Is de-animalisation of humans for want of a better word, as one escapes me even with a google search crutch, a form of theomorphism? .. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theomorphic .. grin, what do you think?
aren't we? .. unless of course you want to get into the fanciful realm of deification of humans (animals).
chuckle, it was - "Plumbing Trump’s psyche is as productive as asking American Pharoah why he runs. The point is what happens when he does." - that got to all that as, despite being a bit of a punter man, i seriously didn't know who American Pharoah was, which led me to British journalist and broadcaster Brough Scott's
The Election and the Death Throes of White Male Power
"The Fearful and the Frustrated "
By Rebecca Traister December 16, 2015 4:47 p.m.
Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
On Monday night, protesters interrupted a Donald Trump rally, shouting about gun control and proclaiming that black lives matter. The large crowd of Trump supporters shouted back at them. MSNBC News reporter Benjy Sarlin described how, “as one man was dragged away, people in the crowd variously yelled, ‘Shoot him!’ ‘Kick his ass’ … ‘Light the motherfucker on fire!’” One man yelled, “Sieg Heil!”
It has been a violent, sad year marked by mass shootings and police violence and acts of terror and a seemingly endless supply of vitriol and anxiety. But while that series of events may have felt like a random, scary blur as we lived through it, it’s coming into stark and horrifying relief at year’s end thanks to the blaring optics of our presidential-election cycle.
Our first black president sits in the White House, entering his eighth and final year; in his party, a woman who would become the first female commander-in-chief is building a substantial lead. Meanwhile, the dominant front-runner of the opposing party plays untroubled host to white-power revivalist meetings, suggests that “deportation forces” should “round up” immigrants, and proposes identification badges for Muslims. Donald Trump’s competitors for the Republican nomination — men who agree with him that women who have been raped or suffered incest should be forced to carry resulting pregnancies to term — somehow look rational and moderate by comparison. But Ted Cruz is no moderate: He touts his endorsement by Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, who has advocated .. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/30/3726326/before-shooting-cruz-touted-endorsement-from-activist-who-called-for-execution-of-abortion-doctors/ .. for the execution of "convicted" abortionists and defended activists who have in fact killed .. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/25/msnbcs-maddow-explains-violence-endorsing-backg/207090 .. abortion doctors. “We need leaders like Troy Newman in this country,” Ted Cruz, who might be the Republican nominee for president in 2016, has said.
But comparisons to earlier eras obscure the grim reality that what we are living through is not the echo of past risks, but rather our own present danger.
This moment, this election, these years represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the United States. That the snarling fury and violence are contemporary does not make them less real than the terrors of previous periods; it makes them more real, at least to those of us living through them. And the presidential-primary contest, while absurdist and theatrical, is reflecting very real fury and violence in the non-electoral world: the burning of crosses and black churches, the execution of black men by police, the resistance of male soldiers to women in elite combat positions, a white man with a history of rape and violence against women himself a “warrior for the babies” after killing people at an abortion clinic, and a younger white man killing nine black churchgoers with the explanation “You rape our women, and you’re taking over our country.”
The political contest just projects these panicked resentments on a bigger, more official screen. The public spectacle of this presidential election, and the two that have preceded it, are inextricably linked to the racialized and gendered anger and violence we see around us. Recall that Trump’s rise in politics began with his attacks on Barack Obama as foreign, as Muslim, as other. And that the tea party whence Ted Cruz springs has concerned itself mostly — official protestations about economic priorities to the contrary — with shutting down reproductive-health options for women. That is, when they are not trying to shut down the political ambitions of Hillary Clinton at any cost (see Trey Gowdy’s wild-eyed, profligate, and fruitless Benghazi investigation).
Whatever their flaws, their political shortcomings, their progressive dings and dents, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mean a lot. They represent an altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead. It is not coincidence that after seven years of a black president people are calling for lynchings at Republican rallies. It’s not some random quirk that eight years after a woman almost became the Democratic nominee, Republican candidates are crowing about their commitment to making pregnancy compulsory and accepting the endorsements of those who support violence against abortion providers.
This is our country in an excruciating period of change. This is the story of the slow expansion of possibility for figures who have long existed on the margins, and it is also the story of the dangerous rage those figures provoke. Listen closely, and you'll hear the acknowledgment coming directly from the Republican candidates. Here was Marco Rubio in Tuesday's debate: "What's at stake in this election is not simply what party's going to be in charge but our very identity as a people and as a nation." This is not a dog whistle. This is a statement of fact.
There are those on the right and the left who love to downplay identity politics as a distraction: Do we even believe in race or gender as anything but social constructs? How do identity politics apply to Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson? Isn’t worrying about gender and race with regard to presidential politics just narcissism anyway?
But it’s not narcissism. This election is a referendum on the existence and civic participation of Americans who are not white men — as voters, as citizens, as workers, as members of the military, as presidents.
And while the resistance may be symptomatic of death throes, a rage at the dying of the white male light, it nonetheless presents a very real threat — there is the possibility that the old and angry may triumph over the new and different. Those who are furious are not without power to effect change that lasts generations: Imagine Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or Marco Rubio in office with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court seats to fill. Voting: restricted. Immigration: halted. Abortion: banned. Equal pay: unprotected. Same-sex marriage: overturned.
Imagine, on the other hand, a Clinton presidency — or even a Sanders one, though even a white male Jewish socialist may invite less ire than a woman. Clinton, like Obama before her, isn’t carrying just her own baggage, but will stand in as the symbolic target for those whose fury at increased female autonomy has been building. In a nation where women who were not permitted to cast votes still live and breathe, her campaign, as Ms. Clinton has herself declared in other contexts, is living history. If she wins, she — and we — will be forced to do battle with this rising, chilling, ever more open threat from those who feel enraged that their country is no longer their own. I fear that there’s a lot more terror ahead of us.
.. though many believe it is all a liberal conspiracy actually the change is a natural progression in the evolution of things .. sadly, much of the rage and fear of losing identity has a basis in gender and race .. c'mon guys, we are all just simple animal homo-sapiens, just each a part of the one human crowd ..
Muslim family's halted Disneyland trip is raised with PM
23 December 2015 From the section UK
Mohammad Tariq Mahmood says he still wants to visit the United States
Labour MP Stella Creasy has called on the prime minister to challenge the US after a UK Muslim family was barred from boarding a flight to Los Angeles.
The family of 11, from Ms Creasy's Walthamstow constituency, had planned a holiday to Disneyland but were stopped at Gatwick Airport on 15 December.
Mohammad Tariq Mahmood said his family was given no reason why US officials had refused to allow them to board.
US officials said travellers were not barred based on religious beliefs.
Downing Street said David Cameron would respond to the issues raised.
Family 'livid'
Ms Creasy has written to the prime minister urging him to press the US authorities on what she said was "a growing problem" of British Muslims being barred from the US without explanation.
She said she had "hit a brick wall" in her own attempts to get answers from the US embassy.
"A lot of Muslim constituents are now saying to me that they're frightened about flying. They're frightened they're going to lose money, they're frightened they're not going to be able to see relatives."
She told BBC radio 5 live she was aware of four other UK cases of Muslims being denied entry to the US.
"Nobody knows why these people were stopped. We do know what the common denominator is between them. All of us agree we've absolutely got to be vigilant about tackling terrorism, and we've got to be clear prejudice hasn't got a part to play in that," she added.
Mr Mahmood, who was travelling with his brother and their children, aged eight to 19, had planned to visit their elder brother in southern California and go to the theme parks.
He said UK Border officials told them at the departure lounge that they were not allowed to board the plane, despite them all having authorisation to travel under the US Visa Waiver Programme.
AP Disneyland and Universal Studios have recently increased security at the theme parks
Mr Mahmood told the BBC: "Just before the final check to get into the lounge we were singled out.
"A man from UK Border Force came and said, 'I'm sorry you can't board this flight. We received a call from Washington DC that we can't allow this family to board the flight.'"
Mr Mahmood said he had educated his children "to live in this country peacefully" and had been invited to speak at local schools about Islamophobia.
He told BBC Radio 5 live it had seemed a clear case of discrimination.
He said his children were "traumatised, really upset" after their cancelled trip, saying, "They think they've done something wrong."
"I want an explanation, and what's going to happen next. I would still like to go to America, I would like my kids to fulfil their dreams."
Stella Creasy said she was concerned about "increasing numbers" of British Muslims being stopped from entering the US
Mr Mahmood said the airline Norwegian had told them they would not be refunded the £9,000 cost of their flights.
They were also forced to return everything they had purchased at Gatwick's duty-free shops before being escorted from the airport, he said.
Mr Mahmood also said he had been refused entry to Israel eight years ago. He and another man remained at the airport before returning on a flight two days later. He added that he was not held for eight days, as had previously been reported.
His brother, Muhammad, who runs an auto repair shop in San Bernardino, California, said he could think of no reason why his relatives would represent a threat to the United States and called on his government to explain its actions.
"They can get away with anything by saying national security… and you can not even challenge that," he told the BBC. "There needs to be a reason given."
'Complete uproar'
A US Customs and Border Protection spokesman said: "The religion, faith, or spiritual beliefs of an international traveller are not determining factors about his or her admissibility into the US.
"In order to demonstrate that they are admissible, the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility."
The spokesman also said there were 60 categories of inadmissibility, including health-related, prior criminal convictions, security reasons and immigration violations.
UK immigration minister James Brokenshire said the government would look into the incident but ultimately the decision was up to the US authorities.
But chairman of the home affairs select committee Keith Vaz said there seemed to be a growing pattern of British citizens being refused entry to the US.
"This is one of our closest allies in the world and the way we treat each other's citizens is extremely important," he said.
"If you imagine if an American citizen was told by a British official they couldn't board a plane, there would be complete uproar in the United States of America."
You get the drift. How would Christians react to being barred from the biggest Muslim country in the world. Trump as most all are aware is doing a great job of making the USA a laughing stock throughout the world.
"Denial mixed with perceived victimhood and an unhealthy dose of nostalgia is far worse than denial of a purely ignorant type."
By Tim Wise
Updated 5:45 PM ET, Wed November 25, 2015
26 Photos: In the news: Conversations about race. [inside]
Story highlights
Tim Wise: Whites don't realize they have a blind spot about the persistent and widespread impact of racial discrimination
New CNN/Kaiser Family Foundation poll provides ample evidence that most whites don't get it, he says
Editor's note: Tim Wise is an anti-racism educator and author of seven books. His latest, "Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich and Sacrificing the Future of America," was released by City Lights this fall. His website is here .. http://www.timwise.org/ .. and he tweetshttp://www.twitter.com/timjacobwise. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
(CNN) - There's an old saying that it's hard to know what you don't know, the premise being that when you're ignorant about something, you aren't likely to realize your blind spots.
But I'm not so sure. Sometimes, knowing what you don't know just requires a certain degree of humility.
For instance, I don't know calculus, because I never took it in school. But here's the thing: I know that I don't know calculus; and as such, I would never presume to know it, let alone to tell others for whom it had actually been their major that I knew it better than they did.
Tim Wise
How nice it would be if white Americans would exercise a similar restraint when it comes to the topic of racism and discrimination in America. For although we have rarely had to know much about it -- and though most of us, by our own admission, socialize in nearly all-white environments where we won't benefit from the insights of persons of color who have, indeed, had to major in the subject -- we continue to insist that we know more about it than they do.
To wit, a just-released poll .. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/us/racism-problem-cnn-kff-poll/index.html .. from CNN and the Kaiser Family Foundation, which finds that white Americans are far less likely than persons of color to believe that racism remains a serious problem in the United States.
While roughly two-thirds of blacks and Latinos believe racism is a big problem in America today, only about four in 10 whites agree.
Even a simple recognition of ongoing racial inequities in life chances differs markedly across racial lines, with clear majorities of African Americans perceiving that the typical black person is worse off than the typical white person in terms of income, education and housing, while about half of all whites fail to perceive such inequality of condition.
So despite the fact that African-Americans are worse off than whites in every single category of well-being, and despite the research indicating that these disparities owe significantly to discrimination both past and present, most whites believe there are few, if any, ongoing inequities in need of being addressed.
That white Americans don't by and large see what people of color see doesn't mean that white folks are horrible people, of course; nor does it suggest that whites are all inveterate racists who don't care about the impediments to opportunity still facing our black and brown brothers and sisters. But what it does suggest is a degree of isolation and provincialism that should lead us to think twice before pontificating about a subject that we simply don't have to know nearly as well as those who are the targets of it.
When more than half of blacks and a third of Hispanics report that they have experienced unfair treatment in public places at some point just in the last month because of their race, for whites to deny the seriousness of racism in America is to say, in effect, that folks of color are hallucinating, irrational or ignorant about their own lived experience.
It is to say that we white folks know black and brown reality better than those who live it -- perhaps because we are more intelligent or level-headed (which arguments would be inherently racist of course).
Sadly, white denial of this sort has a long and ignoble pedigree. Even in the early 1960s, prior to the passage of the monumental civil rights legislation of that decade, most white Americans didn't really see the problem. Though civil rights icons like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are venerated as heroes today by most, including by large numbers of whites, when King was alive, most white folks saw very little need for the movement of which he was such an integral part.
In 1963, for instance, more than six in 10 whites told Gallup pollsters .. http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/specialReports/sr010711.PDF .. that blacks were treated equally with whites in their communities, a number that grew to 75% the year before Dr. King was killed (but at which point the Fair Housing Act still hadn't been passed). Even more tellingly, in 1962, fully 85% of whites told Gallup that black children had the same chance as white children to obtain a high quality education.
Such beliefs might strike us as delusional in retrospect, of course, but that's the point: Unless we believe that white Americans have somehow become amazingly attuned to the experiences of persons of color in the last half-century (and more so than those people of color are, with regard to their own experiences) -- even as our parents and grandparents clearly failed to discern truth from fiction -- it seems that we should probably think twice before trusting white perceptions when it comes to the state of racial discrimination in this country.
If we were so oblivious even when racism was formally embedded in every fiber of the nation's being -- when the U.S. was an official apartheid country -- what in the world would lead us to believe that we had suddenly become keen interpreters of black and brown folks' lives?
Dangerous denial
Although white denial has been a constant throughout American history, one thing about today's version of it seems potentially more dangerous than that of past generations, and it is this fact more than any other which should give us pause.
In the past, white obliviousness was of a more genuinely naive sort -- in other words, most white folks really did think, absurd though it sounds, that everything was just fine, not only for ourselves but for black folks too -- but today's denial comes wrapped in a patina of resentment and anxiety.
Today, it is not just that whites fail to see the obstacles still faced by persons of color; rather, too many of us apparently believe the tables have turned and now it is we who face those obstacles.
Denial mixed with perceived victimhood and an unhealthy dose of nostalgia .. http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PRRI-AVS-2015-Web.pdf .. is far worse than denial of a purely ignorant type. For whites to not know black and brown reality is bad enough; but for us to literally invert black and brown reality with our own, and to believe that we are the ones who are being victimized, is a recipe for increased tension and acrimony. It is certainly no way to build multiracial democracy.
Only by challenging white denial -- and that means we white folks challenging our own -- can we turn back the rising tide of white anxiety, which has manifested most recently in the campaigns of Donald Trump, the backlash against Syrian refugees and the growing hostility to Black Lives Matter protesters.
In moments like this, we must proclaim not only that black and brown lives matter, despite a society that has rarely acted as such, but that facts matter, too; and as always, the facts suggest that white America still has some waking up to do.
Liberalism’s Imaginary Enemies [excerpt] Institutionalized racism is an imaginary enemy. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that the same college administrators who have made a religion of diversity are really the second coming of Strom Thurmond. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that twice electing a black president is evidence of our racial incorrigibility. We’re supposed to believe this anyway because the future of liberal racialism—from affirmative action to diversity quotas to slavery reparations—requires periodic sightings of the ghosts of a racist past. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118843108
When officers take the lives of those they are sworn to protect and serve, they undermine their own legitimacy.
Ta-Nehisi Coates Dec 30, 2015 Politics
When I was around 10 years old, my father confronted a young man who was said to be “crazy.” The young man was always too quick to want to fight. A foul in a game of 21 was an insult to his honor. A cross word was cause for a duel, and you never knew what that cross word might be. One day, the young man got into it with one of my older brother’s friends. The young man pulled a metal stake out of the ground (there was some work being done nearby) and began swinging it wildly in a threatening manner. My father, my mother, or my older brother—I don’t recall which—told the other boy to go inside of our house. My dad then came outside. I don’t really remember what my father said to the young man. Perhaps he said something like “Go home,” or maybe something like, “Son, it’s over.” I don’t really recall. But what I do recall is that my dad did not shoot and kill the young man.
That wasn’t the first time I’d seen my father confront the violence of young people without resorting to killing them. This was not remarkable. When you live in communities like ours—or perhaps any community—mediating violence between young people is part of being an adult. Sometimes the young people are involved in scary behavior—like threatening people with metal objects. And yet the notion that it is permissible, wise, moral, or advisable to kill such a person as a method of de-escalation, to kill because one was afraid, did not really exist among parents in my community.
The same could not be said for those who came from outside of the community.
“What happened to Tasers? Seven times my son was shot,” Cooksey said.
“The police are supposed to serve and protect us and yet they take the lives,” Cooksey said.
“Where do we get our help?” she asked.
