Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 13 3 15 transcript CPAC Hot Issues

13 3 15 transcript CPAC Hot Issues

13 3 15 transcript CPAC Hot Issues

Page 1: 13 3 15 transcript CPAC Hot Issues

Category:Panel Transcripts

Number of Pages:28

Date Created:April 8, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 08, 2014

Tags:Marco Rubio, Joe Biden, George Bush, Voter ID, Susan Rice, Amnesty, DHS, Benghazi, Obama, White House, Supreme Court, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 
TOM FITTON:  Were happy able sponsor this panel talk about some hot issues that have been talked about elsewhere CPAC, but thought wed put our special spin it.  And these are leaders the issues were going talk about that think will serve the audience well terms educating them about whats going here Washington and some issues that need thinking about and way that typically dont hear from the mainstream mass  mass  the mainstream press from other alleged leaders the establishment here Washington, D.C., either party. 
Im joined here experts experts the rule law, experts immigration, experts voter integrity, experts new media, experts public corruption.  And these, me, are cutting-edge issues that provide way forward for conservatives communicate more effectively and more persuasively with the American people. Im happy announce  and what were going everyone one will  all our guests will come and talk for little bit, then well talk amongst ourselves, and then well open the floor questions.   
Joining us, the far left, Joel Pollak, who the editor-in-chief  didnt realize youre editor-in-chief, Joel.  You talked too much editor-in-chief  And one the cutting-edge new media properties out there that providing much new information the American people that the media traditionally isnt providing them.   
Also joining Mark Krikorian.  Mark the executive director the Center for Immigration Studies and one the citys leading experts the issue immigration law and policy.   
Were also honored joined Christian Adams, whos founder the Election Law Center, former attorney with U.S. Department Justice, who is, again, one the warriors and leaders the issue election integrity and activities the Department Justice.   
And were also lucky have here Ilya Shapiro, who senior fellow constitutional studies the Cato Institute.  And you want know how approach big government, you should talking the Cato Institute.  And when youre concerned about the imperial presidency and limited and constitutional government, Ilya the person that issue.   
And with that, will begin with Ilya Shapiro the Cato Institute.  (Applause.)     
ILYA SHAPIRO:  Well, thanks, Tom.  Thanks Judicial Watch for inviting join this august panel.  You know, might too simplistic thinking these things.  You know, unlike all you, went school Canada, and you know, when 
read the Constitution for the first time and, you know, own, because was little weird that way, thought that actually meant what said.  And dont mean about the finer points the Commerce Clause things like this, but just basic separation powers and checks and balances, and federalism, very, very basic roadmap, guideline for government that our founding document set out.  And yet, here have the president the United States saying things like, well, Congress wont let this, then Ill own, the president can just assume all the powers for himself.  And you have legislators saying, well, dont care about whether this particular bill constitutional not.  Well let the court sort that out, they dont swear oath uphold the Constitution. mean, one the few things that wholeheartedly agree with, erstwhile Delaware Senate candidate Christine ODonnell won, that definitely congressmen and senators need think about the constitutional aspects what theyre voting before they vote it.  Thats very important thing.  You read the congressional record, the 19th century, anytime before the New Deal really, and its devoted almost exclusively discussions whether particular proposal constitutional not.   
Grover Cleveland vetoed the appropriation $10,000 seeds farmers, 1889, Texas, suffering from terrible drought, saying see warrant the Constitution for such provision.   
Can you imagine something like that happening now?  You know, spent lot time following the Supreme Court and looking the administrations machinations from the Department Justice.  Just last year alone, last term alone, you had least three cases that the Supreme Court decided unanimously against the position the Department Justice, even  and thats even before talk about the Arizona immigration law the ObamaCare rulings, which are more complex, but also had interesting messages for some the unprecedented arguments that the administration was taking areas law ranging from religious liberty criminal procedure, property rights, mean, all over the board.  Were not talking about some sort libertarian pet issue.   
The administration suffered huge defeats, took positions that not even its own nominees would validate, ranging from position the Hosanna-Tabor case their definition someone who gets exemption, ministerial exemption from labor laws.  Effectively the pope would not qualify for that exemption because spends lot his time management and administration the church the Vatican, not just preaching. case where  you know, the GPS surveillance case, you know, you get your civil liberties implicated there and the court split differing theories how the federal law enforcement agencies aired there, but clearly they were violating peoples individual rights, not  live some sort police state, where police can act without warrants and whatever they want.  And the property rights case, where the federal government argued that homeowners dont even get day court challenge out control EPA determinations regarding what they can build their property, not even the 
merits the matter, whether their property wetland not, but dont even get their day court.  And again, unanimously, the court ruled against that. that Arizona immigration case, you know, most  you know  Mark and can debate this. disagree with most 1070 and other state-based enforcement actions the merits, but theyre almost exclusively constitutional.  Indeed, most 1070 has been effect since  for almost three years.  And only four provisions even made the Supreme Court, three them that court ultimately enjoined.  And the most controversial one survived.  Thats the show your papers please provision.   
And the administrations argument was that, well, local and state law enforcement keeps sending these requests for verifying whether these people are the country legally, that burden our enforcement priorities and shifts our budgetary resources way that dont want.  Well, thats nice, but thats argument for what lawyers would call preemption executive whim.  Tomorrow you could have different policy different DHS secretary, different president, and all sudden, that state law longer preempted because the policy priorities are different.  That not the way you make law.  And again, that argument lost, believe, was seven two the Supreme Court.   
And its not just the Supreme Court.  You know, all are focused our smokes tax and what daily, but whether youre talking about labor law and appointing people the NLRB, when there arent actually recesses, you know, that the D.C. Circuit had  they went farther than they even needed to, decide that case and showing how presidents for long time have been abusing the recess appointment power.  And the Supreme Court will take this up, Im sure, but this affects hundreds upon hundreds rulings the NLRB, well  the National Labor Relations Board, well important agencies that are themselves problematic constitutionally that were created the Dodd-Frank financial reform.  And the administration, essentially, says well, thats just one case, doesnt affect anything else, which jeopardizes years and years work this board. its important put certain types labor policies and decisions into the public discourse, then its important have them legal, rather than overturned the Supreme Court several years hence.  But this sort contempt for the rule law  its mindboggling and say contempt, not just the kind lay term trying hyperbolic. district court actually found the federal government contempt court for imposing moratoria drilling the wake  the Gulf Coast, the wake the Deepwater Horizon accident.  Again, not because they werent justified doing it, but simply because they would not through any sorts procedures, what fault  what set out the law about how regulatory agencies and cabinet departments are supposed act when they want something.   
And here again and again, the Interior Department came into court and said and did things that were, well  you know, its high bar for court find especially government contempt, but thats what happened. mean, can and on.  From the highest profile ObamaCare health care waivers and, you know, giving waivers Nancy Pelosis district, but not, you know, the State Indiana, businesses that are politically connected, versus ones that arent, the bailout Chrysler, you know taking the unconstitutional actions the George Bush Treasury Department bailout auto industries and squiring them effectively, subverting bankruptcy law and private property rights secured creditors altogether the point where the Supreme Court was left vacate the lower court judgments, theres luckily  unfortunately, precedent the books, but was too far along reverse that point.   
