will to joann from tennessee, democrat line. good morning. ofler: good morning to both you. i was calling in to talk about .hese e-mails

the clinton foundation -- i am sick and tired of hearing about those e-mails. said she did not do anything wrong and he is a republican, just like he said, and that foundation helps people. donald trump is not doing anything to help anybody but himself, and i am sick and tired of his lies, and i am so glad cnn called to not the other day. he said he was going to make a statement about the president and his birth certificate. he was up there showing off the hotel and he put the gentleman up there with no good credentials. our world needs to link up that this man is in there for himself. he has ties with russia, he has outsourced jobs over there, and he talks about jobs, well, why does he not make some in america? host: thanks for the call from tennessee. guest: well -- [laughter] i appreciate the endorsement

very much. host: we'll go to nancy from austin, texas. good morning. to say thest, i have woman who just called about the credentials for the people who are standing behind, a lot of them were medal of valor winners. to me, that gives you the credentials, but i don't know. secondly, it has been mentioned quite a bit about colonel powell and his e-mails and when he told clinton. what he did is tell her he used his personal e-mail account for personal stuff, family stuff -- guest: that is not correct, ma'am. no, he used his personal e-mail for the state department business. thousands and thousands of times. a classified desktop from the state department the classified material, which is what hillary clinton also did for like 99.99% of the time, so they have also

found a classified e-mail that was sent by his a well. his aol account was hacked. there is no evidence that hillary clinton's e-mail account was of her heart. there is evidence that people tried to do it, but nobody has released any e-mails hacked from her account so far. waske general powell, whose hacked multiple times to his embarrassment. host: you say in the book -- "bill clinton and his foundation would remain primary targets for the trump campaign, the murdoch media and the pyrites. so much had changed since the clinton said that the white house, and so little." guest: that is correct. we see a lot of the same characters. there is a man right now who was appointed deputy campaign manager for donald trump made david posse and he is been around since the earliest whitewater days attacking the clintons and being paid to do that. we have a different world

technologically, politically, and certainly the term phenomena is something new, but in a lot of ways, we see many of the same types of politics and the same types of attacks. host: no matter what bill clinton hope to do with the rest of his life, you write in the book, he knew the controversies that haunted his presidency might never quite be put to rest, except perhaps whitewater. guest: in the book, i discuss the final report on whitewater, which came out long after he left office, and it is very clear that if you read that report, there was nothing to whitewater and it was never anything to what wonder, which goes back to a book i wrote many years ago and discussed on c-span more than once, i think, but i think he did feel finally that whitewater -- it is interesting now -- people who once disagreed family with whitewater -- the human league with whitewater in this town

have come to a knowledge that we were right about that back in the late 1990's. now, they were quarrel about other things, but i think we have been vindicated on that. host: one more call, grace from lafayette, indiana, good morning. thanks for waiting. go ahead with your question. would like for you to answer me this if you can, i cannot believe that the leted states of america donald trump, who worships money as his god, kindly note that he has and is the only business in handling inies, and them, i guess he does china millions, how do we know that he will trade some of the stuff he has learned to pay off his bills? host: she is talking about the national security agency has done.

next, grace. guest: i would be watching donald trump carefully if i were in the intelligence committee in the united states because of the people who surround him and because of his ties and because of his stated preferences. he was vladimir putin and he thinks russia is great. it seems pretty ignorant. problems with russia, our ties with the nato countries and what that means to the world, so i would keep an eye on him. he talks about his intelligence taking on tv, which he should not have done, so even if he has no malicious intent, he is not somebody who you can trust to be careful with information. thingfinal question, one you've learned that surprised you the most in researching this book? well, you know, the relationship between bill clinton and the first president bush, the death of that relationship, that friendship

did surprise me, especially the more learned about it and how it came about. it is really interesting. i knew clinton was close to nelson mandela as a boy who grew up without a father and a lot have thought he looked for a father, and he had a relationship like that would nelson mandela, but i did not realize until i looked closely that he developed a kind of friendship with george h.w. bush, as well, and the sensitivity of former president bush as a person was something that was also a discovery for me. host: and ironic he could see was the man that defeated president bush and -- ,uest: as president bush said and i think he believes this, there is a stronger and special bond among people who up and president, and it transcends even political conflict. host: joe conason of the book " the man at the world: furt

and reasons why the poverty rate experienced its most recent drop. and heritage foundation domestic policy fellow.c then a discussion on congressional fundraising and with daveumbers leventhal, senior political reporter. and thomas hicks will discuss the security of systems and vulnerability to hacking. join the discussion.

family vice president of candidates answered questions by their running mate. >> he said secret service protecting hillary clinton , let'sdisarm and then see what happens to her. what did he mean by that? >> donald trump believes in the safety and security of every american. the point he was making his hillary clinton had rabbit security for the last 30 years but she was denied the right of law-abiding citizens to have a firearm. with their signals hillary clinton didn't have all that security, should be more supportive of the second amendment. is that youge and i