LeGrier had struggled with mental illness. When LeGrier attempted to break down his father’s door, his father called the police, who apparently arrived to find the 19-year-old wielding a bat. Interpreting this as a lethal threat, one of the officers shot and killed LeGrier and somehow managed to shoot and kill one of his neighbors, Bettie Jones. Cooksey did not merely have a problem with how the police acted, but with the fact that the police were even called in the first place. “He should have called me,” Cooksey said of LeGrier’s father .. http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/7/71/1209315/relatives-2-killed-chicago-police-demand-changes .
Instead, the father called the Chicago Police Department. Likely he called them because he invested them with some measure of legitimacy. This is understandable. In America, police officers are agents of the state and thus bound by the social contract in a way that criminals, and even random citizens, are not. Criminals and random citizens are not paid to protect other citizens. Police officers are. By that logic, one might surmise that the police would be better able to mediate conflicts than community members. In Chicago, this appears, very often, not to be the case.
It will not do to note that 99 percent of the time the police mediate conflicts without killing people anymore than it will do for a restaurant to note that 99 percent of the time rats don’t run through the dining room. Nor will it do to point out that most black citizens are killed by other black citizens, not police officers, anymore than it will do to point out that most American citizens are killed by other American citizens, not terrorists. If officers cannot be expected to act any better than ordinary citizens, why call them in the first place? Why invest them with any more power?
======== In America, we have decided that it is permissible, that it is wise, that it is moral for the police to de-escalate through killing. ========
Legitimacy is what is ultimately at stake here. When Cooksey says that her son’s father should not have called the police, when she says that they “are supposed to serve and protect us and yet they take the lives,” she is saying that police in Chicago are police in name only. This opinion is widely shared. Asked about the possibility of an investigation, Melvin Jones, the brother of Bettie Jones, could muster no confidence. “I already know how that will turn out,” he scoffed .. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/us/chicago-police-fatally-shoot-2-raising-new-questions-for-a-force-under-scrutiny.html . “We all know how that will turn out.”
Indeed, we probably do. Two days after Jones and LeGrier were killed, a district attorney in Ohio declined to prosecute the two officers who drove up, and within two seconds of arriving, killed the 12-year-old Tamir Rice. No one should be surprised by this. In America, we have decided that it is permissible, that it is wise, that it is moral for the police to de-escalate through killing. A standard which would not have held for my father in West Baltimore, which did not hold for me in Harlem, is reserved for those who have the maximum power—the right to kill on behalf of the state. When police can not adhere to the standards of the neighborhood, of citizens, or of parents, what are they beyond a bigger gun and a sharper sword? By what right do they enforce their will, save force itself?
When policing is delegitimized, when it becomes an occupying force, the community suffers. The neighbor-on-neighbor violence in Chicago, and in black communities around the country, is not an optical illusion. Policing is (one) part of the solution to that violence. But if citizens don’t trust officers, then policing can’t actually work. And in Chicago, it is very hard to muster reasons for trust.
When Bettie Jones’s brother displays zero confidence in an investigation into the killing of his sister, he is not being cynical. He is shrewdly observing a government that executed a young man .. http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/11/24/9796704/laquan-mcdonald-police-shooting-chicago .. and sought to hide that fact from citizens. He is intelligently assessing a local government which, for two decades, ran a torture ring .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge . What we have made of our police departments America, what we have ordered them to do, is a direct challenge to any usable definition of democracy. A state that allows its agents to kill, to beat, to tase, without any real sanction, has ceased to govern and has commenced to simply rule.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a campaign rally, Friday, Dec. 11, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) (Charlie Neibergall/AP)
By Fareed Zakaria Opinion writer December 31, 2015
Why is Middle America killing itself? The fact itself is probably the most important social science finding in years. It is already reshaping American politics. The Post’s Jeff Guo .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/15/what-donald-trump-and-dying-white-people-have-in-common-2/ .. notes that the people who make up this cohort are “largely responsible for Donald Trump’s lead in the race for the Republican nomination for president.” The key question is why, and exploring it provides answers that suggest that the rage dominating U.S. politics will only get worse.
For decades, people in rich countries have lived longer. But in a well-known paper, economists Angus Deaton and Anne Case found that over the past 15 years, one group — middle-age whites in the United States — constitutes an alarming trend. They are dying .. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full .. in increasing numbers. And things look much worse for those with just a high school diploma or less. There are concerns about the calculations, but even a leading critic .. http://andrewgelman.com/2015/11/06/age-adjustment-mortality-update/ .. of the paper has acknowledged that, however measured, “the change compared to other countries and groups is huge.”
--- Fareed Zakaria writes a foreign affairs column for The Post. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS and a contributing editor for The Atlantic. View Archive .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/fareed-zakaria ---
The main causes of death are as striking as the fact itself: suicide, alcoholism, and overdoses of prescription and illegal drugs. “People seem to be killing themselves, slowly or quickly,” Deaton told me. These circumstances .. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15006 .. are usually caused by stress, depression and despair. The only comparable spike in deaths in an industrialized country took place among Russian males after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when rates of alcoholism skyrocketed .. http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/cf124.chap4.html .
A conventional explanation for this middle-class stress and anxiety is that globalization and technological change have placed increasing pressures on the average worker in industrialized nations. But the trend is absent in any other Western country — it’s an exclusively American phenomenon. And the United States is actually relatively insulated from the pressures of globalization, having a vast, self-contained internal market. Trade makes up .. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TG.VAL.TOTL.GD.ZS .. only 23 percent of the U.S. economy, compared with 71 percent in Germany and 45 percent in France.
Deaton speculated to me that perhaps Europe’s more generous welfare state might ease some of the fears associated with the rapid change. Certainly he believes that in the United States, doctors and drug companies are far too eager to deal with physical and psychological pain by prescribing drugs, including powerful and addictive opioids. The introduction of drugs such as Oxycontin, a heroin-like prescription painkiller, coincides with the rise in deaths.
But why don’t we see the trend among other American ethnic groups? While mortality rates for middle-age whites have stayed flat or risen, the rates for Hispanics and blacks have continued to decline significantly .. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full . These groups live in the same country and face greater economic pressures than whites. Why are they not in similar despair?
The answer might lie in expectations. Princeton anthropologist Carolyn Rouse .. http://www.princeton.edu/anthropology/faculty/carolyn_rouse/ .. suggested, in an email exchange, that other groups might not expect that their income, standard of living and social status are destined to steadily improve. They don’t have the same confidence that if they work hard, they will surely get ahead. In fact, Rouse said that after hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and racism, blacks have developed ways to cope with disappointment and the unfairness of life: through family, art, protest speech and, above all, religion.
“You have been the veterans of creative suffering,” Martin Luther King Jr. told African Americans in his “I Have a Dream .. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm ” speech in 1963: “Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.” Writing in 1960, King explained .. http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/suffering_and_faith.1.html .. the issue in personal terms: “As my sufferings mounted I soon realized that there were two ways that I could respond to my situation: either to react with bitterness or seek to transform the suffering into a creative force. .?.?. So like the Apostle Paul I can now humbly yet proudly say, ‘I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.’ ” The Hispanic and immigrant experiences in the United States are different, of course. But again, few in these groups have believed that their place in society is assured. Minorities, by definition, are on the margins. They do not assume that the system is set up for them. They try hard and hope to succeed, but they do not expect it as the norm.
The United States is going through a great power shift. Working-class whites don’t think of themselves as an elite group. But, in a sense, they have been, certainly compared with blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and most immigrants. They were central to America’s economy, its society, indeed its very identity. They are not anymore. Donald Trump has promised that he will change this and make them win again. But he can’t. No one can. And deep down, they know it.
Read more from Fareed Zakaria’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
CNN's GOP undercard debate has concluded. Four low-performing candidates participated in the event in Las Vegas: former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), former New York governor George Pataki and former U.S. senator Rick Santorum (Pa.).
The complete transcript:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer introduced the candidates, and the debate was underway.
BLITZER: We know you're all eager to jump in and debate these important issues, but please wait until you're called on. Now that everyone is this place, it's time for the candidates to introduce themselves to our audience. You'll each have one minute.
Senator Graham, you're first.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you very much.
I just returned from Iraq two weeks ago. It was my 36th trip to Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade. Toward the end, I met a very impressive Special Forces sergeant. It was his job to train Iraqi Kurdish commandos.
He was so proud of what he was doing and so proud of the people he was training. He was the replacement for Master Sergeant Wheeler, a Delta Force member who was killed two months ago in a raid against an ISIL prison to free prisoners.
As I departed, I told this young man, stay safe. He replied, sir, I will do my best to stay safe, but I came here to win. As commander-in-chief, I will do everything in my power to make sure that he can win. As president, we will win.
(APPLAUSE) BLITZER: Governor Pataki.
GEORGE PATAKI (R), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Wolf.
I want to speak to you this evening not as a Republican or a presidential candidate, but as an American. As we saw today in L.A., we are at a crisis in our country. Radical Islam poses a threat to our safety not just overseas, but literally in every community in America.
And yet at a time when we should be united, we have a president who has divided us, who refuses to call radical Islam what it is, let alone have a coherent strategy to defeat it.
The leading Democrat, Hillary Clinton, won't call ISIS by its name, failed as secretary of state, and has continually lied to the American people.
On the other hand, the leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, continually demonizes and demeans millions of Americans, and when confronted about it, laughs it off. Neither is fit to be president of the United States.
Our party, as Republicans, needs to nominate a strong leader who will unite us as Republicans, but more importantly, unite us as Americans, committed to destroying and defeating radical Islam, restoring our confidence in our safety right here, and our belief in freedom, and that the best of America is ahead of us.
Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator Santorum.
RICK SANTORUM (R), FORMER PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Wolf.
It's great to be here in Las Vegas. And I just want to thank everybody for the opportunity to be here.
This is an important time in our country's history. We have entered World War III. World War III has begun and we have a leader who refuses to identify it and be truthful to the American people to the stakes that are involved, in part, because his policies have led us here.
SANTORUM: His policy toward Iran lit the fuse of a nuclear Iran. Just a few weeks ago the International Atomic Agency reported that Iran has had a nuclear program, but they don't know if it's continuing because they refuse to share any information about the current status. And this President marches on, forgiving them hundreds of billions of dollars to allow them to not just reconstitute their robust nuclear program, pursue their missile program, but also to foment terror around the world. And then his policies in the Middle East with Iraq create ISIS. Ladies and gentlemen, we need a President who will be honest with you and identify these problems and defeat them. I hope you will give me the chance to do that. Thank you.
BLITZER: Governor Huckabee.
GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE, (R) ARKANSAS: Wolf, I want to say thanks to you and CNN for giving us the opportunity especially to focus on national security issues at a time when Americans are not only angry -- angry at their government that they feel like has failed them, been indifferent to them, cost them their livelihoods -- but they're in addition to angry, they're just plain scared. They're scared when they thing that they go to a Christmas party and get shot at by somebody who sat and had lunch with them an hour earlier. They're scared when they realize that our government, who promises that it can vet people and is begging us to approve bringing 10,000 Syrian refugees into this country, can't even catch somebody after a third background check, who had posted things on social media clearly indicating she wanted to kill Americans. And we couldn't catch that. We've lost confidence in our government. And when Americans lose confidence in their government, we're in a dangerous place. We're in danger because we have an enemy that is out to kill us, and we have a government that we don't trust any more. This election is about going back to having a government we can trust with leaders who have the courage and conviction to actually lead and not follow.
BLITZER: Let's begin. The United States just suffered the worst terrorist attack since 9-11, the murder of 14 people by two terrorists, one of whom was an American citizen. In response, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump proposed a temporary ban on all Muslims coming into the United States until the government can figure out what is going on. Senator Graham, the polls show most Republicans do support Mr. Trump. What do you say to them?
GOV. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: You may think this makes us safe, but it doesn't. The good news for everybody in this room is, after 36 trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, most people over there, Wolf, are not buying what ISIL's selling. This is a religious war between radical Islam and the rest of the world. And there's only one way you're going to win this war. Help people in Islam who reject radical Islam to fight over there and destroy this ideology. Donald Trump has done the one single thing you cannot do. Declare war on Islam itself. ISIL would be dancing in the streets, they just believe in dancing. This is a coup for them, and to all of our Muslim friends throughout the world, like the King of Jordan and the President of Egypt, I am sorry. He does not represent us. If I am President, we will work together. People in the faith to all over the world destroy this radical ideology. Declaring war on the religion only helps ISIL.
BLITZER: Senator Graham, you say you'd rather lose the election without Trump than try to win with him. Does that mean you'll be voting for the Democratic nominee if Donald Trump wins the presidential nomination?
GRAHAM: I will support the Republican nominee, whoever he or she may be. Like Bob Dole, I may sleep late that day if it's Trump. But the bottom line, if it's Trump, so be it. That's who I'll support. Please understand we're in a war that we can't afford to lose, and what he said about banning Muslims coming here to America has made us all less safe, and it's the worst possible thing he could do in this war. He clearly doesn't understand this war and how to win it. For God's sakes, pick somebody who is worthy of the sacrifice of those who are fighting this war and who actually knows how to win, and I don't believe that's Mr. Trump, and I know it's not Hillary Clinton.
BLITZER: Governor Pataki, you mentioned Donald Trump in your opening statement. You've also suggested Mr. Trump's plan is un- American and absurd. Why?
GEORGE PATAKI, FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Absolutely. It's one of many absurd things this President has said.
PATAKI: To target a religion and say that, regardless of whether you're an American soldier who's fought on our side or allies we have overseas, simply because of your religion we're going to ban you is un-American, it is unconstitutional and it is wrong. And by the way, Wolf, now there was a group that tried to do that 150 to 160 years ago, they were called the Know-Nothing Party. They wanted to ban Catholics. They thought they were going to destroy America.
Well, Donald trump is the Know-Nothing candidate of the 21st century and cannot be our nominee.
By the way, though. I fault Hillary and Obama as well because by not distinguishing between Muslims and radicalized Jihadists, by refusing to acknowledge that it's radical Muslim, radical Islamists who are carrying out these attacks against America -- they let Americans who are confused and angry lump everyone together. We have to embrace the Muslims who embrace our freedom and living and safety. We have to destroy those who embrace Jihad and want to engage in violence against us here or abroad.
BLITZER: Senator Santorum, you object to Mr. Trump's proposals on the grounds that it's unworkable. You've made religious liberty a hallmark of your career. Do you believe in religious liberty for Muslims as well as Christians?
SANTORUM: Of course I do. But what Donald Trump was saying was nothing against Muslims. His comment was against this administration who doesn't have a policy to properly vet people coming into this country. Let's just be honest about what's -- what's being talked about here. And I know people will pile on because it makes sense to pile on, maybe from the polls. But he brings up a legitimate issue. The fact of the matter is not all Muslims are Jihadists and no one, including I suspect, Donald Trump would say that. But the reality is, all Jihadists are Muslims.
That's a reality. And we have -- we have to stop worrying about offending some people and start defending all Americans. Because we're not right now.
BLITZER: Senator Graham.
Rick, please understand the only way we're gonna win the war against radical Islam is for the world to unite. Very few fathers and mothers want to turn hair daughters and sons over to ISIL. If you spend any time in the region, you'd know that. Muslims have died by the thousands fighting this hateful ideology. You can say what you like, but when you utter the word I will ban all Americans, all Muslims from coming to America, how do you think the king of Jordan must feel to hear that? He is our friend, he is our ally. This is not the way to make America safe. This is the way to help our enemies. Stop this before it's too late.
BLITZER: Senator Santorum.
SANTORUM: I would agree -- I would agree that Donald Trump's proposal was not the right proposal. But he brings up a very important issue that I think we've been ignoring for far too long in this country. The reality is that, yes, we need to get reformist Muslims to join us. We need to get those who are being persecuted and killed within the Middle East to join us. But we also have to protect this country from those who want to harm us and we have to defeat those who are radicalized in the Middle East and wherever we find them around the world.
BLITZER: Governor Huckabee, you called Mr. Trump's plan to ban Muslims impossible and unconstitutional. But what is your specific plan to prevent would-be Jihadists from carrying out attacks against Americans?
HUCKABEE: Well, let me begin by saying I'm not that afraid of Donald Trump. And, in the sense that I'd rather him be President than I had Hillary be president any day. And so if he becomes president, I think he will do a whole lot more to protect us than Hillary will. And a whole lot more than Barack Obama has done in his eight years.
So I want to make it very clear that when I was making that comment, I was simply speaking that I'm not sure that you can have a religious test per se. And it's very impractical because if somebody comes to our borders and says I'd like to come in. They say are you a Muslim? Well, they're -- if they're going to come in here to kill us, they're not gonna say yeah, and I'm coming to kill you. They're going to lie about it. Anybody that will kill you, for God's sake, will lie to you.
So that's why I say it's impractical. But what he has done, and I don't think a lot of people understand, he has touched a nerve because people are angry and afraid that we are facing an enemy that this administration refuses to acknowledge, refuses to want to go fight. And our only answer is to go after ISIS and to go after every form of radical Islam where they are, take them down, so they never get here and do what they did in San Bernardino again ever.
BLITZER: The terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have sparked a debate here in the United States about the balance between privacy and security. I want to bring in CNN's Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt for more on this.
BASH: Senator Santorum, you want to give the intelligence community more power to collect American's phone data. But the government had this ability until just days before the San Bernardino attack.
BASH: If it couldn't prevent San Bernardino, why will it protect America?