You name area policy and guarantee you, have interacted with colleagues that work that because there are serious constitutional defects how this administration, you know, not exempt previous administrations all, but the focus our talk here this administration and how they about, whether its how they treat legislation and write legislation executive actions that are taken, its  said, its mindboggling.  And really, you know  especially with the president  there was constitutional law professor alma mater, the University Chicago. knows better. mean, this not about not knowing.  Its matter not caring.   
You know, Nancy Pelosis statements are you serious about your constitutional qualms with the health care reform, constitutional arguments are the last refuge the scoundrel that doesnt have any good policy arguments make political pressure bear.   
This the attitude that you get from, said, across whole swath policy areas and even things that might agree with, the end the day, the merits, where promulgated properly, pursuant the standard rulemaking procedures the Administrative Procedure Act, you know, how bill becomes law with Schoolhouse Rock, right, goes through the house Congress and signed the president, all those sorts things.  Those are important. Justice Kennedy  Ill conclude with this  Justice Kennedy wrote for unanimous court another case, two years ago, these structural provisions the Constitution, federalism and otherwise, arent there dry exercise applied political theory show how smart  how much James Madison learned other alma mater, Princeton.  These are ultimately there protect and secure our rights, protect our liberties.  And flaunt them, show contempt for them, then all bets are off.  And you just have the rule man rather than the rule law.  Thanks.   
MR. FITTON:  Im just bill, lonely old bill.  You know, the presidents advisors anonymously told Washington Post recently the follow referencing these executive actions and these cant  we cant wait campaign, which was way for Congress pass law while were going use the powers the executive, however controversial and unconstitutional, view, affect policy change.  And the advisor told the Washington Post, shortly after the election, this will the new normal.  This going the new normal. Ilya said, its  the issues are myriad terms the  what the administration into terms its imperial presidency and proceedings, but dont think its going stop. think its going increase, certainly given the divisions Washington today. had  were very lucky have our next guest, Christian Adams here.  There was major development this week that really calls into question, needed any further questioning, the stewardship Eric Holder and his  over his Justice Department our Justice Department, and specifically that Mr. Tom Perez, who leads the Civil Rights Division the Justice Department, being bandied about the potential nominee for the Labor Department.  But this about serious issue for the rule law and out-of-control government bureaucracy, well see, and not only has touched the operations government, but touches our elections, touches our civil rights, and touches the U.S. Constitution.  And Christian has been leader highlighting these issues for Americans and for the media and for the public  (audio break)  have him here today. Christian Adams the Election Law Center.  (Applause.) CHRISTIAN ADAMS:  Thank you very much, Tom. will endeavor throw out some red meat for all you left-leaning reporters who showed up, you have some copy write.   
Most you are familiar with areas erosion the Constitution: health care, First Amendment, political speech, but Im going talk today about area erosion that think even more significant than the ones that youre familiar with and area that you may have never heard before.  And Im little biased because its specialty, involves elections, but would submit that this area that affects all the others. the electoral process skews unconstitutional direction and that done deliberately, the way, its not accident, skews that direction, all the other things you care about also skew time. labor your issue environment your issue health care liberty your issue, election should your issue.  And this isnt just saying this.  This what the Left says themselves.   
There was meeting convened January.  You can read about Mother Jones, yesterday still published.  And this meeting, they recognized the control the electoral process, the things Im going talk about today, one the three most important agenda items for the Left.  And what the Republican, the GOP, the conservative response?  Ignorance.  They are not aware that this even happening.  And its extremely dangerous for liberty.   
Let start with basic constitutional premise.  State control over elections important safeguard liberty.  State control over the running and administration elections was deliberate decision 1787 diffuse power.  The founders knew that 
centralized control usually leads bad things and elections were different. the founders decided diffuse power the states determine how people are elected, what the rules the game are, you need voter ID, when are the office hours open, all these things were given the states for the purpose preserving liberty.   
But bad things are happening.  One the agenda items the Left, expressly, you listen them, erode this diffusion power the states and push the power over elections Washington, D.C.  And that has been the empirical outcome this agenda over the last years and has genuine ramifications for all the other policy issues that you care about. the Left busy eroding the Constitution ways see all the time, but ones paying attention what theyre doing with elections.  And would submit that that eventually shows policy ramifications. Franken good example.  Hans Von Spakovsky and John Fund wrote book about the electoral process the Minnesota Senate race.  And wont bore you with all the legal details and the battle between the Left and the Right over ballots and military ballots, all parliamentarian crazy, boring stuff, but the end, election process issues gave Franken that Senate seat and the 60th vote for ObamaCare. dont tell that these election administration issues dont show policy issues.   
The troubling thing the Republicans, theyre even aware this happening  theyre even aware this happening, they dont want engage the fight because the Left has tactic branding most these changes, these erosions state control civil rights, OK?   
Now, civil rights are very important. brought lots cases protect racial minorities around the country.  Redistricting cases under Section the Voting Rights Act one example.  But the Left using civil rights way, the best case scenario for us, scare off opposition, and the worst case scenario bring Republicans their side.   
The reauthorization the Voting Rights Act, 2006, great example this, where Section the Voting Rights Act, which moves control over state elections Washington states, was passed with unanimous Republican leadership support, particular, the chairman the Judiciary Committee, and the marching orders from the chairman were give the NAACP whatever they want.  And yesterday, this former chairman told Salon that will make sure that the Supreme Court strikes down the Voting Rights Act Shelby Holder that will make sure he will make Republicans reauthorize Congress.  the point that civil rights used way push this agenda.  Now, Ilya, always love  always love, Ilya, hearing folks from Cato, love your events. agree with almost everything, but its always pleasant hear because wish that 
faced such optimistic prospects because would submit that are entering time where were longer debating whether something constitutional, but were debating whether certain provisions the Constitution are completely obsolete.  And book  and the way, Mark Levin calls post-constitutional age.  This not Christian Adamss idea. book Injustice, theres great example this, picture  wont read you, will try sort show you least describe it.   
Two weeks ago, Joe Biden went Soma, Alabama.  And marched whats called Jubilee Weekend.  Its recreation the crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge.  Its touchstone event the civil rights movement and was great and honorable event 1965, when those civil rights protesters were attacked the Alabama Highway Patrol.  And John Lewis was there, believe, and Martin Luther King eventually came Selma.  And its watershed moment civil rights history.  And there the foot the Edmund Pettus Bridge the National Voting Rights Museum that President Obama visited before became president, that Vice President Biden went to, two weeks ago, Selma.  And inside that museum, theres photograph.  And have picture book Injustice.  You wont able see this, but bet youll remember what Im talking about.  Its John Trumbull painting the signing the Declaration Independence that guarantee every single one you have seen, where theyre all standing around and theyre signing the Declaration.  And the premier voting rights museum the United States, this photo hangs with caption that Im going read you: 1776, the Declaration Independence signed wealthy white men. 