-- >> that is absolute nonsense. people in the national media talk more about what donald trump has set in the past day than what you clinton has done in the past few years. the fact that her campaign couldn't even be honest about that her own health situation, we are glad to see her back on the decade -- back on the campaign trail but this is decades of dishonesty. >> you have described hillary clinton's comment by saying some supportersome trumps

-- you said that transitional anxiety will go away. there areelieve people in this country who are irredeemable? >> she is worried as a my about the deplorable motivations of those who would question president obama's citizenship, those who say people should vote or donald trump. out those darkl emotions. you can actually let them grow. but i think the obligation we have, and hillary clinton said this to, while that is a motivation of some of the trumps supporters, i do have confidence over time that that kind of motivation is reduced. are trump voters concerned about economic anxieties. we have an obligation to speak to them and make the case that

our economic plan, which will grow by 10.5 million jobs, is better than a trump plan, which moody says will shrink the economy. >> is it appropriate to use the word irredeemable? >> i wouldn't use it. from excerptar sensitive ron paul from texas, talking about his history as a libertarian figure before the first foreign policy symposium hosted by his organization, the ron paul institute for peace and prosperity. it runs for about an hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much.

you. it is so good to have you here today. you deserve a lot of thanks and you worked hard and you did it, you worked together. but he did get some help. he got some help from his wife and a few staffers. there are sponsors, supporters who helped put it together. then our speakers, our program has been and passed it. and of course the people who came, the people who are interested. a lot of young people would come out to hear my speeches. i haven't quite figured it out yet. at a crowd like this i can't see anybody over's

-- see anybody over wordy. we have to be young at heart in order to defend liberty. principle of liberty, the whole concept is very young. even the things our founders gave us. there was a burst of energy. whether you look at the history of mankind, whether it is the industrial age or concept of liberty, it is small. that was one of the motivations i had in 1970's to run for congress. i had been introduced to austrian economics in the 1960's. it turned out they convinced me

i was always under the assumption that i put this together and had natural thoughts. then i thought nobody is agreeing with me. others who were a lot smarter than i was. and there are some smart people who agree with me. and that motivated me, especially the predictions of the 1960's, where the monetary system would work. i became fascinated with the monetary system and i'd see how that intertwines with everything. whether it is the welfare policy or the state or the wars or whatever. in 1973i decided to run for congress. we had three republican congressman in the whole state area still a very democratic state. was try to figure out how to

run as an independent. and that wasn't very easy to do. party heard iican was thinking about doing it. it would have been 1974. politics sometimes is a fluke. but then the incumbent resigned. was elected in 1976 for the first time. i have three different introductions to a congress. i remember being in washington and invited to be on a radio show having to do with foreign policy. issue ai worked that lot more since then.

i was on a show with a congressman from texas. he was well-known and well-respected. i remember us having a mini debate. it had nothing that it had to do with a declaration of war. wireless going into korea or vietnam? this was starting to really bug me. he was nonchalant about it. in a friendly way he was giving the advice. he said just leave it alone, there will never be another time when this country will actually declare war. that was probably about 1976. unless we all wake up and do a lot better job in getting our

message out. he remembers all the stories. when we had the debate on the resolution, he was going to skirt the declaration and say we will give president and a authority to do what he thinks is best. not go't to go to war or to war. under the circumstances the is all wise given the authority. i thought it was a total cop out of course. i thought the best thing to do was to be to call their bluff and i thought it would be a good idea and i got a resolution that changed and there was a substitute and i gave them my five minutes and said i'm not going vote for this.

i want you vote for it. they were nearly hysterical over the whole thing. they did not want to be on the line. they wanted all of the responsibility and they were begging and pleading to give it up and then give to someone else. then there was the champion of the constitution in the congress and so he first -- he was the first one that lit into me because i called for the vote. i said i will not go for it and when the chairman got his spiel, that you have to realize that it's part of the constitution and this is the word and that's a myth and we don't follow it

anymore. that's how blunt they are and then they were against me. that was unusual. another one was up and i made a statement and there's no aggression and that should be a reason to take it to congress. boy, he got up and gave the lecture and said dr. paul, you're wrong on this. they have been shooting to the airplanes for ten years and they have been flying over and bombing them. i knew that i had a job ahead of myself. i knew that the job was tougher after 9/11. it became much more difficult i was strong and then jefferson and i think that he has a great statement on this issue and that

if we follow down and they were doing quit well and then there's peace and commerce and honest friendship and all nations and tangling the citizen and that was a pretty good idea and then he is involved and then that was the areas and then that's the constitution and then the authorities and to deal with the commerce and then that was to trade with the people and then to trade with people and that's why and when he went to china and he was out to -- and if we can't trade with him and then it was over korea and then so i think now today we're going to do it and then hopefully that will keep us out of it and then looks like the agitation is coming and that we have to have

the enemy and then that's number one or two and then we have to agitate and then have russia as number one or number two and then today we deal with trade around the world and then there's free trade and then there are not many free traders in washington. i think now today we do commerce with them in trade, hopefully that will keep us out of it. it looks like the education is coming. we have to have our enemies, so china will be number one or two. we deal with trade around the world and there is free trade.