SANTORUM: Just because it couldn't have prevented San Bernardino doesn't mean that we shouldn't have all tools available to us that doesn't impinge upon people's privacy. This sort of data collection is not collecting people's phones calls, their voices; they're not collecting information that's personal. There's no names attached to these numbers. They're simply numbers and times and relationships that throughout algorithms that computer technology can be able to sort through relationship about what numbers are calling what numbers and be able to track those down to see if there's any leakage's between someone who's potentially a terrorist.
That is to me just fundamental that we have to have this type of data to be able to not impinge upon people's privacy. In fact, I would make the argument that the more data we can collect that's anonymous that we can through, through using algorithms, the less we need to involve people in and imposing themselves in people's privacy.
BASH: Senator Graham, when this program was exposed, you said, " you have nothing to worry about if you're not talking to terrorist." Do you understand why though some Americans are concerned that the government is keeping tabs on them in any way?
GRAHAM: Well, here's what I'm here to tell you, when I first started this process of running for president., I said, " if you didn't realize we need more America boots on the ground in Iraq and eventually in Syria as a part of the regional army - not ready to be commander in chief." Like nobody said a word, now everybody's on board except Senator Paul.
Senator Paul and Senator Cruz, are isolationists. They both want to restrict the ability of the NSA to do the following; find out if somebody overseas is calling into America and if somebody is on the other end of the phone, don't you want to know who their talking to? IF a terrorist is calling into America and we can match up phone numbers we get a get a court order to find out what the content is.
We're at war folks, they're not trying to steal your car, they're trying to kills us all. So yes, I would re-institute this program. There's four things you need to understand about this war, it's a religious war, them against the world, if you don't fight them over there, they're coming here. If you don't hit them first, they're going to hit us. If you're not determined to fight it as a ware, you're going to lose it. So if you're worried about somebody having your phone in the government, don't be. The only thing you need to worry about is if you're talking to terrorist and a judge gives an order to listen to what you're saying. That's all you need to worry about.
BASH: Thank you.
Governor Huckabee, you said, "not one terrorist plot has been foiled by the NSA's collection of American's phone records. The director of the CIA says,. "not having these programs makes it ability to find terrorists, quote, "much more challenging."" Are you taking a potential tool to fight terrorists?
HUCKABEE: No. I'm not taking it away, I just want to make sure that everything we use is going to be effective. We're spending billions of dollars, let's make sure it's effective. Let's use every tool, but let's also check out the Facebook posts, let's look at Twitter accounts.
My gosh, we were told we couldn't do it because it might invade somebody's privacy. This lady who came over here and shot up San Bernardino was posting things on Facebook, yet, we were restricted from looking. Every college kid who goes to a frat party gets drunk and puts his picture on Facebook is going to have a potential employer looking at that photo before he gets hired.
Why should we have more attention? I mean, for heaven's sake, towards some college kid who wants to one day ten years from to get a job, then we're going after who wants to come in with a semi automatic weapon or a pipe bomb and blow up a bunch of Americans. This is what I think a lot of Americans are frustrated with, it's the duplicity of our policy that is illogical and irrational.
Our goal ought to be, "protect Americans and put Americans first not last," which is what I think this administration has done.
BASH: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Look, I agree with Governor Huckabee, that we should in fact be looking at people's social media posts. That's just common sense.
But we've defunded and tied the hands behind the backs of our intelligence agencies because of political correctness. We're not allowed to ask any questions or really pursue, whether there's any mosque that they're attending that could be spreading Jihadism, and we know that in this country there are Imams that are doing that. But we're not allowed to ask those questions, we're not allowed to pursue to those things because we have a president who denies the reality of the enemy we confront.
HEWITT: Wait, let's pursue that in fact Governor Pataki?
PATAKI: Yes.
HEWITT: You called for following and finding those Imams who are preaching violence in mosques. How exactly would you do that and what Mosques would you shut down? How extensive of a surveillance program are you proposing?
PATAKI: You know, I think it's very important that we do everything in our power to prevent radicalization of Americans right here. And it is happening, not just overseas, but it's happening here from Mosques on social media.
PATAKI: And truth -- interaction and community meetings.
New York police department had a very active group, aggressively monitoring and using intelligence to -- in certain Muslim communities, consistent with our constitution, consistent of our civil rights, so they could have the intelligence as to where these sermons are being given, and who is being radicalized. And, they stopped and prevented dozens, and dozens of attacks in New York.
You know, I'm a great believer in the First Amendment, of Freedom of Speech. I wish we had more of it on our college campuses, but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Calling on Americans to engage in violence against their fellow Americans in the name of jihad is crying fire in a crowded theater. It is not constitutionally protected speech, it should be shut down.
And, by the way, the two murders who went to Garland, Texas to massacre many Americans before the Texas police officer courageously killed them, had been radicalized here.
Getting to that metadata question, one of those terrorists, the day before the attacks, had sent...
[BELL RINGING]
...109 message to a known terrorist overseas. We could not read those messages, we can not read those today...
HEWITT: ...Thank you, Governor...
PATAKI: ...We have got to do far better.
HEWITT: Governor Huckabee...
(APPLAUSE)
HEWITT: ...As Governor Pataki noted earlier, we have a history of religious intoleration in this country. About the American Muslims who would be subject to this kind of surveillance, does it violate their First Amendment rights?
HUCKABEE: No, it does not violate their First Amendment rights to have someone go and listen to the sermons. You can go to any church in America, it's a public place, you can listen, and -- you know, if you go to my church, you'll probably get a real blessing. Heck, it'll be a wonderful experience. You go to some people's church, you may go to sleep, I don't know what happens in every church, but, the point is that these are public places, and folks are invited to come.
So, if it's a public place, and people are invited to come, how does it violate anybody's First Amendment rights that somebody shows up because they might want to just listen in and see is there something that is a little nefarious? And, if there is, then you take the second step of getting a search warrant, you do whatever you have to do. That's all protected under the constitution.
So, Huge, I hear people act like there's something that is terrible about going and sitting in and listening to the sermons of a mosque. If Islam is as wonderful, and peaceful as its adherents say, shouldn't they be begging us to all come in and listen to these peaceful sermons? Shouldn't they be begging us all to come, and listen, and bring the FBI so we'd all want to convert to Islam?
HEWITT: Senator Santorum...
(APPLAUSE)
HEWITT: ...I want to start then, not on the First Amendment, but on the Second Amendment. There is a terror watchlist. You can legally purchase a gun in the United States if you're on that watchlist. Your old colleague, Peter King in the House, wants to change that law. Do you agree with him?
SANTORUM: I don't. I don't think we should be able to deny someone's constitutional rights based on a list kept by the government that nobody knows how they get on it, or how they get off of it.
If you're going to make that list public, if you're going to put criteria out there as to how you're going to get on it, if you're going to deny someone's constitutional right, than I think there has to be more transparency. Let's just be honest, when someone applies for a gun, you do a background check. And, if you're on the terrorist watch list, guess what very well may happen? You may get denied that.
That's a discretion of the people -- of the ATF in making that kind of decision. I want to leave that discretion -- as long as this list is not well known, as long as it's not transparent, we have to leave that discretion.
I want to make a comment about what Mike said, and George said, about mus -- Islam.
The fact of the matter is, Islam is different. I know this is going to come as a shock to a lot of people, and I mean the sincerely. Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political governing structure. The fact of the matter is, Islam is a religion, but it is also Sharia law, it is also a civil government, it is also a form of government. And, so, the idea that that is protected under the First Amendment is wrong.
And, in fact, that political structure is what is the big problem. The imposition of Sharia law adherence to fundamental Islam as it was practiced in the Seventh Century...
HEWITT: Governor...
SANTORUM: ...There has to be a line drawn.
HEWITT: Governor, back to you. Your response?
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: I don't disagree. I don't disagree with anything that the Senator just said because that's exactly right. But, I just want to go back to the point that when people say we can't go into the mosque, we can't listen. That's utter nonsense. Of course we can. And, if we can't, if there's something so secretive going on in there that somebody isn't allowed to go and hear it, maybe we do need for sure to send somebody in there and gather the intelligence. And, that's all to the world I'm saying, I think it stands to be true.
GRAHAM: Can I say something?
HEWITT: Senator Graham, are you trying to get in?
GRAHAM: Yeah. There are at least 3,500 American muslims serving in the armed forces. Thank you for your service.
(APPLAUSE)
You are not the enemy.
GRAHAM: Your religion is not the enemy. Let me make this real to you.
I was at the second presidential election in Afghanistan. The guy guarding me was an American Muslim sergeant in the Army who grew up in Kabul, left when he was -- graduated high school, joined the U.S. Army, went back to his high school where they were doing polling, people voting, he took me there and cried like a baby. I cried like a baby.
He is the solution to this problem, folks. He is not the problem. Leave the faith alone. Go after the radicals that kill us all.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Pataki.
PATAKI: Yes, Wolf.
BLITZER: There are a lot of people who have been frustrated, especially Senator Graham, that law enforcement can't tap into information on terrorist cell phones. Senator Graham has called on companies in Silicon Valley to change their business models.
As president of the United States, would you force these companies to change their models so the government can better monitor the traffic on these cell phones?
PATAKI: I would pass a law requiring them to do that. Let me just give you one example. I mentioned in Garland, Texas, where that murderer, that terrorist, the day before sent 109 messages overseas to a known terrorist.
But they were encrypted. So to this date we don't know what that said. Companies are entitled to encrypt and protect their knowledge and their intelligence. But what we need is a back door for law enforcement to be able, when they can establish that that communication poses a risk to our safety and engages in terrorism, to get a court order and go in and access those communications.
Allow the companies to continue encryption, provide an entry way for law enforcement when they can prove to a court that there is a sufficient risk of an attack upon us that they have the right to look at those messages.
BLITZER: Senator Graham?
PATAKI: And just one more thing, Wolf. When that murderer came from Pakistan to San Bernardino and committed those atrocious crimes just a few weeks ago, she applied for a visa.
She had posted on social media jihadist messages. Because this administration is so politically correct, they have a rule that they cannot look at social media postings of people applying to come to the United States.
That is utterly absurd. One of the things we must do, the next president must do is get rid of that law and make sure we do everything in our power to find out if someone poses a threat to our existence here.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: Thank you. This is why I own a flip phone. You don't have to worry about all of this stuff.
(LAUGHTER)
GRAHAM: The bottom line is, we're at war. They're trying to come here to kill us all and it's up to the government to protect you within constitutional means. Any system that would allow a terrorist to communicate with somebody in our country and we can't find out what they're saying is stupid.
If I'm president of the United States, and you join ISIL, you are going to get killed or captured. And the last thing you are going to hear if I'm president is, you've got a right to remain silent.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Here is a question we have on the fight against ISIS from Facebook. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANNAH DEBELLA, COLLEGE STUDENT: I'm Hannah DeBella. And I go to the University of Florida. People say that we're fighting an ideological war with ISIS. If you're president, how would you defeat them both militarily and ideologically, as well?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Governor Huckabee, how would you defeat ISIS ideologically?
HUCKABEE: The way we defeat them ideologically is that we remind people that what their intent is is to kill us, and that it is our intent to use every means possible to get to them before they get to us. We are pretending that this is a war that is not that significant. We have a president who called it the JV team, said we had contained it. Nine hours after he said we contained it, there was a massacre in Paris.
We've got to make it so untenable for somebody to join ISIS. Rather than making it so that teenagers from around the world want to go and be to be a part of this, we need to go after it with significant ground troops, air campaign.
The president boasted we had 9,000 flown sorties, air missions over 18 months. What he failed to tell the American people, we were flying 3,000 air missions per day during Desert Storm.
And the rules of engagement have got to be loosened, because we have to make sure that we are not just going over and setting off some fireworks. We have to kill some terrorists and kill every one of them we can to make it very clear that to take action or threaten action against the United States, and you've just signed your death warrant.
We're coming to get you. And you won't be coming to our shores. You're going to be going to your funeral. That's what we need to do to begin to defeat it ideologically.
BLITZER: Senator Graham, you have an aggressive military plan to try to defeat ISIS. The U.S. citizen who killed 14 people in San Bernardino was radicalized right here in the United States. As President, how would you defeat ISIS online?
GRAHAM: Well, what you want to do is you want to knock them off line. How about this idea? If you pledge allegiance to al-Baghdadi, you can't get married in America? The bottom line is you have to go after them everywhere. The key to winning this war is to provide the capacity to those in the faith who reject the ideology. The key to fighting this war is to fight it in their backyard, not ours. Two years ago I came up with a plan that requires more American boots on the ground in Iraq. The first thing out of my mouth running for President was, if you don't understand we need 10,000 troops in Iraq, rather than 3,500, you're not ready. What would I do in Syria? I'd form a regional army of Arabs and Turkey. Ninety percent them, 10 percent us. Up to 10,000 U.S. forces to go in on the ground and destroy the caliphate and its roots. Take Raqqah away from ISIL, kill every one of these bastards we could find. Then I would stay. I would hold the hands of those who are willing to live in peace with us. I would build small school houses in remote regions of the world to give a young woman a voice about her children, something that will end radical Islam more than the bomb. I'm all in. Whatever it takes, as long as it takes. To the isolationists in our party, you're no better than Obama. If you want to win this war, follow me. I am seeking victory, folks, not containment.
BLITZER: Senator Santorum, following up on what we just heard from Senator Graham, at least one U.S. intelligence report from the White House has concluded that, in order to defeat ISIS and to stop its spread worldwide, you have to defeat it on the battlefield. You've called for more U.S. troops in Iraq, but you say that sending U.S. troops into Syria would be a mistake. How do you defeat ISIS with no U.S. ground troops in the country where ISIS is headquartered.
SANTORUM: Well, there's all sorts of theological reasons why we may not want to go into Syria right now to take ISIS. But let me set that aside for a moment and say this. ISIS is a caliphate. They've established a caliphate, the first Sunni caliphate since 1924, when Ataturk disbanded the Ottoman Empire. They've established a caliphate and, under Islamic law, good Muslims who see them as a legitimate caliphate are required to follow them. That's why we have people in this country who see them as a legitimate caliphate, which is the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, they are required under their law to follow them. How do we defeat their caliphate? Well, it's very clear in Islamic law how you do so. You take their land. You have to take land back from the caliphate and in the Islamic world that delegitimizes, that delegitimizes the caliphate. It makes the caliphate unsuccessful. Therefore not blessed by Allah. Therefore, you should not follow it. We need to take back the land in Iraq and we need to use Sunni, not Shiites, not Iranian troops, not Shiite Iraqis, but Sunni Muslims in Iraq and the Kurds, the Peshmerga, and take back Iraqi land. I believe if we did that, you would see ISIS begin to collapse. And then we can look at other ways in which we're going to deal with it. I have great hesitancy, based on ISIS' desire to draw us into Syria, and a particular town in Syria, for their own, again, apocalyptic version, to go in with ground troops in Syria at this point.
BLITZER: Senator Graham, you're shaking your head.
GRAHAM: Yeh, it's just you're not going to win that way, Rick. There's nobody left in Syria to train. Between the Russians and Assad, they have killed all the people we trained, and our President sat on the sidelines and watched people get killed that we enticed into the fight. There is nobody left to train. I would get the Arabs who are threatened by ISIL just as much as we are, along with Turkey. We would use their armies. They have modern armies. Ninety percent them. But some of us have to go, folks. You're not going to keep the war from here if some of us don't go over there. Ninety percent them, 10 percent us, and we go in and destroy the caliphate. There must be American boots on the ground in Syria to win. If you don't understand that, you're not ready to be Commander in Chief.
SANTORUM: I would have no problem with Sy -- with boots on the ground in Syria in a training capacity. I do not want American troops on the front line in Syria because I don't believe that that would serve to the interest. Again, understanding what ISIS is preaching. You have to learn what they're telling their people. They want to draw the United States, they want to draw the great Satan into Syria, into a particular town in Syria, because it, it's consistent with their theology. And you say, well, this sounds like gobbledy gook. It's what they believe. And if we don't take seriously what they believe and how they're able to attract people, then we're going to make mistakes like invading Syria with a ground force and bringing them into the battle that they so deeply deserve and desire.
BLITZER: I'm going to bring Governor Pataki in a minute, but go ahead and respond, Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: Well, number one, dead men don't preach anything.
GRAHAM: If you don't understand we need a ground force to go into Syria, then you're not ready to destroy ISIL. Rick, there's nobody left to train inside of Syria. Let the Arabs fight this fight, pay for this war, but they need our help.
The difference between me and you and others is that I see you've got two choices. Fight them over there or they're coming here. They're planning another 9/11 as I speak. Paris was well planned. They wake up every day in Syria trying to find a way to hit us here. If I'm president, we're going in with the Arabs in Turkey and we're gonna destroy them before they hit us here. We're running out of time, folks.
BLITZER: Governor Pataki, should the U.S. send ground troops into Syria?
PATAKI: Wolf, I think the answer is we have to send troops with allies and supporters. Wherever it is necessary to destroy the training centers, recruitment centers, planning hubs of ISIS.
Two points though. First of all today, Saudi Arabia announced a coalition of 34 states, mostly Arab, but other Muslim states to engage actively in a war against radical Islam. We have to work with them. Not just step back. Let them take the lead but work with them to destroy ISIS.
And the second point, Wolf, I want to make, is this is on the armed forces network. And thank you for doing that. Because I'm sure watching this debate this evening are some of our soldiers deployed all over the world. As the proud father of a son who was a Marine officer in Iraq and another son that was a 10th Mountain Division officer in Afghanistan, I know we produce no finer people than the men and women who put on their uniform to defend our freedom. They are watching overseas now.