Now, will submit you that this caption symptom this post-constitutional view the Constitution, that becoming obsolete for the progressive Left.  They dont like the fact that states have control over elections.  And were entering dangerous time, where the basic guarantees the Constitution are not vogue among the young Left, particularly the young Left media.  Its obsolete.   
When you talk as Ilya said  talking about the Constitution quaint little obsession.   
Tom Perez, let  let shift gears for moment because sort embodies this.  Tom Perez currently the assistant attorney general civil rights. presided over Justice Department the assistant attorney general for civil rights. the voting section where used work, where attorneys hang photos and posters President Obama.  This photos from inside the voting section the Justice Department from book.  Perez waged war against states like South Carolina for voter ID, even though his attorneys the voting section said should approved, Perez overruled them and objected South Carolina voter ID, under Section the voting Rights Act, blocking it. did the same thing Texas.  The attacked the Arizona immigration. stopped Georgia  his Justice Department stopped Georgia from verifying citizenship verification register vote. attacked Florida under the Voting Rights Act, when they attempted remove non-citizens from the rolls. you have assistant attorney general who represents the flexing muscle the federal government over state 
elections way that assistant attorney general ever has.  And more importantly, perhaps, the Inspector Generals report came out this week. could talk for days about whats this report, but know that theres other speakers.   
But Ill leave you with this.  There level rancid racialism documented this report, which you can get Media, which you can get all over the place and actually read it, not like the Huffington Post and Slate and Mother Jones and the American Prospect have done, which talk about small little portions, but actually read the evidence the report, and you will see blatant, open, notorious hostility toward race neutral enforcement the law.   
You will see racial slurs used Justice Department voting section employees, the same ones who blocked Texas voter ID, might add, calling southerners bigots, Republicans idiots, all these racial terms using words wont even repeat here because will taken out context, that the left wing liberal lawyers and staff the Justice Department are using routinely.  Theyre attacking people who want enforce the law equally, like the Black Panther case.   
Its absurd that group seven Justice Department top political officials for the Obama administration, April 2009, were meeting with the Attorney General the United States Eric Holder his office, discussing how get rid this lowly civil servant, Christopher Coates, who was the voting section chief.  And what was the reason for this grand meeting the top Justice Department talent? was because Christopher Coates was willing use civil rights laws protect all Americans, like new Black Panther case.  Its astounding stuff. confirms everything testified about, about this hostility toward race neutral enforcement. you nothing else, please find time scan some this.  Ive written about Media.  You can read some excerpts from it.  But some you know that are here, keep finding stuff every day that havent seen the report.  Theres amazing stuff about how elections are being managed the federal government.   
So, with that, thank you very much for your time and attention.  (Applause.) 
MR. FITTON:  The headline  you said, theres lots headlines, but Eric Holder testified Congress this effect.  Mr. Perez also testified the United States Commission Civil Rights that there were political appointees involved the decision drop this Black Panthers case.   
And for those you who need context, this was case where members the New Black Panther Party, sent there their national organization were outside Philadelphia polling place.  One them had baton trouncing weapon, and were intimidating voters the most, obviously, outrageous way, and was YouTube and everywhere for everyone see.  And the Justice Department under the Obama administration shut down legal proceedings large measure against the defendants that civil matter.   
And this OIG report confirms that both  for the first time, Christian, correct Im wrong, that Eric Holder personally was involved this decision making shut this case down. would not have known that but for this OIG report. was involved the meetings. understood and approved the decision.  And not only that  understood was going controversial.  And weve been told big lie the Justice Department that Eric Holder had nothing with it.   
And, also, Mr. Perez told the commission that there were political appointees involved and the OIG concludes otherwise. seems there are least two officials the Department Justice that longer should the Department Justice there was any sense justice and rule law this town.   
Our next topic immigration.  Talk about the imperial presidency.  This administration has told that they were going implement amnesty, practically speaking, for people who, quote, havent committed serious crimes, unquote.   
But weve known Judicial Watch thats lie. saw that use when they were releasing people with serious crimes their record.  But now, everyone the country knows its lie, because the very people they said were serious enough terms being threats the public safety and requiring their deportation that were being detained currently the Immigration Customs Enforcement agencies, were released large numbers earlier this month last month, over 2,000.  These are the people said  was promising deport and theyre not going deported.  Theres been massive jail break, speak, initiated this administration, not only make point about sequester but also put pressure Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform.   
And recall Senator Jon Kyl, who really hasnt been disputed any great effect  may paraphrasing.  Im going memory here, but President Obama told Jon Kyl, Im not going secure the border until get comprehensive immigration reform.  Thats his check.   
And cant think more dangerous and cynical approach the rule law and his oath office than the presidents advocacy for dangerous illegal aliens and allowing them remain here and the failure secure the borders.  And, you know, think can all disagree what need with the tens millions illegal aliens currently here.   
But, you know, following the law the meantime  dont think ought controversial statement.  And can always debate the future.  But the current crisis one that think, you believe comprehensive immigration reform amnesty, youre immigration restrictionist and rule law person, you want able point the law, and say, this being enforced either way.  And seems me, honestly requires everyone promote that and thats not being done this town.  And the lack 
Republican outrage the presidents soft amnesty over the last two years tells you that maybe they support well and they need similarly held account. before take away all Mark Krikorians thunder  you know, Mark  Mark one those individuals, when youre talking about immigration reform, ought the table.  And Mark and his folks the Center for Immigration Studies provide tremendous data the immigration issue; know more about the law than guarantee anyone rewriting right now over the Senate.   
And need listen what the Center for Immigration Studies has say not because their point view, but because they know what theyre talking about.  They know the facts.  They know what the law is.  They know where the problems are.  And there way forward the immigration debate, but its only you have folks like Mark the table.  And long folks like Mark are ignored, its going nowhere, view, and rightly so. with that, you know, introduction, Im proud have our panel here, present you, Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies. 
MARK KRIKORIAN:  And appreciate Judicial Watch offering this opportunity have minor, little dissent from yesterdays infomercial the big ballroom for amnesty.   
The thing wanted talk about today not the substance immigration policy.  Thats important decision.  Thats what they purported talk about yesterday.  Rather the question here is: even really have immigration statute? have immigration law not?  And what were seeing with this administration is, Ilya said, essentially lawlessness immigration, government executive fiat.  Now, theres other areas outside immigration where this happening, Ilya mentioned.  Thats not bailiwick, but its very clear immigration.   
And the problem would submit not much that the administration violating the Constitution, with capital  Thats obviously bad.  The problem here that theres 100-year-old progressive point view that constitutionalism what they reject, the very concept written law, starting with Americas worst president, Woodrow Wilson has been problem for the left, has been essentially fundamentally rejected the left.  And this why you see this constant sort fighting against the constraints written law, whatever the nature that law happens be.   