the principle is very complex. what you earn is yours to keep. you are allowed to spend it any way you want. -- buywant to fight shoes from china, that is your right to do so. but we don't have that system now. we have other things. we have the revival of mercantilism. most people thought we got rid of it completely. i think we have been mercantilist in the middle east for a long time. it was all about other things in oil. but oil is a big deal and still a big deal.

that is why we are over there so much. there is another way we can talk about foreign commerce. i was a true free market person, i did not want any tariffs. but there are some libertarian leaning groups that love and tangling alliances. organization nafta and agreements. so theyt managed-care can reward people on the favorable list. there is very little debate about free trade in washington.

i think the founders understood it and knew about it. but there is another modern way of working protectionism, and that is the manipulation of currencies. sting -- has the same rules you can't manipulate goals. but manipulate currencies, and of course it is all china's old. is all china's fault, we have to punish them. our fed would never manipulate our currency. i would never give them a win. they would never give us a weaker currency. can you imagine what our currency would be with like if we had a strong currency? it goes on all the time. even constantly and daily you still read about who is going to lower the currency and raise it. is there a meeting and come agreement on the currency and eventually that's going to end.

i don't sit up at night and worry about that. i think the foreign policy is going revolve it and then the monetary is going to resolve itself. i think that the spending is going to resolve ourself and we're going to do everything that we can to slow it up. most important is that we have to teach a whole generation of the individuals what liberty provides in the rebuilding of that because the monetary system will fail. the soviet system collapsed and i was in the service in the 60s. i know a little bit about the cold war and what was going on, so we had that and the soviet system collapsed, and we did not have to fight. we did not have a nuclear exchange exchange. not too many people predicted it and some would not been surprised and they were living at that time and they explained it all. they said that socialism cannot work and won't work. oh, what does that mean? well,

the fed manipulates the sbresz rates. i can imagine and even they may be surprised this time. he always understood about the manipulation but negative interest rates? who would have protected something happening in 5,000 years of history to take it down and say oh okay, i'm going put my money in the bank and next year when you give it back to me i want $98. so i give you $100 and want 98 back. they're struggling to give us a the two percent and that's really a four percent already. then you get that money back and that's policy and then they say well it's not working like we're supposed to. i think we should borrow more and print more and manipulate the currencies more and start another war, and that will solve all of the problems.

policy remains locked in place, but it's going to be interrupted by the natural forces and interrupted by the development of a whole group of people and a whole generation that will see something that they have never seen before because we're witnessing something that never existed before. maybe we will see something else and a generation of people that will come around to understanding of what true liberty is all about and be able to rebuild even better than what the founders did because they were and we can. so it's not difficult for me to call myself a noninterventionist. it's hard to get everybody to probably accept my definition of it as being the proper role for our government because they will say that you have to do this this and this.

i remember reading from the economics and saying there's a lot of people for liberty and every one of them has a but, but for this and for that. it's not that i think that's the only way to go a totally nonintervention, it's just that i think that you have to have a target. you have to be able to defend it like the socialist and facet, they know exactly what they want. i think that we need to do continue our education on this because when i was accused of was always that as a noninterventionist, i was in isolation. that's been destroyed. that means that we went closed borders. i don't want to want closed borders but trade with people. as a matter of fact, i on occasion like to find someone that's a typical enemy and when they do something right, i like to compliment them.

i was delighted that there was an airplane that sflu into cuba last week and that the american people can fly to cuba. that -- i think that there's a lot of good things going on especially when i do see and talk with the young skpeem go to the campuses because they're understanding what the nonaggression principle is about and i afly it all across the board. i am going to work at it and then none aggression is not good. how can someone say it's a bad idea and i like aggression. they do like aggression because they want to be boss and they want the money and control and they're whole thing is designed to use force to enhance the personal well being and the financial situation. some are better moted and they say oh no, russia is gone and the sefoviet system is gone and you have to have a great nation that's going bring about order,

freedom and prosperity for the world. that's the moral obligation to do that. to do this. we have to do this. we have to take more money from the american people, print more money to do these good things because we have this moral obligation. what about their moral obligation to the people they steal the money from? [ applause ? [applause] of course, that's a strong argument here. even if they did a lit bit of what they claim, it would be a little different but they don't do anything. everything is opposite of what they claim. right now when it comes to the military, every day i come up with a new story about another weapon system that doesn't work, aircraft carriers, $13 billion, that's just a little bit. you know, it reminds me of the prudence, when you're in trouble

financially, it's worth while for government to give a group of people money and a shovel and their job is to dig a hole. then another group gets a shovel and money to fill up the hole. that will have an economic benefit because they'll have to spend this money somewhere but never measure the cost of doing this. what was the cost and what did they have to give up for it? that's what they do with this military stuff, it's not so much they want to blow up the world, they are libel to do it and some enjoy it, like to test these weapons but you take the ford aircraft carrier, $13 billion. the other day it looks like somebody was pestering the financial people and were able to find out the amount of tax dollars that go to the bonuses of boeing.