God bless you. This isn't about us. This is about you. Thank you for your service.
BLITZER: Governor Huckabee, you have not put a number of how many U.S. ground troops would be needed to combat ISIS. Is Senator Graham's proposal sufficient?
HUCKABEE: Wolf, it may be sufficient, but rather than put a number -- and I'm comfortable that we say 10,000, 20,000 -- look, I think we make a mistake when we start telling the enemy what our limitations are. I think we make a huge mistake when we say we're gonna do up to this. I think what we say is, we're gonna do whatever it takes. If it's 10,000, if it's 100,000, if it's 3,000 sorties a day, if it's 5,000 sorties a day.
We never tell our enemy what our limitations are, what we are willing and what we're unwilling to do. And that's one of the mistakes I believe that we're making militarily. But the biggest mistake we've made militarily is letting Barack Obama cut our defense forces by 25 percent and leaving us at the least prepared position we've been in since before World War II.
We have to get our Military rebuilt from the ground up. And all over America I hear young people say, would you tell me what you're going to do? Would you give me free college? Will you make sure that I can have medical marijuana?
You know what we ought to tell young people? We aren't going to give you anything. We're give you the opportunity to get off your butt and go serve your country and secure your freedom. Because if you don't, nobody else is.
BLITZER: Senator Graham, and I just want to remind our viewers, you want 10,000 U.S. ground troops in Iraq, and 10,000 in Syria?
GRAHAM: Yeah. I just don't make this up, Wolf. I talk to people who are combat trained who have won in Iraq who I trust.
Here's what I want to tell the Arab world and Turkey. We're not going to send 100,000 troops. You're going to do the fighting this time and we're gonna help you. We paid for the last two wars, you're gonna pay for this one.
And (inaudible), by the way, they get it because ISIL wants to cut their heads off, too. The point I'm trying to make is, there needs to be a ground component. We need to be smart, and we need to fight the war over there. And to the people in my party who believe you can withdraw from the battlefield like Senator Cruz and Paul and we be safe, you really don't understand this war.
BLITZER: Governor Huckabee, you have said as president you would tell ISIS, and I'm quoting you now, "we will take you down and we'll try to get it done in ten days." Do you really think the U.S. can defeat ISIS in ten days?
HUCKABEE: I'd sure want them to think we would. And I'd want to make sure that we did everything we could. But we can't do it with our current Military strength. We've got to build up and have the most robust, well trained, well equipped, well prepared and ample Military force in the history of the world because we're not fighting just a known enemy in one place. We're fighting people all over the world who can go anywhere.
And the reason I say that is because if we tried to win this war on the cheap or we try to do it with the, "light footprint," we're making a huge mistake.
When all of us were in grade school, one thing we all knew, the bully never picked on the kid except for the weak one.
HUCKABEE: He never picked on the kid he knew, he'd whip(ph) him. We need to make to sure that we have the kind of military that ISIS recognizes in every radical Islamist in the world recognizes, they may start but we by god will finish the fight. And it will be their rear ends on the ground, not ours when it's all over whether it takes ten days, ten months, or ten eternities' we're going to win this fight and have to make sure they understand that.
BLITZER: Senator Samtorum?
SANTORUM: No look, I'm committed to whatever is necessary understanding the nature of the enemy. The enemy is a theocracy and their allure is their theocracy. It's their doctrine and so we have to understand that doctrine. That's why, I love the fact that people are angry and outraged in Washington and want someone new and fresh. But we need someone who understands and has knowledge and experience in these areas.
And I can see that you know, Senator Graham has that experience and we have a little difference of opinion. But frankly, it's not that big of difference in our opinion, we both want to defeat ISIS. We have elements in our party that don't and I will use whatever means necessary within the confines of not crossing a tripwire theologically that could turn on us.
BLITZER: Governor Pataki, you support ground troops - deploying grounds troops.
PATAKI: Yes.
BLITZER: The U.S. Army's Former Cheif of Staff, General Raymond Odierno said that, and I'm quoting, "now ISIS is a ten to twenty year problem. How long would you be willing to commit U.S. forces to fight ISIS?"
PATAKI: You know, I don't think it's a function of years of going after ISIS. They are out in the open and in cities like, Mosul, where we know they have their centers. They have centers that we could bomb. And what we have to do though, is have a commitment from our government, not just for troops on the ground but to do whatever we can to help our allies on the grounds right now,.
The Kurds, the Peshmurga are fighting. If we don't give them the equipment, the training, and the support they need because our government insists that it all go through Baghdad. Baghdad doesn't want a strong independent Kurdish army. There are right now Sunni, Sheikh, and Tribes in the Anbar province, taking on ISIS. In fact, they're in the process of reclaiming Ramadi, the provincial capital this week. They are on our side and they are Sunni, but we are not arming, supporting, training, and helping them as much as we can because all support goes through Baghdad and they don't want a strong autonomous Sunni area.
We have to put our interests first. Not the interests of Baghdad or of Iran, we have to support those on the ground fighting on our side. Give them every bit of help that they want and to the extent that it's necessary, for us to send in Special Ops to destroy those training centers, recruitment hubs, planning hubs, social media centers.
Do that. Destroy them. Protect our freedom and get out.
BLITZER: But how long would you be willing to commit U.S. troops to fight ISIS.
PATAKI: You know, I don't want to see us occupy a country. I've been to Iraq a couple of times and Afghanistan. The first time I went, I had an uneasy feeling that when we went there we were liberators. But as we stayed ,we became occupiers.
I saw American troops move into some of Saddam's old hideous marble palaces. And I thought that was exactly the wrong message. We do not have to occupy. We do not have to nation build and try to create a democracy where one hasn't existed. WE have to destroy ISIS, protect our safety and our freedom here, and then get out.
BLITZER: Senator Graham, you called for U.S. ground troops as we know in Iraq and Syria.
GRAHAM: Two years ago.
BLITZER: As you know, there's a growing ISIS presence right now in Libya.
GRAHAM: Yes.
BLITZER: Are you ready to deploy U.S. troops to Libya to try to defeat ISIS there?
GRAHAM: I think we need to have a military strategy regarding Libya. They've just take over Gaddafi's hometown called Sur(Ph). There's about 2000 of them.
Here's what I've learned in my 36 visits, you can't deter these guys, they're ready to die, bring on the virgins. Dying is first place in their world. What we have to do is work with others over time to destroy to ideology. We have to offer a hopeful life to compete with the glory of this.
Most young people folks want the same thing you do. They don't want to live in the 11th century. So yes, you have to destroy the caliphate. I want to work with Arabs and Turkey to do it, but here's the key is to not leave. If we left Germany and Japan only god knows what would've happened. If we have 10000 troops left in Iraq, there would be no ISIL and I hate what Obama did. He gave away everything we fought for and I hate what he did.
I begged him not to and I've been right more than I've been wrong.
BLITZER: Senator? Senator, are you ready to commit U.S. ground troops to Libya?
GRAHAM: I want to talk to General Keane first. I want to find out, what do we need militarily to keep them contained and eventually destroy them in Libya. They're in nine countries.
GRAHAM: You want to deal with Libya, go to Iraq and Syria. You want to prevent another 9/11, take the caliphate headquarters away from ISIL. There is no other way to do it without a ground force going into Syria. We have to be part of that ground force, or another 9/11 is coming just as sure as I'm standing here. They're planning it tonight.
The ISIL leadership wants to hurt you, and your family, and if I'm president, they will not get here 'cause we're going to kill 'em over them.
BLITZER: Alright, gentleman, standby. The fight against ISIS clearly is sparking new tensions with another super power. How these candidates will handle Vladimir Putin, that's next.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're live here at the Venetian in Las Vegas. Welcome back.
(APPLAUSE)
As the U.S. fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria continues, the question remains whether to take out the Syrian dictator, Bashar al Assad. That has become a major policy difference among the Republican candidates.
Governor Huckabee, you said the Middle East was more stable when Bashar al Assad was fully in control of Syria. The Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to keep him in power. As President of the United States, would you join with Putin to do the same thing?
HUCKABEE: Well, I want to be real clear, I don't trust Putin, I don't trust Assad. I'm not saying that I would endorse him for his reelection bid. The man is a tyrant, he's killed lots of people, but he wasn't killing Americans. And, the thing that I'm concerned about is that we have seen a complete destabilization, not only of Syria, but we've seen it in Yemen, that the President pronouncing great shape just before it collapsed.
HUCKABEE: Destabilization of Libya, destabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It seems like wherever we try to pick a side under this administration, we always pick the wrong one. We picked the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
So all I'm saying is, let's be careful to understand who it is that is our direct immediate threat. Do I think that we can hug Putin and have a wonderful relationship with the Russians and go off into the sunset like the end of "Casablanca"? No, I don't.
But let me tell you what I think we ought to be doing. We ought to be challenging not only Russia but the Iranians and the Saudis on the point of energy. We ought to be drilling every bit of oil, getting all the coal out.
We need to be going after our natural gas and biofuels and become the energy exporter to the world, and take the weaponry out of the hands of the Russians, the Iranians, and the Saudis by taking their money away, and let America become the number one energy exporter to the entire world.
That enriches Americans and it destabilizes our enemies overseas.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: It is absolutely imperative that Bashar Assad go. The biggest mistake Obama made was drawing a red line. Assad crossed it. He is still standing.
If I'm president, Assad will not stand. He has murdered 240,000 of his own people. They're not going to accept him as their leader. The war never ends if he stays in power. You're giving Damascus to the Iranians.
He's a puppet of the ayatollah, a proxy of Iran. He is the biggest benefactor of Hezbollah. Weapons flowing from Damascus to Lebanon will continue to flow if Assad stays. For our interests and the stability of the region, he must go.
And if I'm president, he will go. And the Syrians will pick their leader, not the ayatollah.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Huckabee.
HUCKABEE: Well, the only thing I disagree with is that I still believe if you take away their ability to fund their weaponry and fund their terrorism, they don't have terrorism.
I still say we need to take an offensive approach by using our energy, the one weapon we have, we have hundreds of years of energy under our feet. The president thinks that climate change is the number one enemy.
I think people bombing us is a bigger enemy than the temperature change over several hundred years. So let's get our energy. Let's use that as an offensive weapon to change the dynamics of the entire globe, and especially change the dynamics of the Middle East.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: I'm going to get to the others in a moment. But you're once again shaking your head, Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: Well, I agree with that. I would like to become -- you know, I'd like to stop sending $350 billion overseas to buy oil from people who hate our guts, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you like to export natural gas to cut Putin's legs out from under him?
I'm not afraid of a guy riding around on a horse without his shirt.
(LAUGHTER)
GRAHAM: The guy has got a pair twos and we've got a full house, and he's walking all over Obama.
Mike, the surge worked. It worked. George W. Bush made mistakes, but he did adjust. I blame Obama for ISIL, not Bush. I'm tired of beating on Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I wish he were president right now. We wouldn't be in this mess.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
GRAHAM: I'm tired of dictators walking all over us. I'm tired of siding with the Iranians and the Russians.
BLITZER: Thank you.
Governor Pataki.
PATAKI: Lindsey is looking back and defending President Bush, but I want to look forward.
This is about the next president of the United States. And you mentioned Libya and you mentioned Russia. And what they have in common, the disaster they have in common is Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state. Do you remember... GRAHAM: Yes.
(APPLAUSE)
PATAKI Do you remember in Libya where it was Hillary Clinton who went and tried to convince and ultimately did convince Obama that the United States had to go in for humanitarian reasons to protect people from the dictator at the time, Gadhafi?
What has happened? We led from behind. We have chaos. We have ISIS controlling a major city. We've had hundreds of thousands of refugees. That's Hillary's policy in Libya.
And then Putin, the reset button, you remember who that was? That was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressing the reset button. We can be friends with Russia. Russia is not our friend. They're friends with the Iranians.
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
PATAKI: They are friends with Assad. They are friends with Hezbollah. We have got to stand up with them. And we have got to hold Hillary accountable for her failed time as secretary of state.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator Santorum, you've suggested that there's no good options for the United States in Syria. As commander-in-chief, would you be willing to let Russia take the lead in the fight against ISIS there?
SANTORUM: I don't want Russia taking the lead anywhere, particularly working with Assad, because what that shows, and I think Lindsey is correct in this, is that, you know, we've abandoned that region, which we don't want to do, number one.
Number two, the relationship between Iran and Damascus is one of the reasons that ISIS has the power they have.
SANTORUM: And the fact that we have a nuclear treaty with the Shiites in Iran, that we have now partnered with the Russians and appearing to allow Assad to stay, which is a satellite Alawites, very interrelated to the Shiites, this looks to ISIS -- and what they're selling is that we are now lining up with the Shiite world against the Sunni world.
Well the Shiite world is 15 percent of the Muslim world. The Sunni world is 85 percent. We're -- we're picking the wrong horse here. Not only is the Iranian deal the greatest betrayal of this -- of this country in the history of our country by signing that deal, but secondly, we have now lined up to empower ISIS by partnering with the Shiites. So the answer is this. The answer is we have to take them on in Iraq, defeat them in Iraq. Delegitimize their caliphate. Join with legitimate rebel forces which exist in Syria and begin to arm them and train them. But it's a one-two step. The first step has to be Iraq.
BLITZER: We have a video question from Facebook. Let's watch.
QUESTION: Hi, I'm Adithya Sivakumar. I'm from Vanderbilt University. And I was wondering with U.S. designated state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and other traditional U.S. enemies fighting ISIL, do you think the United States should ally with these groups or continue with their own separate coalition?
BLITZER: Governor Pataki.
PATAKI: I'm not sure -- ally with which groups? I didn't quite catch that.
BLITZER: He says he was wondering with U.S. designated state sponsors of terrorism like Iran and other traditional U.S. enemies fighting ISIL, do you think the United States should ally with these specific groups?
PATAKI: Not at all. Iran is our enemy. They are the number one sponsor of state terror. The Iranian Deal is a disaster. And by the way, I don't think the next president has to aggregate it. It was never ratified by the Iranians. They have tested long-range ballistic missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions. They have broken the agreement. It is void. They can never have a nuclear weapon and should not get relief.
With respect to the other groups, like Hezbollah, of course we should not work with them. I'll tell you who we should work with in Syria. There are two groups. One are the PYD, the -- the Kurds in Syria who led the defense of Kobani, and are in northern and eastern Syria and anti-ISIS and anti-Assad.
The second thing I'd do is three years ago, Turkey called for a no-fly zone along the Turkish border. Obama said no. We need to work with the Turks, create that no-fly zone so that Syrian refugees don't have to flock to Europe or try to get to the United States. They will have a safe haven. Anti-Assad Syrians can group there, train, organize there and let them fight the fight to protect our allies.
BLITZER: Hugh Hewitt and Dana Bash have questions.
Hugh go ahead.
HEWITT: Thank you, Wolf.
Governor Huckabee, ten minutes ago you blasted President Obama for destabilizing Iraq. You hit former Secretary of State Clinton for supporting the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. But you have said recently you would sanction countries that don't join the fight aggressively against ISIS. Having had an administration that has effectively undermined our friends and emboldened our foes, why would you start sanctioning those who are not yet on our side against ISIS?
HUCKABEE: Well what we have done, and we created an impossible atmosphere. This administration has put more pressure on Israel to stop building bedrooms in Judea and Samaria than they've put on Iranians to stop building a nuclear bomb. And I'm just simply pointing out the obvious, that we need to recognize who our friends are, who our enemies are...
HEWITT: Which country?
HUCKABEE: ... but I'm convinced...
HEWITT: Which countries are those, governor, that you would sanction?
HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, it would be the Iranians. I would have never entered into this deal. I don't know why on God's earth that the senators gave it so that it was easier for Obama to have the agreement than it would be to make it a treaty.
HEWITT: That's an easy, give. Are you going to sanction any of our allies who say, no this isn't our fight we're gonna let you do this. Are you going to leave our allies alone? For example, Indonesia and Malaysia -- other Muslim countries -- will you leave them alone?
HUCKABEE: I would make sure that there was economic pressure put on them. Why not? Why should we fund every single battle against radical Islam? Why should we stand back and watch Israel get targeted, the United States get targeted and we watch with people with their hands in their pocket, and their hands in our pocket because we're getting them a lot of money. And let's say your hands can be in your pocket, you can stand still, but your hands aren't going to be in our pockets anymore. We're not going to give you another dime unless you engage the battle with us. We are not sending our sons and daughters, and grandsons and granddaughters to war to fight for your interest. You either get in with us or be on your own. But we're not gonna fight the battle for you.
HEWITT: Senator Graham, I just named two Islamic countries...
(APPLAUSE)
HEWITT: Senator Graham, I just named two Islamic countries that are allies that he suggested we sanction. Is that the appropriate approach to this war?
GRAHAM: No. What I would do is I would try to make friends throughout the world to destroy a common threat to the world. These people are religious Nazis. Most people in Islam don't buy what they're selling.
GRAHAM: I've told you a thousand times that I would partner with the Arabs in Turkey.
But, the reason they don't partner with Obama is they just don't trust him. Do you think they would trust me? I know them all. I've been working for a decade to figure out how to win this war.
To my good friend Ted Cruz, please ask him the following question, you say you would keep Assad in power, I will tell you that is the worst possible thing that could come out of an American leaders mouth. It would be disastrous. His favorite movie is, apparently, Princess Bride. Ted, getting in bed with Iran and Russia to save Assad is inconceivable.