Just along those lines, read the  think yesterday that the president has food taster. had idea, but has food taster.  And was wondering what other attributes of, you know, imperial government, other than, you know, rule decree and food taster the president has, maybe chamberlain cup holder. know theres not eunuchs, because theyre running the House Republican Party.  (Laughter.)   
But like Ilya said, this isnt about the substance policy, although can talk about forever. fact, have whole book that, which Amazon the digital remainder bin.  Its called The New Case against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal.  But Im not going make that point because, like said, you can buy the book discount Amazon.   
What want talk about the track record this administration simply  working ignore the constrains law with regard immigration.  And Im really kind disappointed that even the Democrats Congress have not been objecting.  Well, heck, the Republicans havent been objecting very much why should expect the Democrats object.  But, mean, this the kind thing that, quite frankly, you know, equal branch government should zealously defending its prerogatives.  And theyre just apparently not that interested.  For the Democrats, its because the end justifies the means. other words, however they get what they want, its the law flouted.  And for the Republicans, theyre just basically cowed because this issue that relates racial and ethnic issues, and theyre just  theyre afraid talk about it.  Let give you some examples. 
The shorthand for policy called DACA.  Its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  This the administrative version the DREAM Act.  Its kind facto DREAM Act.  What that means legalizing illegal immigrants who came here kids.   
Now, Ive actually written for years that some version something like that good idea policy, but Congress hasnt passed yet.  The president was pressed early last year, think even late the year before these DREAM Act activists about unilaterally legalize them least defer their deportation, give them kind pass.   
The president said repeatedly, look, this government laws, not men. dont have those kind rules.  Well, like most things the president said, came with expiration date.  And what happened was that the White House political staff looked  the middle last year, earlier than that, and saw that the level Hispanic voter registration actually was lower than was before the previous election.  There were actually fewer Hispanic registered voters early last year than there were before the previous election and they panicked.  And they said, look, law shmaw, need win this election.   
And what the president did issue decree, case they called tsarist Russia, that the people who would have qualified for the DREAM Act, actually existed, were going given whats called deferred action.  And this was  they stressed this isnt really legalization.  Its just temporary deferral and that sort thing.  Complete hokum.  They get work card.  They get Social Security account.  Almost everywhere theyre going get drivers licenses.  Theyre legalized permanently.  Everybody knows it.  Its never going taken away.  This the president his own amnestied people that Congress didnt amnesty.  Thats what amounts to. far, forget what the latest numbers are, but the last ones Id seen were more than 400,000 illegal immigrants had applied, 200,000 plus had been approved, and zero 
had been rejected.  Not one person had been actually turned down.  Some applications had been sent back because the check wasnt there didnt fill out the right boxes, but one yet had gotten letter saying, you know, sorry.  No.  You dont qualify. earlier example along the same lines  there were number memos from the Homeland Security Department.  Theyre called prosecutorial discretion memos.  And prosecutorial discretion just sort fancy way saying that what cops and DAs every day  fact, any you every day your life have decide prioritize things.  You use your discretion.  OK. going have bagel going have banana today?  You know, these kind  this just common sense. cop stops you because youre speeding, and youre only going few miles hour over the speed limit and youre harried and the kids crying the back, its his discretion.  Hes going write you ticket hes going say, you know, slow down, man, next time.  Ill let you this time.  Thats prosecutorial discretion.   
What the administration has done set essentially program under the pretext prosecutorial discretion saying that one who fits these various descriptions going deported.  Basically, you  they are  again, theyre factor amnestying these people.  Its not quite the same quality amnesty these DACA amnesty because you dont get work card for it, but you  the government, you know, can have you custody and let you go, because even though youre illegal alien, were not going bother with you.   
And, again, not individual basis  that happens all the time and its appropriate. know retired ICE agent INS agent that point, and was called NYPD office New York, obviously.  They had illegal immigrant witness who had seen something knew something about some high-up bad guy.  And the cop said, look.  Youve got give this name were going call INS here and hand you over them.  And the guy  and so, yeah, yeah, sure you are.  And then the INS agent came, and said, here is.  You know, the clock ticking.  And said, OK, OK, Ill tell you the name.  And they said, well, gave  you know, gave his guy so, you know, dont need you anymore. left.  Thats prosecutorial discretion.   
When memos come from headquarters say entire categories people are exempt from immigration enforcement, thats not prosecutorial discretion.  That lawlessness and thats what this administration has been doing.   
And that even just  was follow-on from something very early this administration.  There was memo that was leaked political appointee, immigration lawyer, who said, look, Congress doesnt give amnesty, heres whole menu things can with executive action come with our own amnesty.  And this the mindset they came into office with.   
And Ilya had mentioned the Arizona case. wont into that.  But, again, regardless the merits, the administrations contention was not that Congress has 
prohibited states from doing these specific things. immigration, Congress can prohibit the states from doing anything wants.  Preemption its called.  And thats area Congress can anything wants.  Congress has not preempted states from acting immigration. some areas has, some hasnt.  But Congress explicitly has provided means for states participate and assist the enforcement immigration law.   
What the administration said is, our priorities are such that our priorities preempt states from doing things dont want to.  Again, this kind combining the legislative and executive function the person the president way thats far more reminiscent the Byzantine Empire than our own constitution.   
And the  sort the most far-reaching example this usurpation immigration law the  all these things put together suggest the administrations goal turning  violations immigration law into what called secondary offense. most states, youre not wearing your seatbelt, you cant pulled over for that.  Some states think you can, but most places whats called secondary offense that the cop, the trooper can pull you over youre speeding, you dont have  your left light burned out, whatever is, and then seeing you dont have seatbelt, can then write you ticket for that.  But cant say, look, that guy has seatbelt.  Im going pull him over, because seatbelt laws are secondary offenses most places.   
This administration is, without the statute actually saying much, turning immigration law into  immigration violations into secondary offense that one who violates immigration law, just immigration law will punished for it, only those who violate real law, and then, immigration law convenient way address  you know, sort deport them convenient way add their sentences, then they might use it, otherwise no.   
And just let finish saying that if, expect, the Schumer/Rubio amnesty push fails Congress and theres bill the presidents desk the end this year, youre going see level unilateral executive immigration law making, essentially amnesty case thats going dwarf what see now. mean, honestly, the way this administration has behaved, there reason, there way you could say that they cant just amnesty all, the entire illegal population and give them all work permits and give them all Social Security accounts.  Theres logical way you can say they wont that.  And they fail this time, youre going see least incremental level more and more categories illegal immigrants getting this kind unilateral facto amnesty.  Thanks.  (Applause.) 
MR. FITTON:  Our next guest Joel Pollak  Joel the editor chief this new  exciting new site that has quickly become one the most popular news sites the Internet.   