sometimes they don't do so well for taxt payer either and have these problems and failures. there were $2 billion worth of bonuses kept secret up until just recently. but then again, you say, well, what about that wonderful technology that the american people now own and the f-35, this is great stuff? they never quit. they never quit. some really believe it is a stimulant. it's a stimulant to the economy, never asking that precious question we should ask, instead of what, instead of what. every time they say they do something good, what didn't get done? and what was the cost to liberty? [applause] so those questions generally don't get answered but i believe it all goes back to this whole idea of understanding and

willingness to defend a nonaggression principle. most people accept a parlt of that. if you talk to most people around country and say are you allowed to use aggression against your neighbor if he has three cars and you don't have any and you need a car to go to work? do you think it's morally right for you to go and steal that car? no, no, that wouldn't be right. that's wrong. and but it's morally right to hire the congressman and the lobbyists and get your laws passed to steal more from the people who worked hard in order for them to take it and they don't see that as aggression. it's one step removed and they put blinders on and they say, well, the government -- if the government does it it must be moral and must be okay. the tide is turning, 68% of the american people don't even believe the government any more.

we heard a little bit about the deep state and i was trying to understand that fully but when it comes to the kennedy assassination, you know, it was treason to think we didn't know everything about the kennedy assassination for the first few years. now it's probably 75% of the people don't believe that. that's good they don't believe the government. people ask me about the 9/11 investigation, all these investigations, are you for reopening these? well, if the government is going to do it. i'm not sure i want them to do it again. all of these investigations and commissions, i believe 99% will -- are not looking for honest answers in the truth. they are looking for cover-up and looking to cover up their mistakes they made.

i don't think it's going to be coming from our government. it's good -- they say they have me quoted about it's probably not going to make much difference who you vote for, why were you in the congress? i was in the congress because i didn't think i was going. my wife asked me, what are you doing this for, you have a good medical practice, we're doing quite fine? she wasn't even interested in this. well, i've been reading, a dangerous thing to do even i've come to the conclusion we're going in the wrong direction. it's a very dangerous thing. how can it be dangerous. i didn't know she was into the conspiracy theory that somebody was going to come get me. nobody knew who i was. it didn't matter.

no, you're going to run and get elected and mess up our family life. she was serious. that's not going to happen. i'm not going to be playing that game and it doesn't make it much different. she said something to me then that sort of reminded -- it's a reminder to me over the years and encouragement, she says they are going to recognize you're telling the truth and that's what they'll want to hear. i think that's still true today. the problem is sorting it all out, economically. this is why the institute is so important. and future -- freedom foundation, that is so important, getting the truth out, economics or foreign policy and monetary policy, all of this is important. -- i think we're making great strides with this. we talked about percentages before. what percent are the people we

need. we don't need the 51%. we need a hard core group of people able to influence other people. today it's more available to us than any time in the history to circumvent the people who own the propaganda machines. despite all of the short comings and google and these other things, it's not as free as we would like it to be. and if nothing else, what we can do, get people together like that and colonel will kerrson, he talks to these people every month or every week. he gets good reception. it's good stuff. sometimes the stuff on the internet is pretty superficial but it's still able to reach people. i'm so pleased people will tune into the ron paul liberty paul. daniel is with me on that and we

have a lot of people doing that. i think if you do, and you can encourage other people to do it and share that, you know, a crowd like this, do we have 100 here today? how many do we have? 300 or so. if each person did that, if you think the program is worth while, and share it with friends, this could be a real boost. compared, lately if you compare it to some tv stations we're not doing too badly. but anyway, it's available to us but the most important thing i think is education, to understand what nonaggression is, what the foreign policy ought to be and monetary policy ought to be and be able and learn how to couch this in terms of humanitarianism. there's a concern for people -- i think that is important.

because libertarians get painted as certain people and don't care and have no compassion and don't care about people. some don't but if you're a true libertarian, i don't even care. you're not hurting people. if you're in the business of spreading ideases, you better express concern for the people. i think when our views are presented that way, i often -- i have been baffled over the fact that we have a philosophy based on a moral principle of individual rights, nonazbregs and peace and prosperity and no war and why aren't we doing a lot better. how can anybody argue against us? it has to do with our ability to deliver this message. and that of course can be delivered so much better when you're familiar. that's why i was so pleased with all of our speakers today. i thought it was fantastic how they have been able to do it today.