(APPLAUSE)
HEWITT: Senator Santorum, let me ask you...
GRAHAM: Princess Buttercup would not like this.
(LAUGHTER)
HEWITT: Senator Santorum, let me ask you, the opposite of getting into bed is shooting down the prince's plane. Senator Santorum has -- Senator Graham has said he would shoot down Russian planes bombing Syrian fighters on our side. Would you shoot down a Russian plane bombing American allied fighters in Syria (ph)?
SANTORUM: Well, I would establish a no-fly zone. And, I think we just...
HEWITT: What -- if they fly into it, would you shoot it down?
SANTORUM: Well -- the first thing you have to do is establish a no-fly zone, and you don't do that by just sort of declaring it. You work through the process of making sure you work with people who, hopefully, have the same objective that you do. And, if they don't, then you establish the no-fly zone, and you take the consequences of whatever -- who violates that law.
HEWITT: The consequences would be war with Russia. Would you risk...
SANTORUM: ...I don't think it's a war with Russia anymore than Turkey went to war with Russia when Turkey shot down a plane...
HEWITT: Senator Graham, do you agree?
SANTORUM: These are -- these are incidents not something that we're threatening the motherland. This is a tactical decision within an area that we have an obligation for the refugees, for providing stability to the rebels, and an opportunity for the rebels to reconstitute. And, making sure that we stop the flow of refugees into Europe, and into the United States to establish a no-fly zone.
And, Russia either is going to comply with it or not, and if they don't, I think it can be contained to that region.
HEWITT: OK, we know you agree, Senator Graham. How about you, Governor Pataki, would you shoot down Russian planes?
PATAKI: I could create...
GRAHAM: ...I didn't get to say yes. Yes.
PATAKI: I would create the no-fly zone, and let me tell you, something very simply. Putin is a bully, and the most important and effective thing you can do to a bully is punch him in the face. Create a no-fly zone.
If Russian planes violate that space, either us, or the Turks, should shoot them down to keep our word. And, I guarantee you that Putin would back off. Bullies, when you stand up to them, back down.
We have had, under Obama, and under Hillary as Secretary of State, nothing but weakness in the face of Russia, whether it was in the Crimea, whether it was in Ukraine, or now in the Middle East. I would give the Ukrainians lethal weapons so they could defend themselves. I would create the no-fly zone, and if Russian planes flew into it in violation of what we have declared, yes.
BASH: Senator -- Senator Graham...
GRAHAM: Yeah, this is an important discussion. The American president is the strongest voice in the world -- until Obama came along. Now, we're just one of many. When you ask people to help you, when you entice Syrians to join your cause, to take down the dictator they hate to destroy ISIL which will attack our homeland, and you sit on the sidelines and watch the Russian president kill them, it makes it harder for us to get partners in the future.
The point I'm trying to make is we got to mean what we say...
(BELL RINGING)
...And, I am begging people to wake up to Syria. The next 9/11 is coming from Syria, it's coming soon...
BASH: Senator Graham...
GRAHAM: ...we'd better do something about it, and I have a plan.
BASH: Senator Graham, we've heard here tonight a lot about the fact that you want to send U.S. troops, ground troops, into Iraq, and Syria to defeat ISIS. Would you consider reinstating the draft in order to complete that mission?
GRAHAM: I don't think it's necessary. If you don't want to be there, I don't want you to be there. I just retired after 33 years in the Air Force, 140 days on the ground as an Air Force Reservist. To those who are watching, thank you for your service.
I've had a small walk in your shoes. We have the best military in the world. Obama has put it in a box. Let's take it out of the box and use it before we get attacked here. We don't need a draft, we need a commander in chief who knows what the hell they're doing.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Governor Huckabee...
(APPLAUSE)
GRAHAM: And, I am that guy.
BASH: Governor Huckabee, would you reinstate the draft?
HUCKABEE: I wouldn't reinstate a draft, but, I think it's noteworthy that we are fighting all the battles we have with less than one percent of the American population.
HUCKABEE: We have the lowest level of percentage of population participating in the military than ever. And they're over-deployed, they're over used, especially among our reserves and Guard troops. Any governor will tell you.
BASH: So what would you do about it?
HUCKABEE: Well, I would say that, if you want a college education, let's go back and reinstate the full-blown G.I. bill. You give something to your country; your country gives something back to you. We need to ask young people to step up and buy their own freedom because there's not going to be enough people left at less than one percent. And as my good friend Ken Allard, former Dean of the War College, has often said, we're fighting all the wars with other people's kids. And that's one of the things that's making us much less safe, is because we don't have enough Americans truly invested in the process of defeating our enemies. Therefore, I do think without a draft we do need to ask people to recognize we are at war.
GRAHAM: Can, can I...
BASH: Senator...
GRAHAM: This is important. We're not fighting all the wars with our kids. If you've been to Iraq and Afghanistan and you made any friends, you've lots of bunch. Thousands have died in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting.
BASH: Thank you, Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: Don't belittle their sacrifice.
HUCKABEE: I'm not belittling their sacrifice, Lindsey, but I'm just making note that on the part of Americans we have sent National Guard troops over for an 18-month em -- 18-month deployment. They come back for five, they go back for another 18. We're wearing these guys out. They agreed to be citizen soldiers. We turned them into full time soldiers because we've not kept up the pace by recruiting enough people in the military to fully fill these forces, and that's what we need to be doing.
BASH: Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: No.
BASH: Senator Graham, quick response. GRAHAM: To, to those the (well) times in the Army were a bigger problem than they are today. If you want to fix this, you get the Army to 500,000, not 420,000. You want to win this war, grow the Navy to 350 ships, not 275. Sequestration is Latin for doing really dumb things. We're going to have the smallest Navy since 1915, the smallest Army since 1940. I was yelling and screaming don't do sequestration. I was right. If I am President of the United States, Commander in Chief, we're going to rebuild our military without a draft...
BASH: Thank you, Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: ...and we're going to go on the offense and they're ready to go.
BASH: Thank you, Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: They are ready to go. They just need to be led.
BASH: Senator Santorum, earlier this month the Pentagon opened all U.S. military combat positions to women. You previously opposed allowing women in combat roles. As President, would you change the Pentagon's new policy?
SANTORUM: I would use the studies that were done that were ignored by this military that there were certain positions that frankly were not suitable. And they pushed a political agenda above what is in the best interest of the safety, security, and effective of our, of our fighting units. So I would go back to using what we should be doing. Which is putting forth people on those front line positions who are best prepared to do the job, survive the job, and come back home safely.
BASH: So, just to be clear, you're saying, yes, you would change the policy back?
SANTORUM: I would change the policy to reflect what is the best interest of the people that we're asking. I've got a son who's going, who's going into the Air Force right now, and I, as a father, I want to make sure that, if he's out there on the front line -- and he may be a pilot flying an airplane -- I want to make sure that the person who's responsible for, for his wing has the ability to do the job they're doing. And if they don't have that ability to do the job, if we're doing a social promotion as opposed to what's best for the efficacy of our fighting force and for the survivability of our men and women, I'll change that policy.
BASH: Governor Pataki, as you mentioned earlier, you have two sons who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would you maintain this new policy as President, or do you agree with Senator Santorum.
PATAKI: No, I completely disagree with Rick. This is America. And we've made enormous progress. And I don't care if you're a man or a woman. I care if you're good and capable of doing the job. If you can do the job -- don't lower standards, don't lower the criteria -- but if a woman is capable of doing these jobs, there is no reason why we should deny a patriot who wants to serve and help defend our country that right.
BASH: Senator Santorum.
SANTORUM: So what you just said is you agree with me. Because that's exactly what I said.
PATAKI: It's not.
SANTORUM: I said if you can't do the job, you shouldn't be able to...you shouldn't have the position.
PATAKI: No, you said you would reverse the policy which excluded women from those jobs whether or not they were able to do that. That is wrong.
SANTORUM: No, I did not say that, George. I mean, you may, you may have heard that, but I didn't say that. What I said was, if they can in fact do the job that any, any other person can do, I will allow them to do so.
PATAKI: Ah.
SANTORUM: But if they cannot, I would reverse the policy. And what happened here is there were many studies done, particularly in the Marine Corps, which begged this President not to move forward with this because people are going to get killed as a result of it. The President went forward anyway.
SANTORUM: That is not looking out after the best interest of anybody, including women in that front-line position.
BASH: Now Governor Pataki, do you a final response?
PATAKI: Yes, I think what Rick said is very different from what he said initially which was that, "he would reverse the policy that gave woman not the right but the opportunity to serve in combat." They can only do it if they're fit and capable and meet the same standards as men. And so, to reverse that policy and deny a woman who is prepared to risk her life to defend our freedom and is capable of doing everything a man could do is not the right thing for America in the 21st century.
By the way, you see in Iraq, the Peshmerga, the Kurds ,many of their top fighters are women. This is the 21st century. We're not radical Islam. We want to give women the opportunity to do whatever they are capable of achieving in this country.
BLITZER: Governor Pataki, let me stick with you.
Governor Pataki, a U.S. Army Sargent Bowe Bergdahl now facing a court marshall after leaving his base in Afghanistan, getting captured by the Taliban - Donald Trump, has called for his execution. The former house speak John Boehner says "he's innocent until proven guilty." Where do you stand?
PATAKI: Of course he's innocent until proven guilty. I happen to believe he's guilty. The military did a very clear and long study as to whether or not he deserted in the face of enemy and they are not court marshalling him. I don't think he should executed. I do think he will have a fair military trial, not a civilian trial, at which time, assuming he's found guilty as I think he would, he will be sentenced appropriately.
But there's a bigger issue here, this administration has failed to protect us because they have treated radical Islamists as Americans who should be tried in civil court. That is ridiculous. They are enemy aliens engaged in terror against Americans. And by the way, the fact that this president is now threatening to close Guantanamo Bay when we know that time after time, terrorists he released are involved in a high level capacity helping ISIS and Al Queda, this is a disgrace.
Ask Hilary Clinton, would she keep Guantanamo Bay open so that Americans can be safe and terrorists kept from going back to the battlefield?
BLITZER: Senator Graham, where do you stand?
GRAHAM: Well I stand unique, having been a military lawyer for 33 years. I've been a defense attorney, a prosecutor, and a military judge. Mr. Trump, you don't have to speak about everything, that's not required.
(LAUGHTER)
I would make sure that everybody had a fair trial. Does that make sense to you?
(APPLAUSE)
We're at war folks and this stuff has to stop. It's bad for morale to hear somebody wanting to be Commander in Chief that would deny due process to somebody who's been charged in the military. For God's sakes Mr. Trump, you're asking to be the Commander in Chief , the leader of the free world, up your game. As to women, if you want to kill terrorists, I'm your guy.
BLIZTER: Governor Huckabee? Governor Huckbee, ISIS demanded ransom before killing American hostages, James Foley and Kayla Mueller. Their families wanted to pay even though at the time the U.S. government discouraged them. Since then, U.S. policy has changed.
As president, would you support families of the approximately 30 Americans being held worldwide if they chose to pay ransom?
HUCKABEE: The horrors that those families have to go through, if that were my son, my daughter, I'd give my last drop of blood to get them back. You bet I would. Is it a good policy? No.
It's a terrible policy because once we do it, we're only going to invite more and more hostages, more and more ransoms, and the diasters gets even worse. But I don't blame any of these families. You know who I blame? I blame a policy in our government that has made it so that families are so desperate that they're willing to pay ransom to terrorists organizations because they don't believe our government will fight the fight for them and they think they're out there on their own.
My goodness people, this is America. When did we have to start telling people that you've got to bake your own bread in order to fight the battles? That's what we have a government for, it's what we pay taxes for. And I believe, those families ought to have a better expectation of what this government will do.
We should never has sat at the table with the Iranians as long Sayed Abadnini is sitting in an Iranian prison. As long as the Washington Post report is over there. Until the four hostages of America were on an airplane safely out of Tehran. We should've told them, " we won't even walk into the room with you much less sit down and negotiate with you."
HUCKABEE: That's what we ought to be doing.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
Governor Pataki, speaking of those four Americans being held in Iran right now. Iran has suggested they might be willing to have a prisoner swap, release Iranian prisoners held in the United States, in exchange for those four Americans.
Would you support that?
PATAKI: You know, again, it comes down to something that, as Mike said, breaks your heart. We clearly want to get them back. But the idea that by taking a journalist, for example, and holding him hostage in Iran, they're going to be able to get some of their terrorist leaders back, is simply bad policy.
Israel has shown the way on this in rejecting hostage exchanges such as this and then not paying ransom.
But, by the way, Mike is absolutely right. We have to do more to protect our people overseas, but then we also have to do more to help our veterans when they come back here today.
We haven't talked about that. But more talking about defeating terrorism, one of the things we have to do is give our veterans the support and help that they require. What has happened at the VA is a disgrace.
Give our veterans a medical card that they can use to get the best quality care anywhere, including outside of the VA system.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: We have to take a quick break, but, Governor, Israel has exchanged a lot of the prisoners it was holding for Israeli soldiers who were being held by Hamas, for example.
PATAKI: And that -- but that was involved in combat, where they were actually involved in a war against each other and exchanged prisoners. We have not been in a war with Iran. They have taken civilians as hostages. It's a totally different situation. And we cannot encourage them to do any more of that. BLITZER: Thank you. Let's take another quick break. The scramble, the scramble to protect Americans after ISIS attacks from the inside, does the country need to tighten its borders to prevent another San Bernardino slaughter?
Where the candidates stand, that's next.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to the Republican Presidential Debate here at the Venetian in Las Vegas.
Gentlemen, in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, the Obama Administration policy of allowing Syrian refugees to come into the United States has come under fire.
Senator Santorum, you say accepting Syrian refugees is dangerous. You say it just takes one Jihadist to destroy the world.
Do you think there is any way to properly vet refugees coming into the United States?
SANTORUM: Of course there is a proper way to vet refugees coming into the United States. But not from the ISIS-controlled area or Syria. How can you do a background check? Where are you gonna go? Who are you going to call? Call Assad and say, hey, you know, tell me about this guy from Aleppo.
There's no possibility in these -- in these types of war-torn countries to adequately vet someone to allow them to come into this country. It's impossible.
So you have a physical impossibility here. Secondly, we shouldn't be taking people out of that region and move them here to the United States. And the reason we shouldn't is very clear. If you talk to the clerical leaders and particularly those who are religious minorities, they don't want their people to be relocated so they're never gonna come back. And let me assure you, if they come to America, they're not going to come back. They're not gonna go back to those areas. So who stays? Those who cooperated with ISIS and maybe a few of the refugees who's come back.
We need to have refugee camps in the region. We need to provide no-fly zones to make sure that don't even need refugee camps so people can stay in the area. But the last thing we need to do is to relocate moderate Muslims, relocate minorities and Christians out of the region so they're not going to return and reestablish a -- a -- a state that can be won, that can be cooperative for us and safe going forward.
BLITZER: Governor Pataki, you have said you wouldn't accept a single Syrian refugee. What should become of them? PATAKI: You know, I think what I said earlier is that I would create a no-fly zone in Syria. Turkey just agreed to take 3 million more Syrian refugees. The EU just came up with a funding program to provide camps for Syrian refugees, but I would also create that no-fly zone where refugees can be there.
I have to say I agree with Rick, because this President is talking about taking 10,000 people from Syria, who we cannot vet. This administration, allegedly, vetted the woman who carried out the attacks in San Bernardino and never found out that she had a false address and was on social media talking about radical Jihad.
Coming from Syria, it's impossible to do that check. And we know, by the way, that ISIS is using this refugee program to send terrorists to the West to engage in attacks. They have said that. That this is an opportunity for them to do that.
So, the answer is no. No Syrian refugees. Whether it's the 10,000 Obama wants or the 60,000 that Hillary Clinton wants. Think about it, I was governor on September 11th. Those attacks were carried out by only 18 people. We take 60,000 Syrian refugees that we can't vet. If one in 1,000, 1 in 1,000 is a terrorist, we would have 60 terrorists living amongst us looking to carry out attacks. We cannot let that happen.
BLITZER: Let's go back to Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt for more questions. Dana?
BASH: Governor Huckabee, the U.S. has a program that allows visitors from America's closest allies to travel to the U.S. without obtaining a visa. But new legislation in Congress says that privilege should not apply to those who have visited is hot spots like Iraq and Syria in the last five years. You say that legislation doesn't go far enough. Why?
HUCKABEE: We just need to take a real pause and all the people that coming here and we don't know who they are or what their affiliations are. What George just said is right. We can't take the risk. And why should we take the risk?
And if it's such a doggone good idea to bring people here that we really don't know who they are and Obama thinks that we're being un- Christian to not do it, I've got a suggestion. Let's send the first wave of them to Chappaqua, Martha's Vineyard and the upper east side of Manhattan and to the south lawn of the White House where we'll set up a camp.
Let's see how that works out. And if they behave wonderfully, that's fine. I want to say, I don't want someone lecturing me about what it means to be a Christian that I should invite a potential terrorist into my backyard. On one hand, the left says separation of church and state. Let's not have any discussion of religion, and then the left wants to tell me what it means to be a Christian.
HUCKABEE: They need to figure out if they know more about being a Christian than I do, then tell me. They are no longer going to say separation of church and state, but, we have the most fundamental right above everything else -- is not to protect the reputation of Islam. It is to protect Americans first and foremost. That is our job.