And terms the way forward, think Breitbart and the new media outlets out there show that one the  journalism used investigative journalism.  Everyone 
used think only left wingers investigative journalism that, you know, the way journalism taught journalism schools its taught from the progressive perspective, you know, were here speak truth the power and alert people social injustice and effect change through our work.   
Well, you know, you can also take the conservative perspective and say investigative journalists should just report the facts, skeptical government, dont become agency for the government agency that youre covering, skeptical what goes here Washington, D.C., and find new audience.   
And their report, view, non-partisan, factual and worthy attention, and compares favorably with anything you will see the legacy media, call it.  And Joel has assembled cadre aggressive, excellent investigative reporters, some young, some not young, who are really making mark coverage issues here Washington, D.C., and especially this Obama administration. Im pleased joined Joel from  Joel, come up.  (Applause.) 
JOEL POLLAK:  Thank you all very much for being here.  Lets talk about something that happed downstairs today. was press conference Donald Trump.  And very small room the Chesapeake Wing, crowded, lots people there.  And about two-thirds the reporters were political bloggers conservative journalists who were quite open about their political sympathies.  And the other third were mainstream journalists who were there cover the news that Trump CPAC.   
And the conservative reporters mostly asked fan questions, you know, what you have say Chris Matthews, when are you going get your money from Bill Maher, stuff like that.  Kind fun, and enjoyed that fencing against his usual rivals.  And the mainstream questions were really not much different.  They were focused side issues. really had very little with Trump, lots questions about gay marriage, about Chris Christie.   
Finally, put hand. had not actually been planning ask question all. put hand and asked him question about the debt ceiling and what would advocate, once did, that Republicans play the default card?  And, suddenly, the mainstream reporters starting following question and saying, oh, yeah, lets ask about that.   
And its typical example how the mainstream media frames the debates have about what conservatives and among conservatives.  Its certainly interesting talk about gay marriage and some these other issues, but was telling reporter the other day that, you guys have focused personalities.  You focused social issues that are hot button way that they actually werent couple years ago. think that two three years ago, when Andrew was here and with us, lot the issues about GOProud were really active and were flaring up.  And this year, really wasnt something that was pushed internally here, certainly not GOProud and some the other organizations. was entire creation the mainstream media.  There some news about this, Rob Portmans announcement that accepts gay marriage and forth, but what does Trump really know about that, you know? here was watching the spectacle.  And didnt chide the mainstream media reporters directly, but sort put hand up, and said, this  you know, this important question, not whether  you know, the Miss America pageant. mean, didnt ask about that, but that was the level questions. mean, was basically like  they could have been asking him Celebrity Apprentice, what thought about the world.   
And this the problem and this the reason that Andrew started Breitbart News was break through that.  And said reporter, you guys are missing the story, the actual story. think there crisis the conservative movement.  And the crisis crisis leadership.   
Its crisis when you have governors who were elected with tea party support, like Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell, John Kasich, Rick Scott  its crisis when they renege promises not accept funding from Obamacare for Medicaid expansion.  You could argue about the pluses minuses that policy. conservative policy not conservative policy?  But the bottom line July last year, all them were saying they werent going and all them were elected 2009, 2010 opposition Obamacare. its not that theyre right wrong.  The problem has created crisis confidence among conservatives, tea party folks about what means involved elections.   
One the big stories 2012, November, was how many voters stayed home, that the Romney campaign couldnt bring the polls.  Thats big part what the conservative movement has face and the Republican Party has face going into 2014.  Has that energy been revived?  Thats real question.  These other things are not questions.   
So, anyway, thats just  its something feel particularly passionate about after that morning panel, where Trump actually came talk about issues, and all the media, the professional media folks, they like call themselves, were focused  were sort of, you know, the gossip page essentially. want very briefly touch three things that think are important that vein.  Ive already said little bit about the media and conservative new media.   
What were seeing increasingly the country that mainstream media becoming more and more identified simply left.  People understand its left.  Opinion polls during the elections, people overwhelmingly thought that journalists picked side  
including Democrats felt this way  and they understood that that side was Obamas side.  Only think percent people thought that journalists were unbiased and balanced.   
Were starting see the emergence that kind openly  although they wont acknowledge themselves, but openly biased media.  And conservatives have have confidence conservative media, not just Fox News, but really everything general.  And conservative politicians like give hits Fox and like mentioned Rush and forth, but really irks when conservatives have something important say and they say the New York Times they Politico they the Huffington Post.   
And somebody contacted the other days and said wed really like you cover and they linked something that they had put out the Huffington Post, and wrote back and said, why didnt you with us?  Im not saying were not going cover it, but, you know, youre not entering conversation where youre going heard youre going the people who are determined drown you out.   
And the same applies presidential debates. keep returning over and over again these media organizations, and get the same result, which that dont have debate about whether Obama did anything about Benghazi, but its question about whether used the term acts terror and whether that meant terrorism  mean, its  get lost and theres opportunity make our point. conservatives think have confident our media.  And can really lot.  Conservative new media were the driving force behind Susan Rice withdrawing, were the driving force behind the questions being asked during the Hagel nomination.  Couldnt quite knock that one off when John McCain said was not going through with the filibuster, but the conservative media also really gave Rand Paul boost when did his filibuster, and then left media started jumping on, less enthusiastically.   
But when you have John Cusack writing the Huffington Post where are all the Democrats who opposed drones the floor the Senate, why Republican whos saying what believe, then you know thats new media victory for conservatives that weve achieved through Twitter and forth, because Rand Paul very easily could have faded out had not had the response hundreds thousands people around the country and new media, whether through Twitter Facebook through conservative websites. have have the confidence our media.   
Likewise, have have confidence politics.  And one the amazing things about looking other Democratic political systems comparison our own how our own system driven states, districts, what they call constituency-based concerns.  There really formal opposition the United States the way that there the Houses Parliament.   
You know, Sunday night, when got D.C., was exhausted, but stayed late watching Question Time C-SPAN and was just absolutely brilliant.  And theres this 
opposition tradition that theres one side and another side.  There are third parties and fourth parties, which dont really care for very much, but you know, theres this idea that opposition part doing business. think the framers, when they were writing the constitution, assumed that the states would that opposition. was clearly foremost their mind that their opposition terms what they were trying was going come from state governments.  And think they envisioned that the driving opposition force American society that faded particularly after the 17th Amendment, but really dont have that entrenched institutionalized opposition.  Im not saying need it, but dont have the opposition leadership and dont have enough investment organizations  you know, have wonderful things like CPAC and the American Conservative Union, the Heritage Foundation.   
But when you look what the Democrats the left are doing, they have plethora these organizations and they have umbrella groups that fund them.  They have the Democracy Alliance.  They have what John Podesta doing.  They have MediaMatters, which joke, but which creates echo chamber that they can use rev their candidates their media.  Its all about reinforcing broad opposition that Obama now able use command total control his party.   