[applause] in foreign policy, you heard me say on television and i got into trouble, of course, especially with the christian audiences and i'm a christian, i'm not painting everybody. i brought up this absolutely wild idea that you could consider the golden rule in our foreign policy. get people to think why should we ever do anything to another country that we wouldn't be very happy if they were doing to us? that's all i'm asking them to do. foreign policy becomes difficult there's a lot of bad people out there. the other reason why we should have an easy time selling our message of individual liberty is for my belief it's so positive.

we're talking about diversity and bringing people together and nonconflicts and the people aren't doing the right thing. we're going to force people to go here and go there and buy this and use this kind of language. you know, it's just -- you know it's so horrible on what's going on. but people know things are changing for the better. that is what i think we should do. on the issue of personal liberty, this is difficult for a lot of conservatives because conservatives want people to have certain lifestyles and be haf themselves and not read the wrong books and these other

things. yet, sometimes they want to tell you what you can smoke and drink and everything else. i try to explain that like the first amendment, first amendment is being challenged today but it was meant to be able to freely say controversial things and to criticize our government, that's what the first amendment should be all about i tell people, first amendment is not designed to talk about the weather. today you can be in trouble if certain words pop up in the internet in cooperation with the government. this is bad. but too often, conservatives and others will say that certain associations aren't permitted and we have to have government regulations for this. why should it be any different than in religion. there's a lot of different things in religion. if they are not forcing and using force and violence, let people have their own religion. we don't have a thee of course chrissy.

-- we don't have a theocracy. the founders don't like theocracy. if we can be more tolerant of that, we will be okay. then when it comes to private property so there's never any discrimination, people don't understand that freedom gives you a right to be a real creep. [applause] we shouldn't encourage it but how do you solve the problems of people who are real creeps. make sure you're not one and make sure you have an influence on your family and have an influence, maybe church or whatever. it's not the government's responsibility to mold us in certain directions. and the other thing in doing this is the left, where they may agree with us a little bit on foreign policy and i like that, they will -- you know, they will come and want to dictate all the particulars. they want to dictate how you use your property.

you know, on this immigration and my grants now coming in, it bothers me to no end that the president can wave a wand and say 10,000 immigrants, we created with our wars in syria, we're going to put them here and here and here. that's rather -- and give them $25,000 per family. that to me is just absurd. and i'm really pretty lenient and written -- did something last week on what we should do with immigration. i happen to believe -- i don't like fences. that doesn't sound libertarian to me. i don't like to round up people. but quit financing them. quit giving them enticing them. you step across the border and you have a baby they become a citizen. i delivered babies like this in

the emergency room and the doctor would send them immediately to the courthouse to get welfare and food stamps and living assistance. that is not just having an open door policy. i think people -- we should treat people as guests and be generous, there was times in our history when we had more people coming to work. it is indeed a mess. problem europeig , is a consequence of a foreign policy of a mess that we helped create in the middle east plus these planners who think this is a good idea, that we need to redo and remake europe. we've been trying to make -- i guess it's fair, we've been trying to remake the middle east for 20 years, maybe they think they are going to remake europe and send people up there.

but in this country, i think that if we follow those principles, nobody should be a threat to us. and they won't commit aggression and they can keep what they earn and encourage them to do it. and even if they are not as generous as you think they should be or go to the church you think they should be or use the same language, as long as they are not a threat to anybody -- they say, yeah, they might make a lot of money. if he does it honestly, who's he helping? he has to create jobs for this. a lot of people during the recent campaign, the people would ask, bernie sanders supporters the same as your supporters? some of them might be similar in age but -- and but some of them because they were just moving into politics and understanding this, there was some overlap but there shouldn't be once they

have this understanding. what i do tell -- when i lecture to college, i make it a big point that being wealthy is not a detriment. wealth if it's honestly earned and you didn't get it from the government, it wasn't a government monopoly or military industrial complex or you didn't get it because you had a high powered lobbiest that went and got the rules changed, that's different. but if you can produce a product that made you very wealthy because you made a good product and customers liked and price kept going down, most of them do that, the price goes down when they are producing a good product. you have to separate that too. you don't want to condemn wealth. you want to condemn government directed wealth where it just -- all it does is feeds on itself, more and more individuals participating in the process. but the system today, i think is

this system today, i think is on its last let. the monetary -- leg. the monetary system will end. they will be a calamity, it will come. there has to be an adjustment. we live in dangerous economic times. this bubble is so big and so distorted, just think, when interest rates are altered, it makes people do dumb things innomically, and i know human action, he wanted to downplay the people to modify 1%. he argued that 1% distortion of the money supply would create a powerful, and that is why what we have today is huge. we cannot sustain it. be whenking point to the world rejects the dollar because we have a free ride. we get to print the money and

get the people anything that they want. it is not china's fault, it is castro'sa's fault or halt, it is our policies at fault. when that time comes, and they reject our dollars because they do us a big favor. china is pretty friendly when it comes to what we need. so us your junk or whatever it peanutsy sell us for and we will pity this paper money to the tune of trillions of dollars and you buy our treasury bills and finance our whole system. it is out of control. blame the chinese, but i think the chinese are lightening up. i think other countries are lightening up and there are signs there are less purchases of the treasury deal and i think shove,en push comes to there will be a rush to the exit and that is unpredictable, so you may know that trend, but you do not know what is going to