(APPLAUSE)
HEWITT: Senator Graham, in 2013 you were part of the leadership that pushed through immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate of the United States. It died in the House. Many accused you of amnesty, and may have undermined your ability to get your message out on the war.
Would you sign that bill again today? Would you -- sponsor that bill again today?
GRAHAM: Well, the first thing I would do is make adjustments to reality. I want to look and see if this was a terrorist arranged marriage between the couple in California. The fact that they met online accidentally is almost zero. So, no, I would have a time-out on Syrian refugees because you'd be crazy if you didn't after Paris.
But, I've been to the refugee camps in Turkey, and Jordan. Trust me with your Christian -- and I'm a lousy Christian saved by grace, but -- this is important. We've got to stop this war. Do you realize that there are more Syrian refugees in Lebanon going to school than Lebanese children? Do you realize if this war goes for another year the King of Jordan could fall?
Let's have a no-fly zone.
HEWITT: But, Senator, I misunderstand, did you...
GRAHAM: I would -- make changes to that bill in light of what I know today.
HEWITT: Senator Santorum, is that sufficient for you?
SANTORUM: Lindsay says this is a real war, until it comes to immigration. And, then, all of a sudden it's not such a real war. The reality is that we've seen since the events of 9/11, the president talks about how he's worried about discrimination and acts against Muslims. There's four times as many acts of violence against Jews than there are against Muslims. I never hear the president talk about that.
(APPLAUSE)
The reality is that under this president, since 9/11, this anti- Muslim United States of America has doubled the rate of Muslim immigration. Since 9/11.
(BELL RINGING)
That's what we've done. So, the idea that we have an immigration system that is working...
HEWITT: Thank you, Senator.
SANTORUM: Is not -- and, I'm out of time.
HEWITT: Yep. Governor Huckabee, you have said that children of immigrants who came here illegally should not be punished by their parents actions. As president, would you continue President Obama's policy, vis-a-vis, the Dreamers?
HUCKABEE: No, because he did it unconstitutionally. Twenty-three times he's said he couldn't do it, and then one day he woke up and he found he had a pen in one hand, and a phone in another, and wow. That Constitution didn't mean much anymore.
Look, President's can't just do what they want to do. That's the purpose of getting elected and working with other people who got elected, is that our system was designed to function with the power of persuasion, it's really what you elect a president to do.
HEWITT: Senator...
HUCKABEE: ...Let me finish, Hugh. You elect him to lead which means that if you think it's a good idea to not punish the children for something their parents did, then you go to the members of Congress and you persuade them. And, you persuade the American people.
You don't just jump up and shove it up the nostrils of Congress, and the American people because you think you have a superior intellect, and a superior will, and a superior theology than everybody else. Our system is not a system of tyranny. We don't elect kings, we elect servants.
If I'm elected president, I don't consider myself to be elected to be the king of the country, but the servant of the country to work with other people who are elected to get things done that need to be done.
HEWITT: Senator Santorum, you...
(APPLAUSE)
...Your position on that policy, assuming that it was passed constitutionally, would you allow this, would you support such an act?
SANTORUM: Here's the problem. I was with, in fact, one my guests here today is the Sheriff in Cochise County, down on the border in Arizona. And, he talked with me last night when I was with him about all of the children coming across. All of the children, why?
Because we've created a magnet. These children are not coming over, and in great shape, not coming over -- and not in harms way, and -- going through difficult times. We're attracting people.
He's also the Sheriff that caught Syrian's at the border. We have through the policies supported by almost everybody in this field...
(BELL RINGING)
...A policy that says amnesty. The world hears this, and knows that if they can come across this border, by and large, they're going to be able to stay. That has to change.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Gentlemen, standby, we are going to take another very quick break. Coming up, with America on edge, who has what it takes to be the next Commander in Chief? These candidates, they will make their case.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. We're live here at the Venetian Las Vegas.
Gentlemen, it's time for your closing statements. Each candidate will have 30 seconds.
Senator graham, you're first.
GRAHAM: The next president is going to be a war-time president, whether they like it or not. I'm ready for that job. Two years ago isolationism led by Senator Paul and Cruz was white hot in our party. Now it is in retreat because events have proven me more right than wrong and has proven them to be wrong.
In the first debate I called for American troops on the ground to protect our homeland. Nobody came forward. Now, most have. We've spent a lot of carnage to get them to where I have always been.
Make me president, I will keep you and your family safe.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
Governor Pataki.
PATAKI: Thank you. This debate has been about terrorism and appropriately so. I'm proud to have been governor of New York on September 11th and have led our state through and during the aftermath of that horrible attack.
I vowed then that if I ever had the chance to lead this country, I would do everything in my power to make sure that Americans were safe. But I also saw a positive from that. New Yorkers and the American people came together and vowed that we weren't just going to defend ourselves.
We were not going to live in fear. We were going to rise to new heights and celebrate our freedom.
Come to Lower Manhattan today. You will see a magnificent tribute to those who died, the memorial and the museum. You will also see a new tower soaring 1,776 feet tall, the Freedom Tower, a symbol of our freedom, a symbol of our belief that as a free people we can soar to new heights.
Give us the chance to unite Americans, not just Republicans. And this country's future is unlimited.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
Senator Santorum.
SANTORUM: Barack Obama has not kept this country safe. Hillary Clinton will not keep this country safe. We need to nominate someone who America knows will keep this country safe.
Ten years ago I put the sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. Before that, I gave speech after speech, including to President Bush, to identify the enemy and call these radical Islamists who they are.
Ladies and gentlemen, this week ISIS put out a fatwa on disabled children and killed dozens of them because of their disability. Now, I am the father of a disabled child. I know and have known the face of evil. And I, if you give me the opportunity, will defeat it. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
Governor Huckabee.
HUCKABEE: The terrorists don't win just because they kill us. The terrorists win when they make us change everything we do in our daily lives and alter our routines. And they're doing that, from getting on a plane to going in a building.
And it is high time that we recognize that we have to take them out, not a little bit, but totally, because I want my grandkids to grow up not in fear, but in faith and in freedom.
And if you give me the opportunity to be president of the United States, I will fight for your grandkids as much as I will for mine.
Thank you and God bless you.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you. Thanks to all of the candidates for a very important discussion on critically important issues.
This debate night is just getting started here at the Venetian Las Vegas. The top nine candidates, they are standing by for their turn on this stage in just a little while. I'll be back as the moderator.
Right now, let's go to my colleague, Anderson Cooper.
5th Republican debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant [annotations viewable at the source, linked at the end of this transcript]
December 15, 2015
Nine Republican candidates participated in Tuesday's 2016 presidential debate in Las Vegas: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), former Florida governor Jeb Bush, former tech executive Carly Fiorina, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.).
The complete transcript:
The debate began with CNN's Wolf Blitzer introducing each candidate and explaining the rules.
BLITZER: These nine Republicans are positioned on stage based on their ranking in the recent polls, so let's begin right now. I'd like to invite each candidate to introduce himself or herself to our audience. You'll have one minute.
First to you, Senator Paul.
PAUL: The question is, how do we keep America safe from terrorism? Trump says we ought to close that Internet thing. The question really is, what does he mean by that? Like they do in North Korea? Like they do in China?
Rubio says we should collect all Americans' records all of the time. The Constitution says otherwise. I think they're both wrong. I think we defeat terrorism by showing them that we do not fear them. I think if we ban certain religions, if we censor the Internet, I think that at that point the terrorists will have won. Regime change hasn't won. Toppling secular dictators in the Middle East has only led to chaos and the rise of radical Islam. I think if we want to defeat terrorism, I think if we truly are sincere about defeating terrorism, we need to quit arming the allies of ISIS. If we want to defeat terrorism, the boots on the ground -- the boots on the ground need to be Arab boots on the ground.
As commander-in-chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend America. But in defending America, we cannot lose what America stands for. Today is the Bill of Rights' anniversary. I hope we will remember that and cherish that in the fight on terrorism.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
Governor Kasich?
KASICH: Thank you, Wolf. Just last weekend, just last week, a friend asked one of my daughters, "Do you like politics?" And my daughter said, "No, I don't. And the reason I don't like it is because there's too much fighting, too much yelling. It's so loud, I don't like it." You know, I turned to my friend and I said, "You know, she's really on to something."
And when we think about our country and the big issues that we face in this country; creating jobs, making sure people can keep their jobs, the need for rising wages, whether our children when they graduate from college can find a job, protecting the homeland, destroying ISIS, rebuilding defense. These are all the things that we need to focus on but we'll never get there if we're divided. We'll never get there if republicans and democrats just fight with one another.
Frankly, we are republicans and they're democrats but before all of that, we're Americans. And I believe we need to unify in so many ways to rebuild our country, to strengthen our country, to rebuild our defense, and for America to secure it's place it world; for us, for our children, and for the next generation.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Christie?
CHRISTIE: Thank you Wolf.
America has been betrayed. We've been betrayed by the leadership that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton have provided to this country over the last number of years. Think about just what's happened today. The second largest school district in America in Los Angeles closed based on a threat. Think about the effect that, that's going to have on those children when they go back to school tomorrow wondering filled with anxiety to whether they're really going to be safe.
Think about the mothers who will take those children tomorrow morning to the bus stop wondering whether their children will arrive back on that bus safe and sound. Think about the fathers of Los Angeles, who tomorrow will head off to work and wonder about the safety of their wives and their children.
What is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton done to this country? That the most basic responsibility of an administration is to protect the safety and security of the American people. I will tell you this, I'm a former federal prosecutor, I've fought terrorists and won and when we get back in the White House we will fight terrorists and win again and America will be safe.
(APPLAUSE) BLITZER: Ms. Fiorina?
FIORINA: Like all of you I'm angry. I'm angry at what's happening to our nation. Citizens, it's time to take our country back.
Bombastic insults wont take it back. Political rhetoric that promises a lot and delivers little, won't take it back. All of our problems can be solved. All of our wounds can be healed by a tested leader who is willing to fight for the character of our nation.
I have been tested. I have beaten breast cancer. I have buried a child. I started as a secretary. I fought my way to the top of corporate America while being called every B word in the book. I fought my way into this election and on to this debate stage while all the political insiders and the pundits told, "it couldn't be done."
I've been told, "no,: all my life. And all my life, I've refused to accept no as an answer. Citizens, it is time to take our country back from the political class, from the media, from the liberal elite. It can be done, it must be done, join me and we will get it done.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Bush?
BUSH: Our freedom is under attack. Our economy is under water. The leading democrat is under investigation. And America is under the gun to lead the free world to protect our civilized way of life.
Serious times require strong leadership, that's what at stake right now. Regarding national security, we need to restore the defense cuts of Barack Obama to rebuild our military, to destroy ISIS before it destroys us. Regarding economic security, we need to take power and money away from Washington D.C. and empower American families so that they can rise up again.
Look, America still is an exceptional country. We love to lead and we love to win. And we do it, when we take on any challenge and when we take - we support our friends.
As president, I will keep you and our country safe, secure, and free.
Thank you.
BLITZER: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you Wolf.
It's really amazing to be back in Las Vegas. I spent six years as a child growing not far from where we stand tonight. I use to sit on the porch of our home and listen to my grandfather tell stories as he smoked one of three daily cigars.
One of the things my grandfather instilled in me, was that I was really blessed because I was a citizen of the greatest country in the history of our mankind. But there have always been people in American politics that wanted America to be more like the rest of the world. And In 2008, one of them was elected president of this country and the result has been a disaster.
Today you have millions of Americans that feel left out and out of place in their own country, struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, called bigots because they hold on to traditional values.
And around the world, America's influence has declined while this president has destroyed our military, our allies no longer trust us, and our adversaries no longer respect us. And that is why this election is so important.
That is why I'm running for president. And that's why I'm going to ask you for your vote tonight. If you elect me president, we will have a president that believes America is the greatest country in the world and we will have a president that acts like it.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: Thank you, Wolf.
America is at war. Our enemy is not violent extremism. It is not some unnamed malevolent force. It is radical Islamic terrorist. We have a president who is unwilling to utter its name. The men and women on this stage, every one of us, is better prepared to keep this nation safe than is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
We need a president who understands the first obligation of the commander-in-chief is to keep America safe. If I am elected president, we will hunt down and kill the terrorists. We will utterly destroy ISIS.
We will stop the terrorist attacks before they occur because we will not be prisoners to political correctness. Rather, we will speak the truth. Border security is national security and we will not be admitting jihadists as refugees.
We will keep America safe.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Dr. Carson.
CARSON: Thank you, Wolf.
Please join me for a moment of silence and remembrance of the San Bernardino victims. Thank you. You know, our country since its inception has been at war, every 15 or 20 years. But the war that we are fighting now against radical Islamist jihadists is one that we must win. Our very existence is dependent upon that.
You know, as a pediatric neurosurgeon, I frequently faced life and death situations, and had to come up with the right diagnosis, the right plan, and execute that plan frequently with other colleagues.
Right now, the United States of America is the patient. And the patient is in critical condition and will not be cured by political correctness and will not be cured by timidity.
And I am asking the Congress, which represents the people, to declare a war on ISIS so that we can begin the process of excising that cancer and begin the healing process, and bring peace, prosperity, and safety back to America.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Thank you.
I began this journey six months ago. My total focus was on building up our military, building up our strength, building up our borders, making sure that China, Japan, Mexico, both at the border and in trade, no longer takes advantage of our country.
Certainly would never have made that horrible, disgusting, absolutely incompetent deal with Iran where they get $150 billion. They're a terrorist nation. But I began it talking about other things.
And those things are things that I'm very good at and maybe that's why I'm center stage. People saw it. People liked it. People respected it.
A month ago things changed. Radical Islamic terrorism came into effect even more so than it has been in the past. People like what I say. People respect what I say. And we've opened up a very big discussion that needed to be opened up.
Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you.
Since you last debated, Americans have witnessed terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. The FBI director says the country now faces the greatest terror threat since 9/11. You all have different approaches to keeping the country safe. And that will be the focus of tonight's debate.
BLITZER: Mr. Trump, as you mentioned in your opening statement, part of your strategy is to focus in on America's borders. To keep the country safe, you say you want to temporarily ban non-American Muslims from coming to the United States; ban refugees fleeing ISIS from coming here; deport 11 million people; and wall off America's southern border. Is the best way to make America great again to isolate it from much of the rest of the world?
TRUMP: We are not talking about isolation. We're talking about security. We're not talking about religion. We're talking about security. Our country is out of control. People are pouring across the southern border. I will build a wall. It will be a great wall. People will not come in unless they come in legally. Drugs will not pour through that wall.
As far as other people like in the migration, where they're going, tens of thousands of people having cell phones with ISIS flags on them? I don't think so, Wolf. They're not coming to this country. And if I'm president and if Obama has brought some to this country, they are leaving. They're going. They're gone.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Bush, you called Mr. Trump "unhinged" when he proposed banning non-American Muslims from the United States. Why is that unhinged?
BUSH: Well, first of all, we need to destroy ISIS in the caliphate. That's -- that should be our objective. The refugee issue will be solved if we destroy ISIS there, which means we need to have a no-fly zone, safe zones there for refugees and to build a military force.
We need to embed our forces -- our troops inside the Iraqi military. We need to arm directly the Kurds. And all of that has to be done in concert with the Arab nations. And if we're going to ban all Muslims, how are we going to get them to be part of a coalition to destroy ISIS?
The Kurds are the greatest fighting force and our strongest allies. They're Muslim. Look, this is not a serious proposal. In fact, it will push the Muslim world, the Arab world away from us at a time when we need to reengage with them to be able to create a strategy to destroy ISIS.
So Donald, you know, is great at -- at the one-liners, but he's a chaos candidate. And he'd be a chaos president. He would not be the commander in chief we need to keep our country safe.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Jeb doesn't really believe I'm unhinged. He said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign. It's been a total disaster. Nobody cares. And frankly, I'm the most solid person up here. I built a tremendous company and all I want to do is make America great again.
I don't want our country to be taken away from us, and that's what's happening. The policies that we've suffered under other presidents have been a disaster for our country. We want to make America great again. And Jeb, in all fairness, he doesn't believe that.
BUSH: Look, he mentioned me. I can bring -- I can talk. This is -- this is the problem. Banning all Muslims will make it harder for us to do exactly what we need to do, which is to destroy ISIS. We need a strategy. We need to get the lawyers off the back of the warfighters. Right now under President Obama, we've created this -- this standard that is so high that it's impossible to be successful in fighting ISIS.
We need to engage with the Arab world to make this happen. It is not a serious proposal to say that -- to the people that you're asking for their support that they can't even come to the country to even engage in a dialogue with us. That's not a serious proposal. We need a serious leader to deal with this. And I believe I'm that guy.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator Rubio -- I'm going to go to Senator Rubio and get his thoughts.
You have said banning Muslims is unconstitutional. But according to a recent ABC News-Washington Post poll, a majority of Republicans support Mr. Trump's idea. Why are they wrong?
RUBIO: Well, I understand why they feel that way, because this president hasn't kept us safe. The problem is we had an attack in San Bernardino. And we were paying attention to the most important issue we have faced in a decade since 9/11, and then all the talk was about this proposal, which isn't going to happen.
But this is what's important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS. This is the most sophisticated terror group that has ever threatened the world or the United States of America. They are actively recruiting Americans. The attacker in San Bernardino was an American citizen, born and raised in this country. He was a health inspector; had a newborn child and left all that behind to kill 14 people.