And its amazing that politician whos poorly regarded actually members his own party  lot people dont take him seriously. dont think this Democratic budget going pass, but its certainly going better than the one Obama proposed last year, which failed think zero.  People dont really have confidence his governance, but because hes been able take advantage this enormous opposition network that was created during the Bush years fight Bush, its now the governing reality.   
And Obama gets zero dissent matters critical importance when they come the Senate the House.  Its amazing that Democrats broke rank the Chuck Hagel nomination and Democrats are breaking rank the committee that voted the assault weapons ban.  And Democrats are going break rank the budget  least didnt yesterday  the committee.  Its just amazing.  And thats not because governs well.  Its because has this enormous opposition force which now governing force.  Its  you know, weve never seen before, the White House directing shock troops essentially town hall meetings and harass people call Congress when Obama doesnt want call them himself. need invest that.  Im not saying need to, you know, run around harassing people the way they sometimes do, but, you know, couldnt hurt once while. really need invest that kind opposition infrastructure and coherence ideas.  And CPAC really one the few places you see that.  Thats why people love CPAC and come back year after year, but cant three-day thing.  Its got 365-day thing.   
Finally, culture.  And Andrew Breitbart, who worked with and next every day, believed that culture was the determinant everything, that culture was upstream from politics politics was downstream from culture.  Our political choices are shaped our culture.  And talk about every year. talk about CPAC. talk about other places.  And mock Hollywood for the silly things they say and for Baldwin, and Bill Maher, and Ashley Judd. mean, mock it, and say  you know, try highlight conservative artists and theres some great ones out there.  But dont really have solution for culture.  Were not creating something that able rival Hollywood its projection conservative culture.  The best get quiet conservatives Hollywood produce quietly conservative films. wifes college roommate was very excited about the movie Grand Torino when came out, Clinton Eastwood, and she said, youve got see this.  Its about racial reconciliation, wonderful movie about race America.  And wife and went see the movie and walked out thinking this has nothing with race. mean, race the conceit, but the actual message the movie its about justice.  This about justice, not race.  And its brilliantly conservative film.  Thats about good get though. dont good job being overtly conservative and cultural the same time.  And when are, kind play into stereotypes and forth.   
Im not worried about those stereotypes actually. think theres very interesting article David Brooks last week. dont say that often, but theres very interesting article David Brooks, and writes about whole foods type store Brooklyn called Pomegranate, which, you know, myself being orthodox Jew know very well, even though dont live anywhere near New York.   
Pomegranate  Brooks writes its the center this religious revival among young, modern Jewish people, where lot people, even though lot people are losing faith and non-observant and whatever, lot people, minority, significant minority though, are coming back and theyre supporting neighborhood stores like this.  Its gourmet kosher food store where you can get Thai rice noodles that are kosher, mean, things you dont find normal supermarkets.  And its very chichi, and yuppie, and everything.   
But the people driving their SUVs and piling their five kids into the car and after they buy five items and spend their $600.  Theyre counterculture, said.  Theyre counterculture.  Theyre against the mainstream.  Theyre all their early 20s.  Theyre married.  They have children.  And they dont care that theyre different.  They dont seem think they need explain that.   
Everybody else, their peers, whether Jewish general are delaying marriage having kids out wedlock, and whatever, not that thats  you know, not that theyre judging their peers, but theyre just making lifestyle choices that our parents and 
grandparents made, and theyre not thinking themselves are old-fashioned.  They think themselves new and trendy.  Its counterculture.   
And conservatives think need stop trying imitate Hollywood culture and the liberal pop culture and embrace our counterculture.  You know, one thoughts  you know, one many disregarded ideas was during the campaign was that Mitt Romney should start acting like one the guys Father Knows Best. should have played out that sort square image instead kind shying away from the cultural conversation altogether.   
Marco Rubios water bottle incident was kind production disaster, but what did very brilliantly afterwards was rolled with the joke.  And dont that. dont roll with the joke enough. actually are counterculture.  Were counterculture here CPAC. have the ability laugh ourselves and yet, when comes culture, think have somehow change who are, change what like, change our tastes. think the opposite. have play out. have roll with it.  Were counterculture and shouldnt ashamed it.  And have invest that conservative counterculture.  And, you know, once you that, they sit and take notice.   
And the evidence for that the tea party.  And, course, they call the tea party racist, and on, and forth, but there was great article before the election Frank Rich, all people, who said, matter which way this election goes, the tea party here stay and his basic premise was cultural one.  The tea party the American conservative culture.  They dont away.  Theyre fundamental this country.  And liberals like better get used because its miserable state affairs its basically what was saying. gets it.  The tea party was that culture manifestation. was people, you know, dressing patriot costumes and waving (garrison flags and things like that.  For some reason, think that doesnt work. absolutely works. absolutely has political consequences.   
And all three these areas  politics, media and culture  need invest our conservative alternatives.  Its not that you cant into mainstream forums and win. prefer personally being CNN and MSNBC being Fox. love argument. want convince the people who disagree with me.  But weve got invest the foundation for even presenting that argument, which having conversations with likeminded people, getting great research from Judicial Watch, and great arguments from Ilya and Cato, and  you know, people CPAC sharing ideas and context.  Its the kind thing shouldnt three days year.   
And know Andrew believes that. know everyone this room believes that, and Im grateful that youre here when there are many attractions and celebrities downstairs, because this really where the fight is.  Its getting the facts and the arguments and the ideas and the activities that everyone here involved with out 
there into the political realm, the cultural realm, and the media realm.  Thank you.  (Applause.)   
MR. FITTON:  Those were some excellent presentations.  And what enjoyed especially about these presentations didnt spend lot time, any time talking about the fortunes the Republican Party, woe Republicans, woe are the Democrats, who are the Democrats going nominate.  You know, thats irrelevant, view, increasing numbers conservatives, and independent-minded libertarians, and those who believe government.   
What were talking about are principles that arent involved really reflected either political party political elites.  Theres great word, and Im probably going mangle it: disestablishmentarianism.   
And think, you know, one the hidden news stories the last several years and reflected somewhat the tea party story how the conservative movement rightly, view, abandoning the Republican Party.  They dont expect leadership out it.  And their votes can longer taken for granted.  And, you know, dont look for at Judicial Watch, dont look for leadership from Republicans Democrats any issues related corruption.  You know, theyre part the problem.  
But, you know, that the story.  Despite all the Republican politicians CPAC, you know, they have high burden meet order get people who are concerned about the issues care about here respect and vote for them.  But also presents opportunity for honest Democrats and honest Republicans gain new voters and reach out people who are really alienated from the way Washington works.   
You know, dont think its any mistake that  dont think its  think its notable that 1994, Republicans took control Congress due large measure the perception that Democrats were corrupt.  And and behold, Democrats took back control Congress 2006 due the perception that Republicans were corrupt. dont think both perceptions, the way, were correct.   
But goes show that once while, corruption does matter.  And the politicians forget that from time time.  And think its the job activists remind them that this very important issue for Americans.   