precipitate it. we have these events that shaped things up, but i think there will be a loss of confidence, the dollar will be dethroned and something will replace it and hopefully we have a sense of something with real value, but one thing is for certain, we, as a country, have lived way beyond our means and we will be destined to live below are means. someone said, not for me, you will have to tell us who will have to sacrifice and i said, tell you what -- in my plan, nobody sacrifices anything. when diane going to do is get rid of the irs, federal reserve, and allow you to keep everything you have burned and get the government out of your hair and just so you behave yourself, do not commit fraud or steal from anybody and the bankruptcy will come and you just get back on your feet again and things will be all right harry who is going to lose? it is those people who lived off

the government, they are going to lose. [applause] it, but ifll deserve you gain your liberty that, you do not have to have a sacrifice for that. this idea of soldiers have lost their legs in a sacrifice, that was an interesting story that tears me up. walter williams or walter jones, who voted for the war, has felt terrible about it and he goes over there all the time and leads over that whole thing because he assumes a lot of guilt. i try to convince them that he limits on that because he was influenced mainly because he believed in allies of the government, and i said, it cannot punish yourself forever about this. you are doing a great job because he is a good voice and voter of doing this once again,

so it is so tragic. i just have a hard time with that. and then when they turn around and take those of us who believe this and say, well, you are un-american, unpatriotic, you do not care about the truth, the one thing that helped me about that, because i had to listen to the pundits and rented the debates, they always made me feel better when we got more support from the military personnel that all the other candidates put together. [laughter] [applause] now, i will tell one little short story because it is political and you have probably heard it. probably one of the first debates we were in, and the subject of blowback came up. that there isment a cause to blowback and then

there was this former mayor of new york -- [laughter] who decided he would challenge we went back and forth on it, but still, i still think the blowback issues is a big issue because we are told that we are over there protecting our constitution, protecting our security. so much lies, it is pitiful they can get away with that. actually, people believe that it is fighting for our freedom to go over there, but there was a quote and i believe it to get -- to be accurate, coming from bin laden after 9/11, and i think it happened after the quote was made and it have to do it why 9/11 occurred. the explanation was for three reasons. first, we had been bombing iraq for one decade, killing a lot of mentioned about all

the rights and 500,000 kids dying, the price you have to pay, that's what it ain't. we were doing that to the iraqi people and there was a religious element to it. we actually stationed military the arabian peninsula in saudi arabia, and that at foreign policy was designed to be detrimental to the palestinians. it upset them a bit, and they wanted to get our attention. if you do not even consider that and say, oh, no, we have to spread our goodness, are exceptionalism, you have to spread democracy and our way of -- theyen there might might be spreading our election activities here because i can list a few elections that have not been exactly honest in this country. there is every reason in the world that the information is the most important thing and this is one of the reasons why when daniel came to me and asked

about this organization, i say, yes, we should do this because we do have some momentum and we wanted to keep it going. when we started the planning, i said, both are skeptics that we were fearful and are conservative, and we say, what if nobody comes? [laughter] do you think we have to get to make a decent? he said, at least eight people. that is the room we have to get. 80 was in here and there we got two more rooms and ended up with 300 people, so there were a lot more of you out there, and the fact that you came as a great deal of encouragement to us. i thank you very much for the support you have given us today. plus, the institute over the years and we can always feel good about your encouragement and thank you very much for being here today. [applause]

>> we are going to try to do couple of quick questions. i ask people to make it an actual question, very quickly stated so we can get to a couple. we really do have to go and i would like to say final words. just a couple of quick questions. to a. -- thank you. you can turn the microphone on. >> hello?

much.you very have two quick questions. one, since you saw no one over 30 here, is there a social media group we cannot keep in touch? i do not want to leave here and not talk to anybody anymore, so can we create that? ron paul: i will that daniel talk about that. daniel: i will talk about that in closing. >> my on personal standpoint, what motivates you when the chips are down? daniel mcadams was talking about you get upset from the lobbyist, but what keeps you going? ron paul: people like you. [laughter] [applause] ron paul: i am very interested in the ideas and i'm grateful i have been able to participate in the debate. i'm grateful for my life, my family life, practice medicine,

delivered a lot of babies and i can still produce a paint in this dialogue because i enjoy it and i think it is important, so i get a sense of satisfaction. it is a selfish reason because i feel good about it. especially when we meet people like you. [applause] i was wondering if you believe the creation of the federal reserve was done for malicious purposes or just through stated central planning gone awry? ron paul: i think it was very malicious. [applause] i think it was designed to benefit the wealthy. it was not a grassroots organization that came together over facebook. it was done by the bankers, and secrecy, done to put more power into the banks, it was done to put more power into the government. i mean, this whole idea of government control of her money has been around for a long time.