We also understand that this is a group that's growing in its governance of territory. It's not just Iraq and Syria. They are now a predominant group in Libya. They are beginning to pop up in Afghanistan. They are increasingly involved now in attacks in Yemen. They have Jordan in their sights.
This group needs to be confronted with serious proposals. And this is a very significant threat we face. And the president has left us unsafe. He spoke the other night to the American people to reassure us. I wish he hadn't spoken at all. He made things worse. Because what he basically said was we are going to keep doing what we're doing now, and what we are doing now is not working.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Hugh Hewitt, you have a question.
HEWITT: Senator Cruz, you've said you disagree with Mr. Trump's policy. I don't want a cage match; you've tweeted you don't want a cage match. But Republican primary voters deserve to know, with the kind of specificity and responsiveness you delivered in your nine Supreme Court arguments, how you disagree with Mr. Trump. Would you spell that out with us?
CRUZ: Well, listen, Hugh, everyone understands why Donald has suggested what he has. We're looking at a president who's engaged in this double-speak where he doesn't call radical Islamic terrorism by its name. Indeed, he gives a speech after the San Bernardino attack where his approach is to try to go after the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens rather than to keep us safe.
And even worse, President Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing bringing tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to this country when the head of the FBI has told Congress they cannot vet those refugees.
I understand why Donald made that proposal. I introduced legislation in the Senate that I believe is more narrowly focused at the actual threat, which is radical Islamic terrorism, and what my legislation would do is suspend all refugees for three years from countries where ISIS or Al Qaida control substantial territory.
HEWITT: So you're saying you disagree because he's too broad and you have a narrower focus? Why do you disagree with him?
CRUZ: Well, you know, I'm reminded of what FDR's grandfather said. He said, "All horse-thieves are Democrats, but not all Democrats are horse-thieves."
(LAUGHTER)
In this instance, there are millions of peaceful Muslims across the world, in countries like India, where there is not the problems we are seeing in nations that are controlled -- have territory controlled by Al Qaida or ISIS, and we should direct at the problem, focus on the problem, and defeat radical Islamic terrorism. It's not a war on a faith; it's a war on a political and theocratic ideology that seeks to murder us.
HEWITT: Carly Fiorina... (APPLAUSE)
... this is the Christmas dinner debate. This will be the debate that Americans talk about at Christmas. And thus far, in the first 10 minutes, we haven't heard a lot about Ronald Reagan's city on a hill. We've heard a lot about keeping Americans out or keeping Americans safe and everyone else out. Is this what you want the party to stand for?
FIORINA: What I think we need to stand for are solutions. I offer myself as a leader to the people of this country because I think they're looking for solutions, not lawyers arguing over laws or entertainers throwing out sound bites that draw media attention. We need to solve the problem.
To solve the problem, we need to do something here at home and something over there in their caliphate. We need to deny them territory.
But here at home, we need to do two fundamental things. Number one, we need to recognize that technology has moved on. The Patriot Act was signed in 2001, roughly. The iPhone was invented in 2007. The iPad was invented in 2011. Snapchat and Twitter, all the rest of it, have been around just for several years. Technology has moved on, and the terrorists have moved on with it.
Let me tell you a story. Soon after 9/11, I got a phone call from the NSA. They needed help. I gave them help. I stopped a truckload of equipment. I had it turned around. It was escorted by the NSA into headquarters. We need the private sector's help, because government is not innovating. Technology is running ahead by leaps and bound. The private sector will help, just as I helped after 9/11. But they must be engaged, and they must be asked. I will ask them. I know them.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Christie, Americans are clearly more afraid today than at any time since 9/11. As you mentioned in your opening statement, today in Los Angeles, 650 schoolchildren didn't go to -- 650,000 schoolchildren didn't go to school because of an e-mail threat, this two weeks after an attack killed 14 people in San Bernardino. Is this the new normal? And if so, what steps would you take as president of the United States to ensure that fear does not paralyze America?
CHRISTIE: Wolf, unfortunately, it's the new normal under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The fact is that if you listen to Hillary Clinton the other day, what she said to the American people was, as regards to ISIS, my strategy would be just about the same as the president's.
Just about the same as the president's? We have people across this country who are scared to death. Because I could tell you this, as a former federal prosecutor, if a center for the developmentally disabled in San Bernardino, California, is now a target for terrorists, that means everywhere in America is a target for these terrorists.
Now, I spent seven years of my life in the immediate aftermath of September 11th doing this work, working with the Patriot Act, working with our law enforcement, working with the surveillance community to make sure that we keep America safe.
What we need to do, Wolf, is restore those tools that have been taken away by the president and others, restore those tools to the NSA and to our entire surveillance and law enforcement community.
We need a president who is going to understand what actionable intelligence looks like and act on it. And we need a president and a cabinet who understands that the first and most important priority of the president of the United States is to protect the safety and security of Americans.
As someone who has done it, I will make sure it gets done again.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you.
Governor Kasich, one of the killers in San Bernardino was an American who was not on anyone's watch list. How are you going to find that radicalized person and stop another such attack?
KASICH: Well, first of all, Wolf, I said last February that we needed to have people on the ground, troops on the ground in a coalition similar to what we had in the first Gulf War.
I remember when the Egyptian ambassador to the United States stood in the Rose Garden and pledged Arab commitment to removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Before we came out here tonight, I am told that the Saudis have organized 34 countries who want to join in the battle against terrorism.
First and foremost, we need to go and destroy ISIS. And we need to do this with our Arab friends and our friends in Europe.
And when I see they have a climate conference over in Paris, they should have been talking about destroying ISIS because they are involved in virtually every country, you know, across this world.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, you destroy ISIS in a coalition. You get joint intelligence with our European friends. And then here at home, there are things called the Joint Terrorism Task Force, headed by the FBI, and made up of local law enforcement, including state police.
They need the tools. And the tools involve encryption where we cannot hear what they're even planning. And when we see red flags, a father, a mother, a neighbor who says we have got a problem here, then we have to give law enforcement the ability to listen so they can disrupt these terrorist attacks before they occur.
We can do this, but we've got to get moving. Pay me now or pay me a lot more later. This is the direction we need to go.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you.
Dana Bash, you have the next question.
BASH: A crucial question is how to balance surveillance with privacy and keeping Americans safe.
Senator Cruz, you voted for a bill that President Obama signed into law just this past June that made it harder for the government to access Americans' phone records. In light of the San Bernardino attack, was your vote a mistake?
CRUZ: Well, Dana, the premise of your question is not accurate. I'm very proud to have joined with conservatives in both the Senate and the House to reform how we target bad guys.
And what the USA Freedom Act did is it did two things. Number one, it ended the federal government's bulk collection of phone metadata of millions of law-abiding citizens.
But number two in the second half of it that is critical. It strengthened the tools of national security and law enforcement to go after terrorists. It gave us greater tools and we are seeing those tools work right now in San Bernardino.
And in particular, what it did is the prior program only covered a relatively narrow slice of phone calls. When you had a terrorist, you could only search a relatively narrow slice of numbers, primarily land lines.
The USA Freedom Act expands that so now we have cell phones, now we have Internet phones, now we have the phones that terrorists are likely to use and the focus of law enforcement is on targeting the bad guys.
You know what the Obama administration keeps getting wrong is whenever anything bad happens they focus on law-abiding citizens instead of focusing on the bad guys.
We need to focus on radical Islamic terrorists and we need to stop them before they carry out acts of terror.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Thank you.
Senator Rubio, Senator Cruz is right there was bipartisan support for that. But you voted against it. So, is Senator Cruz wrong?
RUBIO: He is and so are those that voted for it. There were some that voted for it because they wanted to keep it alive and they were afraid the whole program would expire.
Here's the world we live in. This is a radical jihadist group that is increasingly sophisticated in its ability, for example, to radicalize American citizens, in its inability to exploit loopholes in our legal immigration system, in its ability to capture and hold territory in the Middle East, as I outlined earlier, in multiple countries.
This is not just the most capable, it is the most sophisticated terror threat we have ever faced. We are now at a time when we need more tools, not less tools. And that tool we lost, the metadata program, was a valuable tool that we no longer have at our disposal.
BASH: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Well, you know, I would note that Marco knows what he's saying isn't true. You know, Mark Levin wrote a column last week that says that the attack ads his Super PAC is running that are saying the same thing, that they are knowingly false and they are, in fact, Alinsky-like attacks like Barack Obama.
And the reason is simple. What he knows is that the old program covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers to search for terrorists. The new program covers nearly 100 percent. That gives us greater ability to stop acts of terrorism, and he knows that that's the case.
RUBIO: Dana, may I interject here?
BASH: Senator -- Senator -- Senator Rubio, please respond.
RUBIO: Let me be very careful when answering this, because I don't think national television in front of 15 million people is the place to discuss classified information. So let me just be very clear. There is nothing that we are allowed to do under this bill that we could not do before.
This bill did, however, take away a valuable tool that allowed the National Security Agency and other law -- and other intelligence agencies to quickly and rapidly access phone records and match them up with other phone records to see who terrorists have been calling. Because I promise you, the next time there is attack on -- an attack on this country, the first thing people are going to want to know is, why didn't we know about it and why didn't we stop it? And the answer better not be because we didn't have access to records or information that would have allowed us to identify these killers before they attacked.
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Paul, Senator Paul, I know this is -- this has been a very big issue for you. You hear many of your colleagues are calling for increased surveillance by law enforcement. You call that hogwash. Why is that hogwash?
PAUL: You know, I think Marco gets it completely wrong. We are not any safer through the bulk collection of all Americans' records. In fact, I think we're less safe. We get so distracted by all of the information, we're not spending enough time getting specific immigration -- specific information on terrorists.
The other thing is, is the one thing that might have stopped San Bernardino, that might have stopped 9/11 would have been stricter controls on those who came here. And Marco has opposed at every point increased security -- border security for those who come to our country.
On his Gang of Eight bill, he would have liberalized immigration, but he did not -- and he steadfastly opposed any new border security requirements for refugees or students.
Last week, I introduced another bill saying we need more security, we need more scrutiny. Once again, Marco opposed this. So Marco can't have it both ways. He thinks he wants to be this, "Oh, I'm great and strong on national defense." But he's the weakest of all the candidates on immigration. He is the one for an open border that is leaving us defenseless. If we want to defend the country, we have to defend against who's coming in, and Marco is -- has more of an allegiance to Chuck Schumer and to the liberals than he does to conservative policy.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: I want to thank Rand for another 30 seconds, because, number one, what he's pointing to is a bill last week that -- amendment that he voted for that only 10 people voted for. You know why? Because it's not focused on terrorists. It would have banned anyone from coming here. Someone from Taiwan would not have been able to come here as a tourist.
Number two, this program, this metadata program is actually more strict than what a regular law enforcement agency has now. If a regular law enforcement agency wants your phone records, all they have to do is issue a subpoena. But now the intelligence agency is not able to quickly gather records and look at them to see who these terrorists are calling. And the terrorists that attacked us in San Bernardino was an American citizen, born and raised in this country. And I bet you we wish we would have had access to five years of his records so we could see who he was working with...
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Governor Christie, Governor Christie...
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Governor Christie, I'll come to you in a minute. Go ahead, Senator Paul.
PAUL: If I was mentioned in the question, can I respond? BASH: Go ahead, please.
PAUL: Marco still misunderstands the immigration issue. What I put forward was an amendment that would have temporarily halted immigration from high-risk terrorist countries, but would have started it up, but I wanted them to go through Global Entry, which is a program where we do background checks.
The thing is, is that every terrorist attack we've had since 9/11 has been legal immigration. Marco wants to expand that. I want more rules, more scrutiny, and to defend the country, you have to defend the border.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator, we're going to talk about immigration in a while. But, Governor Christie, just listening to this...
RUBIO: Do I get another 30 seconds? He mentioned me.
BASH: Listening to this, you talked -- you heard Senator Paul, Senator Cruz talk about how important it is to protect Americans' privacy, even in a time of grave danger. Why -- what's wrong with that?
CHRISTIE: Listen, I want to talk to the audience at home for a second. If your eyes are glazing over like mine, this is what it's like to be on the floor of the United States Senate. I mean, endless debates about how many angels on the head of a pin from people who've never had to make a consequential decision in an executive position.
The fact is, for seven years, I had to make these decisions after 9/11, make a decision about how to proceed forward with an investigation or how to pull back, whether you use certain actionable intelligence or whether not to. And yet they continue to debate about this bill and in the subcommittee and what -- nobody in America cares about that.
CHRISTIE: What they care about is, are we going to have a president who actually knows what they're doing to make these decisions? And for the seven years afterwards, New Jersey was threatened like no other region in this country and what we did was we took action within the constitution to make sure that law enforcement had all the information they needed.
We prosecuted two of the biggest terrorism cases in the world and stopped Fort Dix from being attacked by six American radicalized Muslims from a Mosque in New Jersey because we worked with the Muslim American community to get intelligence and we used the Patriot Act to get other intelligence to make sure we did those cases. This is the difference between actually been a federal prosecutor, actually doing something, and not just spending your life as one of hundred debating it.
Let's talk about how we do this, not about which bill, which one these guys like more. The American people don't care about that.
BLITZER: Thank you.
Dr. Carson, you're in favor of monitoring mosques and schools where there is anti-America sentiment, what do you consider anti- America?
CARSON: First of all, let me just complain a little bit. This is the first time I've spoken and several people have had multiple questions so please try to pay attention to that. Now, as far as monitoring is concerned, what my point is, we need to make sure that any place - I don't care whether it's a mosque, a school, a supermarket, a theater, you know it doesn't matter. If there are a lot of people getting there and engaging in radicalizing activities then we need to be suspicious of it.
We have to get rid of all this PC stuff. And people are worried about if somebody's going to say that I'm Islamophobic or what have you. This is craziness because we are at war. That's why I asked congress, go ahead and declare the war .
We need to be on a war footing. We need to understand that our nation is in grave danger. You know, what the Muslim Brotherhood said in the explanatory memorandum that was discovered during the Holy Land Foundation Trial was that, "they will take advantage of our PC attitude to get us. :"
We have to be better than this. We have to be smarter than they are.
BLITZER: Dr. Carson, who was right in that little debate that we just heard between Senator Rubio and Senator Paul?
CARSON: I think you have to ask them about that. I don't want to get in between them. Let them fight.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on a sec, we have a lot more to come and everybody's going to have their full opportunity.
Governor Bush, six days after 9/11 your brother visited a mosque and said quote, "Islam is peace." The conversation tonight is about banning Muslims and surveillance of mosques, are President Bush's words still relevant in today's Republican party?
BUSH: They are reverent if we want to destroy ISIS. If we want to destroy radical Islamic terrors, we can't disassociate ourselves from peace loving Muslims. If we expect to do this on our own, we will fail but if we do it in unison with people who are also are at risk and threatened by Islamic Radical terrorism, we'll be far more successful.
Look, the FBI has the tools necessary un-American activities in our country. It goes on, we shouldn't even be talking about it, to be honest with you out in the public. Of course they have those capabilities and we should make sure that we give the FBI, the NSA, our intelligence communities, all the resources they need to keep us safe.
But the main thing we should be focused on is the strategy to destroy ISIS. And I laid out a plan that the Reagan Library before the tragedy of Paris, and before San Bernardino to do just that. It requires leadership, it's not filing an amendment and call it a success.
It is developing a strategy, leading the world, funding it to make sure that we have a military that's second to none, and doing the job and making sure that we destroy ISIS there. That's how you keep America safe.
BLITZER: Ms. Fiorina, as you pointed out you were a CEO in Silicon Valley on 9/11. Companies there, they say they won't help the FBI now crack encrypted communication from ISIS, should they be forced to.
FIORINA: You know, listening to this conversation, let me just say, we have a lot of argument about laws but none of it solves the problem. Let's examine what happened, why did we miss the Tsarnaev brothers, why did we miss the San Bernardino couple? It wasn't because we had stopped collected metadata it was because, I think, as someone who comes from the technology world, we were using the wrong algorithms.
This is a place where the private sector could be helpful because the government is woefully behind the technology curve. But secondly, the bureaucratic processes that have been in place since 9/11 are woefully inadequate as well. What do we now know? That DHS vets people by going into databases of known or suspected terrorists.
FIORINA: And yet, we also know that ISIS is recruiting who are not in those databases. So of course, we're going to miss them. And then we now learn that DHS says, "No, we can't check their social media."
For heaven's sakes, every parent in America is checking social media and every employer is as well, but our government can't do it. The bureaucratic procedures are so far behind. Our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt. And that incompetence, ineptitude, lack of accountability is now dangerous.
It is why we need a different kind of leadership in the White House that understands how to get bureaucracies competent again.
BLITZER: But my question was: Should these Silicon Valley companies be forced to cooperate with the FBI?
FIORINA: They do not need to be forced. They need to be asked to bring the best and brightest, the most recent technology to the table. I was asked as a CEO. I complied happily. And they will as well. But they have not been asked. That's why it cost billions of dollars to build an Obama website that failed because the private sector wasn't asked.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Mr. Trump, you recently suggested closing that Internet up, those were your words, as a way to stop ISIS from recruiting online. Are you referring to closing down actual portions of the Internet? Some say that would put the U.S. in line with China and North Korea.
TRUMP: Well, look, this is so easy to answer. ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, and it was our idea. What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they're doing.