And, you know, following the rules, getting line, making sure the president stays within his constitutional prerogatives, making sure that Congress stays within its constitutional prerogatives, making sure that the people trust uphold the law, actually uphold the law and dont politicize it, making sure that the institutions that mediate between our government and the citizens, such the media, are honest and get the truth out expect them to, these are all issues that are relevant party politics.  And need more discussions like this not only CPAC, but, Joel was suggesting, throughout the year. with that, will  unless anyone wants add anything  respond anything that was said elsewhere the panel among our panelists, will open the floor any questions, comments, concerns. think this microphone here working. you could pop and ask.  Sir, yes.  Hi. name David.  You talked about corruption.  Ill make truth claim.  You cant corrupt person with their own money.  When have own money educate kids, buy health care, dont need vote for congressman.  They have power corrupt me.  What suggestions you have put the money thats currently Congress back into the hands the individual that there more corruption politics? 
MR. FITTON:  Well, you dont need convince that big government means big corruption.  You know, thats  know there are leftists who believe honest government, but dont think they understand that you cant have honest government long its big is.  And when you have government spending billion, theres way you can track that way that, that you can track that its accountable.  But the opportunities  trillion, trillion  the corruption will flow that like light into black hole. key question how get the money out Congress and back into the hands individuals?   
MR. FITTON:  Well, need think new  need new leadership both the inside and the outside that talk about the terms you suggest.  But dont know anyone else has response.  Ilya, Joel,   
MR. POLLAK: like what youre saying.  Its different way putting something that  again, Ill quote sort  Ill quote George Will again. dont always agree with George Will, but was exactly right when said corruption not bug Obamas policies.  Its feature because when youre expanding the power and the size and the cost government, youre creating incentives for corruption.  Youre creating opportunities for corruption.  And its inherent the very model uses.   
And think what Will referring the Obamacare waiver system, where the system cant exist without these waivers, therefore people are going seek them, and seek them, youre going have lobby for them, and pay people who lobby for them, and how you get access the people you talk and on.  Its story all know.   
And think that  you know, this  the crony capitalism something that Romney tried play here. dont know was the best messenger for it.  Im not suggesting was crony someone, but was certainly capitalist some note.  And think can look forward hopefully seeing more and more conservatives coming from the state level, where they have  actually have challenged some these things and undone the policies that create the opportunities for corruption well.  And 
think what youre talking about returning taxpayers money, cutting taxes, and forth, think thats one part it.  And its also just part bigger policy picture well. offered you $1,000 tax deduction for every $1,000 you put into your own health care, whether its health insurance, health savings account, would that way fight the corruption and pull the money out the government and back into the hands the individual? 
MR. SHAPIRO:  Well, look, anytime theres smaller pie, youre going have less economic distortion and rent seeking and things like that. mean, have lots negative signals kind going through the system, piggybacking Joels crony capitalism comments, like, for example, when Google and Facebook, who didnt want anything with the Eastern establishment, finally buckled and opened huge lobbying Washington offices and hired lots lobbyists, thats bad thing. means that, you know, they think that they can prosper more business by, you know, seeking certain favors from government than just growing their business. mean, yeah  but the solution get whether its economic dynamism, whether its, you know, individual choice live your life you want, whatever your ultimate goal is, the solution shrink the size the pie, youre suggesting, that Congress controls.  And that will  you know, whether youre talking about legal corruption, you know, moral corruption, corruption  you know, crowding out private sector activity non-profit activity the government, all these things away the incentives waddle the government  (inaudible)  decline. 
MR. FITTON:  Next question comment.  Sir. 
MR. POLLAK:  Sorry.  Can make one comment? 
MR. FITTON:  Im sorry. ahead. 
MR. POLLAK:  You have triggered something for about the gay marriage debate actually.  And the gay marriage debate losing one for conservatives not because cant argue for traditional marriage thats what you want argue not because cant argue for gay marriage take libertarian alternative point you.  Its losing debate because the premise the debate  this how started  was that people deserve equal access government benefits.  Thats the premise the debate began.  Its unfair deny benefits.   
Marriage has become mechanism for the transfer social welfare benefits.  And whether you think the state should involved marriage all another issue but the fact weve expanded the size and role government peoples lives much that now think this important political question and were  you know, the conservatives are trapped because dont challenge the premise the question.  The premise faulty.  Why should using government this way?  And think thats 
why its losing issue, not because cant defend traditional values, but because havent faced what the actual premise the question is. 
MR. FITTON:  Yes, sir. question for Joel.  When you talked about  thought was really interesting how you phrased the tea party cultural manifestation.  But you look the kinds issues they talked about, there was lot control from the top make sure they only talked about fiscal issues, and limiting debt, and things like that.   
And, Mark, with the  what you called the amnesty infomercial yesterday  great phrase  one thing that wasnt mentioned lot was citizenship. was very clear that was about obtaining, you know, cheap labor, and this was purely seen economic thing. question then is, you see this sort cultural manifestation and this populist spirit, and only gets funneled behind rather abstract things like need limit the debt, arent sort shortchanging our own people, because the left talking about, you know, gut level, visceral things and were talking about balancing the budget.  How can win that? 
MR. POLLAK: think thats really keen insight. had conversation with some very prominent senators the other day.  And theyre struggling with the same problem.  They decided message.  Now its going about the debt but they dont know how make that relevant people. would say that for some  for many tea party members, the debt really was personal and concrete thing. favorite tea party sign was the guy holding up, honk Im paying your mortgage.  That was favorite. thats how you  thats how you  think was visceral for those who got involved for that reason.   
But, think general, youre correct. think that shoving some these issues under the rug really  really dangerous way go.  And, fact, think there were lot people who were motivated some these other things who came tea party rallies, but Im not sure there was degree top down control. think the tea party was organization  was  let just put this way, heterogeneous organization.  And there was agreement message think very broadly the least common denominator.  But dont think was control much was just kind not effective transmitting that message broader audience. 
MR. ADAMS:  Let little more pessimistic some ways the last two questions.  Joel said something think its spot on.  Politics downstream culture and the culture isnt good.  And sit there and talk about debt being problem when the majority American households are swimming and are perfectly content with that state affairs not going winning issue.  Were losing badly because most people just dont care.  Its the producers that care about debt, but when you have the 
level debt, consumer debt, thats not winning issue.  Its good issue and its correct, but Im just saying the ground moving underneath us. 
MR. FITTON:  But, you know, think that your analysis the origins the tea party are  dont believe youre misleading purpose, but would take alternative analysis that isnt about fiscal issues.  Its not about debt.  Its about corruption.  Its about what government does.   
Conservatives dont talk about what government does.  All they talk about what the numbers are.  And when address Americans concerns about what government does, then people rise up.  And with the tea party, the concern was, Im paying mortgage, and now theres this program out there that allows people who didnt pay their mortgage made poor decisions benefit from those decisions.  And still have pay mortgage. how these banks are being bailed out while Im paying debt?  And why the government subsidizing these financial mavens for poor decision making? didnt even think was subsidies. think was takeover, practically speaking.   