it changes the way they do it. it is very powerful. that is why we get so much resistance. , you know, norm singleton as she would campaign for liberty and they have done a great job over the years on the fed deal. transparency. i think they are up to no good. economically, we do not need it. that does not mean there are some people who may be in academia for others who might just say, well, it is necessary. you just want anarchy, money, but you have to have smart people running the monetary system. i think i cited the argument to become much clearer when this all evolves, just like the collapse of the soviet system was clear that communism was not a good system. [applause]

approachedy, i was by a public school teacher about some of the things going on with common core, and she was saying 9/11 is now called patriots' day and now they have -- they just have our kids in their hands for so long. how much liberty influence do you think we need to put out there in front of children so ab toan actually get an compare? doing?ould we be i know you do not like answering questions like that. ron paul: i think it is pretty important and you mentioned the responsibility. you when your children to have different views from the get from the public school, you have the responsibility for the education of your children. it is a shame we have turned it

over to the government, so the least amount of time we spend in government schools, and i spent 12 years in government schools, so it was a battle for me to unlearn the things i had been taught, whether history economics. my understanding of the world today came in spite of my education. parents have a lot of responsibility, so looking at homeschooling, either as a complete source -- [applause] or as sometimes the parents will mix their own homeschooling courses of public school and sometimes they were go look at ron paul curriculum. [applause] [laughter] one of the things is that the rotc programs apparently are teaching them to be pilots, which normally would be a really finding moreut recruits for the drone program,

be goodtially, it would if everybody in here kind of had some kind of plan to talk to young person in their life. i know i worked with and a kid i teach them some principle of liberty, whether nonaggression or is it the golden role reaffirmed, trying to apply that and say what you are not allowed to do to another person. ron paul: you are looking at one of the symptoms of foreign policy that is wrong and where too much around the world and we are supposed to be doing this and we are exceptional and not be doing this, therefore we have to build battleships, but i think you have to change the understanding of what the responsibility is in the world. i would like to have a lot of influence in the world if he were a country that believed it to civil liberties, the true free market, sound money and peace. then if we follow that and become a great, powerful rich nation, powerful and the sense of prosperity.

we went to spread our goodness through others doing it voluntarily and not by force, so as long as there is going to be this endorsement that we have to have troops in europe or the middle east or every place to make them know what democratic election that all about, they have to find out what the cia election is all about. [laughter] [applause] dr. paul, it is my honor to be one of the many people involved in new 2012 campaign. by reputation, you do not really like to press people for money, so i wanted to encourage you to get all these people to take these, list them up, the amount, do it right now and not later because we need more money for this great guy and his great work. [laughter] [applause] ron paul: thank you. dr. paul, thank you for continuing to do things like

this. i'm glad it did not go away when you dropped out of the last presidential election and you are still doing your podcast for i amoutube channel and glad to be here and continued to dissipate in this. my question is, how do you think that americans can be made to be more antiwar now that wars are becoming more indirect? now that it is -- rather than putting boots on the ground, we are financing mercenary groups or we are flying drones? now that the main objection to war is that it is affecting their own? think our people are antiwar. i do not think that is the biggest problem. the warest problem is propaganda, because whether it was before iraq and what happened in syria, people

speaking out got them to give up on bombing assad, so i think all people are actually in favor of peace and prosperity, how can they be against it? i remembers is -- listening to that propaganda, the first persian gulf war and iraq war -- the propaganda, it is the government at fault. the character and quality of people who run our government. that is like the smaller the government, the less problem, but they do have to come around to accepting the ideas that a different foreign-policy, in no, should be important, but i think people have a natural instinct for peace but i think the universities justify too often -- they justify the economic policies. the professors do that. it is the universities giving us some of this pc stuff. how many universities doing no

that really have principle professors who are arguing the case for non-entangling alliances, and how often do they get exposed to colonel wilkerson and about what the founders really intended? i think it is changing the war propaganda machine. i think the american people are inclined to peace and would be very open to it. we were able to stop the ground invasion of syria, that we are still financing terroristic groups of it there. how do we stop doing that? completedwe have not the job because the propaganda has to continue and that is part of what we are trying to do, educate people to make sure that the people sort it out on voting for this, but the machine, the f 35,system, a tick the built in 50 different states, essentially.

condition -- i cannot do you any good if i am not in congress, so i will vote for the best-35 or these weapons that do not work, so it is that. job, but it is also a reflection of a philosophy. if he did not have the philosophy of policing the world, we would have less of that. we do not have a whole lot of that, unfortunately. [applause] it is a great honor for me to be here, dr. paul. quick question. is it politically incorrect for the wrong -- the ron paul institute to touch on the not theity that it was saudis who did 9/11, or maybe it was them in conjunction?

ron paul -- it was them in conjunction? ron paul: on some of those issues, i am suspect. these commissions are usually there to hide the truth. now, a little more truth is coming out. i mention the fact that osama bin laden was willing to say it had to do it israel and the palestinians as one of the justifications, but personally, i cannot go into a court and tovent -- present evidence show that the mossad was the instrument and only instrument. i think it there is probably a little bit more complex. >> what about the evidence that is still coming out that there were interior demolition devices installed in the towers? paul: i have for it all of that, building seven going down, it she raised a lot of questions. that is what i am always very

skeptical of any government .ropaganda it is too bad we will not be able to get every answer to that right now, but i think people should think about it and talk about it and look at evidence we can get. [applause] >> dr. paul, thank you for everything you have done and i'm working on a big deal project right now and the question is, what makes you excited about liberty and what makes you excited about liberty currently? ron paul: i did not hear the real question. >> what makes you excited about liberty? ron paul: [laughter] well, i detest slavery. [laughter] [applause] >> dr. paul, first of all, wow.