But this was  this moral outrage.  This was not concern about the debt. was concern about debt, the tea party would even larger than was the beginning. was whats  whos the CNBC host?  Rick Santelli. was not talking about that. was talking about the racket and exposing the racket.  And, again, issue that think ought unite conservatives, libertarians, Occupy Wall Streeters (sp).  People are skeptical the operations government and the public policy debates.  They see mask for fundamental corruption.   
And those senators youre talking to, theyre confused about that issue, they will perpetual outsiders because  terms appealing the American people because theyre not addressing the fundamental concerns the American people. not debt.  Its what government does.   
And, Ilya, Im sure, libertarian, you understand that more than  mean, hear people talk about balancing trillion government its obscene. should talking about what that government doing and the amount money its spending opposed to, quote, the budget being balanced.  Debt reasonable thing have for certain circumstances. thats two cents.  Yes.  Ill make quick.  Im Gayle Smith (sp) and Spanish language media.  And think Im probably the only conservative Spanish language media that exists the U.S.  But, anyway.  The question this  the comment. all know unity creates strength and part what see huge problem with the Republican Party the fragmentation positions.  And, obviously, from general public concern  you know, theres all these messages.  Youve got the tea party.  Youve got the moderates.  Youve got all sorts positions, you know, from  look the 
center from center right extreme right. how come together with messaging that consistent and  you know, can create the strength that need? 
MR. ADAMS:  Can address that?  Because this one the things mentioned.   
MR. SHAPIRO:  (Foreign phrase.) 
MR. ADAMS: dont know.  Two words, least short-term solution.  Tom Perez who alluded and Tom alluded to, the labor nominee, unites every single wing the conservative and libertarian movement, the pro-life groups that attacked Florida, the constitutionalists, the business interests. mean, there short-term fix, fun experience oppose Tom Perez because represents opposition everything all conservatives believe in.   
The longer term fix, dont have answer for you.  Andrew Breitbart gave great solution. loved how Andrew dealt with this. loved everybody.  And would never say bad word about another conservative, but, unfortunately, dont think theres many people  there are other people like him. dont have answer. 
MR. FITTON: view  you know, the Republican fights, theyre nothing new.  Theres always been battle between, you know, your country  (inaudible)  Republicans versus either internal external activists who took more skeptical approach the enterprise big government since World War II.   
You know, they want hear  they dont want hear from Breitbart, the Republican leadership.  They dont want hear from Cato.  They dont want hear from Christian.  And they dont want hear from Mark.  They just dont want hear from us.  They want our votes.  They want our money, and say that proverbially terms people who would support their oppositions, but terms practice, they dont want hear from us. exaggerating it?  Im sure all talk Republicans the Hill, but   
MR. KRIKORIAN:  No, not all.   
MR. FITTON:  From distance, presume. 
MR. KRIKORIAN: mean, dont have any money, like you said, but  no, absolutely. 
MR. FITTON:  Right. 
MR. KRIKORIAN: mean, fact, you see that the dynamic youre talking about sort elite public split within Republicans lot, and actually that kind explains think lot the dysfunction our immigration policy, because what you end with election time, you have politicians  not just Republicans, Democrats sometimes too saying, well, you know, were going this.  Were going crack 
down tough.  Were going have, you know, electrified fences, blah, blah, blah.  But then, the immediate issue passes, and the people who then come visit their offices and say, well, you know, congressman, really need, you know, these indentured servants slave away cheap farm, and they get their way. the law looks tough but then ends being gutted. looks tough sort  its (blue bait for basically and then isnt followed through because thats not  because they dont want that because the people who make money benefit from policy are all the other side, certainly from the immigration issue.  And, mean, probably other issues too. 
MR. SHAPIRO: found encouraging the list Republicans that joined Rand Pauls filibuster. mean, you had all the different wings represented.  You had, you know, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee from the tea party constitutionalist wing.  You eventually had the leadership, the establishment, Mitch McConnell joining in.  You had social conservatives, Jerry Moran and some others. think there something tectonic going within the party, within the movement broadly speaking and kind  were living it.  But hopeful that there jostling that will, you know, move something forward, and that, you know, have reinvent the liberty movement that cant just repeat stuff that was going the 80s under Reagan.   
MR. KRIKORIAN:  But the reason, you see, Rand Pauls thing worked because was very much like the partial birth abortion issue.  You pick outlandish that logical person going for and then your opponents walk right into the trap. Eric Holder had not been idiot and said, well, obviously, cant assassinate Native Americans American soil, that would have been the end it. wouldnt have worked.  What Rand Paul did was pick something that was  that everybody agreed but was very narrow. mean, agree with Ilya that was  mean, was Tweeting stand with Rand too, but there was lot different  lot the people who supported him are more than with using drones kill foreigners abroad.  You know what mean? thats where you end with variety positions.   
MR. FITTON:  Well, think thats good way end. want give everyone opportunity promote themselves and their websites people know how reach them because were going put this the Internet and will widely available.  Joel, well start with you.  How people reach you and where they learn more about you? 
MR. POLLAK:  Im very poor self-promotion, but Ill just say you come, youll find lot there and lot fun.  Weve got, which our video site. just started new site called The Conversation, which our blog site.  Added Breitbart Sports.  All that part expanding the vision that Andrew had for the company, 
MR. FITTON:  Now, thats the panel should have had.   
GROUP:  Breitbart Sports. 
MR. FITTON:  Talking about uniter, right?  Thank you, Joel. 
MR. SHAPIRO: textualist interpretation the  (inaudible)  viral. 
MR. KRIKORIAN:  Yeah.  Im afraid dont have any sports our website  And tweet @MarkSKrikorian, and the blog The Corner National Review.   
MR. FITTON:  Christian. 
MR. ADAMS: course, always promote book, which called Injustice, New York Times best seller.  And Im legal editor Media and also have own blog called Election Law Center that really all about election law.   
MR. SHAPIRO:  Well, Im Cato, and you can have bio site there which has all media and writings and things like that.  And also edit the Cato Supreme Court Review which think its available Amazon book.  Its also available think the developing  the Kindle stuff and that comes out once year about the leading articles from the top scholars and practitioners about the last term the court.  
MR. FITTON:  Well, Judicial Watch   
MR. SHAPIRO:  Oh, and Twitter handle @ishapiro.   
MR. FITTON:  And Judicial Watch the Internet have great book out well, The Corruption Chronicles.  And coming soon cable network near you, our movie, The District Corruption, which really cutting-edge terms holding all the parties Washington account dramatic way that you traditionally dont see out conservative groups  put mildly  here Washington. its  think its going cause stir get wider promotion. appreciate everyone taking time from the regular CPAC meeting come our little side meeting, our dissenters here.  Thank you very much.  And well see you the Internet.  And feel free follow with during the rest the meeting well.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)