thank you. my question is about the gold standard. the u.s. dollar is either in a small way or largely correlated to the value of gold. that are other nations hold large reserves of gold and it would appear that they have some form of control with supply and demand and that is the price of gold. how could be given to you insurance against whether or not the country wants to use that kind of leverage maliciously? well, you said something about the currency being related to gold. i would go back to my question is gold money and he said, no and my answer is yes, so if gold is money, people use it. it would be forced to change our way of living and we would have to adjust our currency ratio to

gold and hopefully it would be a -- a comfortable if we are going to use paper currency and that is not going to work just by doing that they will not quit the wars, the debt, all those things. good place to look for how you go from where we are to another is after the civil war in 1875, when the past the restoration act, that -- that at the year. with drawbacks, but they were not doing the runaway welfare state and the actually shocked the monetary supply and promised to pay it $20 an ounce. when it happened, it was a nonevent, but today, are they going to do the same thing? no, governments are not trustworthy enough, so a couple of things have happened since

1933, the fed was bad. it was horrible because they took the gold, and 1971, it was the pseudo-gold standard, where the dollar was connected to gold internationally and in that class, we cannot do that anymore , but the next step allow do some opportunities to compensate for governments that were rather sluggish, not change for a while and that happened in 1975, but can you imagine after all those years, people finally got the right to own gold again. that means that there is a way people can protect, but what i worry about in that system is governments are ruthless. took the roosevelt gold, that $20 an ounce, and then turned it into $35 an ounce. -- murray'sndard

aptness on it as a gold coin standard, where you have coinage to convert your paper into a gold coin and banks have to be there. that restrains the government, the welfare state, it facilitates by the power to create money, so we have to keep talking about that, the isnsition -- because it complex, all i want to do is legalized the competition and get rid of all those tender laws and make -- [applause] and this would also -- this would also mean the cannot tax money. gold, say this group gets involved in exchanging gold, while it gold is $1300 an ounce and goes up to $1400 an ounce, the government wants to charge you. the $100 value went up, and if you go buy coins, they charge you sales tax.

get rid of the legal tender laws and let us do what we want. if you go back to work again, there would be an inflow of gold because prices would have to come down. [applause] i am really sorry. we will have to cut it off now. you have been waiting patiently but we do have to leave at 3:00 and it is well after that. i just wanted to make a couple of closing comments. first, thank you for coming out to this conference. it is wonderful to see all of you and it is moving that you are interested in what we are doing. i went to thank the speakers that gave us terrific things to think about, so thank you. [applause] also, the supporters and made it possible. we have our host committee and many other supporters to make this possible. we run a lean machine and get a buck. bang for our

one of the gentlemen pointed out that we had known her cards on the table. if you could fill those out, there is a basket over the t-shirt sales and if you feel like making a donation now, there are envelopes. we rely on you to keep going, so we certainly thank you for your support. if you think we should do this again, maybe we will do it next year if all of you want to do it. [applause] case, in that case, we better say this is not the end of the conference may be the beginning of the movement. [applause] let's think about that. towill dedicate ourselves keeping in touch with you, reaching out with you. we will create a facebook page and i have all of the e-mails for signing up online. i will send you an e-mail, invite you to join and we can build a community from here, exchange ideas, exchange practices are not to get things done and we can actually do

something that we did not enjoy and do last saturday but start something. i will be in touch and keep in touch, and i hope you will do the same with me. online or e-mail me anytime you would like. thank you so much for coming. [applause] [indiscernible chattering] [cheering] >> the c-span radio app makes it

easy to follow the 2016 election. it is free to download from the apple store or google play. get up today coverage for c-span television and radio and podcast times for a popular public affairs and history program. stay up-to-date on on all the election coverage. c-span's radio app as you always have c-span on the go. this was not in nationalist -- the smithsonian national museum of african american culture opens its doors for the first time on saturday, september 24, and c-span will be live, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern for the out door dedication ceremony teacher and president obama, lonnie bunch, michelle obama, george w. bush and mrs. laura bush. u.s. supreme court chief justice john roberts, congressman john lewis and david scorn. watch the opening ceremony for

the smithsonian national resume of napa can american history -- of african american history on c-span, the c-span radio app and www.c-span.org. how the congressional race in santa barbara california became one of the most expensive in the ofntry, the reporting politics for the l.a. times. thanks for being with us. >> thank you for having me. this is an open seat democratic representative. p is retiring in the congressional district. tell us about the candidates. is the supervisor in santa barbara county and was chief of staff before that and is making his way up through the local santa barbara politics at 20 years now. of nancye backing pelosi and pretty much the whole democratic establishment.