You talk freedom of speech. You talk freedom of anything you want. I don't want them using our Internet to take our young, impressionable youth and watching the media talking about how they're masterminds -- these are masterminds. They shouldn't be using the word "mastermind." These are thugs. These are terrible people in ISIS, not masterminds. And we have to change it from every standpoint. But we should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. And we can do that if we use our good people.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump.
So, are you open to closing parts of the Internet?
TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet. Yes, sir, I am.
BLITZER: Thank you.
Governor Kasich, is shutting down any part of the Internet a good idea?
KASICH: No, I don't think it is. And I want to go back to two other issues. One is the metadata. We know we have to hold this data for a longer period of time. And, you know, in a lot of ways, Chris is right. Look, what a president has to do is take a position. We don't want to err on the side of having less. We want to err on the side of having more. That's good for our families.
In addition to that, Wolf, there is a big problem. It's called encryption. And the people in San Bernardino were communicating with people who the FBI had been watching. But because their phone was encrypted, because the intelligence officials could not see who they were talking to, it was lost.
We have to solve the encryption problem. It is not easy. A president of the United States, again, has to bring people together, have a position. We need to be able to penetrate these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local authorities the ability to penetrate to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major problem, and Congress has got to deal with this and so does the president to keep us safe.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
The fight against radical Islamic terrorists and ISIS has been called the war of our time. So let's talk about how each of you, as commander in chief, would fight this war and win it.
Senator Cruz, you have said you would, quote, "carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion," testing whether, quote, "sand can glow in the dark." Does that mean leveling the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria where there are hundreds of thousands of civilians?
CRUZ: What it means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely destroy ISIS. To put things in perspective, in the first Persian Gulf War, we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet bombed them for 36 days, saturation bombing, after which our troops went in and in a day and a half mopped up what was left of the Iraqi army.
Right now, Obama is launching between 15 and 30 air attacks a day. It is photo op foreign policy. We need to use overwhelming air power. We need to be arming the Kurds. We need to be fighting and killing ISIS where they are.
And let me go back to the earlier discussion a minute ago. It's not a lack of competence that is preventing the Obama administration from stopping these attacks. It is political correctness. We didn't monitor the Facebook posting of the female San Bernardino terrorist because the Obama DHS thought it would be inappropriate. She made a public call to jihad, and they didn't target it.
The Tsarnaev brothers, the elder brother made a public call to jihad and the Obama administration didn't target it. Nidal Hasan communicated with Anwar al-Awlaki, a known radical cleric, asked about waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. The problem is because of political correctness, the Obama administration, like a lot of folks here, want to search everyone's cell phones and e-mails and not focus on the bad guys. And political correctness is killing people.
BLITZER: Thank you. To be clear, Senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no?
CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed -- and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn't to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.
To make it -- listen, ISIS is gaining strength because the perception is that they're winning. And President Obama fuels that perception. That will change when militants across the globe see that when you join ISIS that you are giving up your life, you are signing your death warrant, and we need a president who is focused on defeating every single ISIS terrorist and protecting the homeland, which should be the first priority.
BLITZER: Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Rubio, you've been critical of Senator Cruz's strategy. You say his voting record doesn't match his rhetoric. Why?
RUBIO: Well, let me begin by saying that we have to understand who ISIS is. ISIS is a radical Sunni group. They cannot just be defeated through air strikes. Air strikes are a key component of defeating them, but they must be defeated on the ground by a ground force. And that ground force must be primarily made up of Sunni Arabs themselves, Sunni Arabs that reject them ideologically and confront them militarily.
We will have to embed additional American special operators alongside them to help them with training, to help them conduct special missions, and to help improve the air strikes. The air strikes are important, but we need to have an air force capable of it. And because of the budget cuts we are facing in this country, we are going to be left with the oldest and the smallest Air Force we have ever had. We have to reverse those cuts, in addition to the cuts to our Navy and in addition to the cuts to our Army, as well.
And beyond that, I would say we must win the information war against ISIS. Every war we have ever been involved in has had a propaganda informational aspect to it. ISIS is winning the propaganda war. They are recruiting people, including Americans, to join them, with the promise that they are joining this great apocalyptic movement that is going to defeat the West. We have to show what life is really like in ISIS territory, and we have to show them why ISIS is not invincible, by going out and conducting these attacks and publicizing them to those who they recruit.
BLITZER: Because I asked the question, Senator, because you said this. You said he, referring to Senator Cruz, voted against the Defense Authorization Act every year that it came up, and I assume that if he voted against it, he would veto it as president. That's the bill that funds our troops.
RUBIO: That is accurate. Three times he voted against the Defense Authorization Act, which is a bill that funds the troops. It also, by the way, funds the Iron Dome and other important programs. And I have to assume that if you vote against it in the Senate, you would also veto it as president.
He has also supported, by the way, a budget that is called the containment budget. And it is a budget that would radically reduce the amount of money we spend on our military. You can't carpet bomb ISIS if you don't have planes and bombs to attack them with. And if we continue those cuts that we're doing now, not to mention additional cuts, we are going to be left with the oldest and the smallest Air Force this country has ever had, and that leaves us less safe.
BLITZER: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Well, you know, Marco has continued these attacks, and he knows they're not true. Yes, it is true that I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, because when I campaigned in Texas I told voters in Texas that I would oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process. I have repeatedly supported an effort to take that out of that bill, and I honored that campaign commitment.
CRUZ: But more broadly, you know, the notion Marco is suggesting, that somehow -- he also has tossed more than a few insults this direction -- let's be absolutely clear. ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism will face no more determined foe than I will be.
We will utterly destroy them by targeting the bad guys. And one of the problems with Marco's foreign policy is he has far too often supported Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama undermining governments in the Middle East that have helped radical Islamic terrorists.
We need to focus on killing the bad guys, not getting stuck in Middle Eastern civil wars that don't keep America safe.
BLITZER: Senator Rubio.
RUBIO: Yes, let me -- three points of distinction. The first is, if you're an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we're not going to read you your Miranda rights. You're going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Number two, we do need our defense capabilities. It is a fact that the cuts we are facing today and the cuts that Senator Cruz would have supported would leave us with an even smaller Air Force and a smaller Navy than the one we are going to be left with.
And the final point that I would make is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's strategy is to lead from behind. It sounds like what he is outlining is not to lead at all. We cannot continue to outsource foreign policy. We must lead. We are the most powerful nation in the world. We need to begin to act like it, again.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: We are going to have much more on this...
PAUL: Wolf...
BLITZER: We're going to have much more on this. But I want to move now back to Mr. Trump.
PAUL: Wolf, this legislation...
BLITZER: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. PAUL: This legislation on indefinite detention...
BLITZER: We have a lot...
PAUL: ... I think deserves a little more attention.
BLITZER: We have a lot to discuss. I want to move to Mr. Trump right now. We have a question on this war against ISIS and how you would fight and win this war. Here's the question from Facebook. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSH JACOB, COLLEGE STUDENT: I'm Josh Jacob from Georgia Tech. Recently Donald Trump mentioned we must kill the families of ISIS members. However, this violates the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants in international law.
So my question is, how would intentionally killing innocent civilians set us apart from ISIS?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: We have to be much tougher. We have to be much stronger than we've been. We have people that know what is going on. You take a look at just the attack in California the other day. There were numerous people, including the mother, that knew what was going on.
They saw a pipe bomb sitting all over the floor. They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.
When you had the World Trade Center go, people were put into planes that were friends, family, girlfriends, and they were put into planes and they were sent back, for the most part, to Saudi Arabia.
They knew what was going on. They went home and they wanted to watch their boyfriends on television. I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families' lives.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Donald, this has got...
BLITZER: Governor Bush. Governor Bush.
BUSH: This is another example of the lack of seriousness. Look, this is -- this is troubling because we're at war. They've declared war on us and we need to have a serious strategy to destroy ISIS.
But the idea that that is a solution to this is just -- is just crazy. It makes no sense to suggest this. Look, two months ago Donald Trump said that ISIS was not our fight. Just two months ago he said that Hillary Clinton would be a great negotiator with Iran. And he gets his foreign policy experience from the shows.
That is not a serious kind of candidate. We need someone that thinks this through. That can lead our country to safety and security.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Look, the problem is we need toughness. Honestly, I think Jeb is a very nice person. He's a very nice person. But we need tough people. We need toughness. We need intelligence and we need tough.
Jeb said when they come across the southern border they come as an act of love.
BUSH: You said on September 30th that ISIS was not a factor.
TRUMP: Am I talking or are you talking, Jeb?
BUSH: I'm talking right now. I'm talking.
TRUMP: You can go back. You're not talking. You interrupted me.
BUSH: September 30th you said...
TRUMP: Are you going to apologize, Jeb? No. Am I allowed to finish?
BLITZER: Just one at a time, go ahead...
TRUMP: Excuse me, am I allowed to finish?
BLITZER: Go ahead, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: So...
BUSH: A little of your own medicine there, Donald.
TRUMP: ... again...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Governor Bush, please.
TRUMP: I know you're trying to build up your energy, Jeb, but it's not working very well.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: One at a time.
TRUMP: Look, look, look. We need a toughness. We need strength. We're not respected, you know, as a nation anymore. We don't have that level of respect that we need. And if we don't get it back fast, we're just going to go weaker, weaker and just disintegrate.
We can't allow that to happen. We need strength. We don't have it. When Jeb comes out and he talks about the border, and I saw it and I was witness to it, and so was everyone else, and I was standing there, "they come across as an act of love," he's saying the same thing right now with radical Islam.
And we can't have that in our country. It just won't work. We need strength.
BLITZER: Governor Bush.
BUSH: Donald, you're not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency. That's not going to happen.
(APPLAUSE)
And I do have the strength. Leadership, leadership is not about attacking people and disparaging people. Leadership is about creating a serious strategy to deal with the threat of our time.
BUSH: And I laid out that strategy before the attacks in Paris and before the attacks in San Bernardino. And it is the way forward. We need to increase our military spending. We need to deal with a no- fly zone in Syria, a safe zone. We need to focus on building a military that is second-to-none...
BLITZER: Thank you.
BUSH: ... so that we can destroy Islamic terrorism.
TRUMP: With Jeb's attitude, we will never be great again, that I can tell you. We will never be great again.
BLITZER: All right. Hugh Hewitt and Dana Bash, Hugh, go ahead with the next question.
HEWITT: Dr. Carson...
(APPLAUSE)
... you mentioned in your opening remarks that you're a pediatric neurologist surgeon...
CARSON: Neurosurgeon.
HEWITT: Neurosurgeon. And people admire and respect and are inspired by your life story, your kindness, your evangelical core support. We're talking about ruthless things tonight -- carpet bombing, toughness, war. And people wonder, could you do that? Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?
CARSON: Well, interestingly enough, you should see the eyes of some of those children when I say to them we're going to have to open your head up and take out this tumor. They're not happy about it, believe me. And they don't like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me.
Sometimes you -- I sound like him.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, later on, you know, they really realize what's going on. And by the same token, you have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it's actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks.
HEWITT: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian? It's like...
CARSON: You got it. You got it.
HEWITT: That is what war -- can you be as ruthless as Churchill was in prosecuting the war against the Nazis?
CARSON: Ruthless is not necessarily the word I would use, but tough, resolute, understanding what the problems are, and understanding that the job of the president of the United States is to protect the people of this country and to do what is necessary in order to get it done.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Paul, you said ISIS grew stronger because of the hawks in your party. Do you really think that Republicans have fueled the rise of ISIS?
PAUL: I think that by arming the allies of ISIS, the Islamic rebels against Assad, that we created a safe space or made that space bigger for ISIS to grow. I think those who have wanted regime change have made a mistake. When we toppled Gadhafi in Libya, I think that was a mistake. I think ISIS grew stronger, we had a failed state, and we were more at risk.
I'd like to also go back to, though, another question, which is, is Donald Trump a serious candidate? The reason I ask this is, if you're going to close the Internet, realize, America, what that entails. That entails getting rid of the First amendment, OK? It's no small feat.
If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there's something called the Geneva Convention we're going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America. So when you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you're going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: So, they can kill us, but we can't kill them? That's what you're saying. And as far as the Internet is concerned, we're not talking about closing the Internet. I'm talking about parts of Syria, parts of Iraq, where ISIS is, spotting it.
Now, you could close it. What I like even better than that is getting our smartest and getting our best to infiltrate their Internet, so that we know exactly where they're going, exactly where they're going to be. I like that better.
(APPLAUSE)
But we have to -- who would be -- I just can't imagine somebody booing. These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you're -- you're objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don't think so. I don't think so.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Paul, Senator Paul, I want to go back to my initial question, which is you saying that ISIS grew stronger because of hawks in your party. And do you think your own party, the people who you're describing, are responsible for the rise of ISIS?
PAUL: I think that if you believe in regime change, you're mistaken. In 2013, we put 600 tons of weapons -- us, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar -- into the war against Assad. By pushing Assad back, we did create a safe space.
We had people coming to our Foreign Relations Committee and saying, "Oh, we need to arm the allies of Al Qaida." They are still saying this. It is a crazy notion. This is the biggest debate we should be having tonight is is regime change a good idea; has it been a good idea.
There are still people -- the majority on the stage, they want to topple Assad. And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will then be in charge of Syria.
BASH: Senator, we're going to talk about regime change in a bit.
But Governor Kasich, would you like to respond to Senator Paul?
KASICH: Yeah, let me -- let me just suggest to everybody, and I hear -- last February, I said we needed to have people on the ground in a coalition with Europe and our allies. This is not going to get done just by working with the Sunnis. And it is not going to get done if we just embed a few people.
We have to go massively, like we did in the first Gulf War where we destroyed Saddam's ability to take Kuwait. We need to have a coalition that will stand for nothing less than the total destruction of ISIS and we have to be the leader. We can't wait for anybody else. I served on the Armed Services Committee for 18 years and we must lead, or the job won't get done, unfortunately, for our country.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
Senator Rubio? Let's continue this conversation. This is a critically important issue.
FIORINA: I hope at some point you're going to ask me my strategy.
BLITZER: We will get to -- we have a lot of time, Ms. Fiorina.
I want to get to Senator Rubio right now. Let's talk about, one of the aspects of your strategy, you say the only way to defeat ISIS is with ground forces made up primarily of Sunni-Arab forces. Those Arab nations, though, as you well know, they've conducted less than five percent of the airstrikes and actually none since August. What makes you think they are willing to fight on the ground if they're not even willing to fight from the air?
RUBIO: Well, they most certainly will have to be worked on to provide more than what they are doing now. There's no doubt about it. And there's one -- one major reason why they have not been willing to be a broader part of the coalition, and that is they have lost complete trust and confidence in this president. This president cut a deal with their moral enemy, the Shia, in Iran. And this is the reason why they no longer trust this president and are willing to work alongside them.
But they have as much invested in this as we do. In fact, more so, for it is the king of Saudi Arabia they want to behead first. It's the king of Jordan that they want to dethrone. It's the -- they want to go into Egypt the way they've already gone into Libya.
And on another point that we need to talk about, Assad is one of the main reasons why ISIS even exists to begin with. Assad is a puppet of Iran. And he has been so brutal toward the Sunni within Syria that he created the space that led to the people of Syria themselves to stand up and try to overthrow him. That led to the chaos which allowed ISIS to come in and take advantage of that situation and grow more powerful.
And the fact that this president led from behind meant there were no alternative groups on the ground to be empowered, leaving ISIS with the prime operating space they needed to become the force they have now become.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Stand by.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Ms. Fiorina, the former defense secretary, Bob Gates, says the chances of getting Sunni-Arab forces on the ground to get the job done, his words, "chances very remote." What's your strategy?
FIORINA: Well, first I'll just point out that talking tough is not the same as being strong. And to wage war, we need a commander in chief who has made tough calls in tough times and stood up to be held accountable over and over, not first-term senators who've never made an executive decision in their life.
One of the things I would immediately do, in addition to defeating them here at home, is bring back the warrior class -- Petraeus, McChrystal, Mattis, Keane, Flynn. Every single one of these generals I know. Every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn't want to hear.
We must have Sunni-Arabs involved in this coalition. We must commit leadership, strength, support and resolve. I'll just add that Margaret Thatcher once said, "If you want something talked about, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman."
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you.
Governor Christie, what's your strategy?
CHRISTIE: Wolf, you sit up here and you listen to this stuff, and you think that so many of these people have had so much to do in this national debate, they talk like they were bystanders. You know, we talk about our military being degraded over time, and yet we've had folks on this stage who've been a part of Congress who have participated in sequester; who participated in the degrading of this military over time.
And that's why I think people get so frustrated with Washington, D.C. now. That's why they're so angry with the -- the electorate is so angry with everybody who is involved in government in Washington, D.C. Because if you listen to the folks up here, you think that they weren't even there; they had nothing to do with this.
CHRISTIE: This is a difference between being a governor and being in a legislature. See, because when something doesn't work in New Jersey, they look at me, say: "Why didn't it get done? Why didn't you do it?" You have to be responsible and accountable.
And so on ISIS, let's be clear, the president needs to be a force that is trusted in the world. On this I agree with Marco. You know, this president is not trusted.
If you're the King of Jordan, if you're a part of the royal family in Saudi Arabia and he's made this deal with Iran which gives them $150 billion to wage a war and try to extend their empire across the Middle East, why would you want to do it now?
But I will tell you this, when I stand across from King Hussein of Jordan and I say to him, "You have a friend again sir, who will stand with you to fight this fight," he'll change his mind.
BLITZER: Dr. Carson, what is your strategy?
CARSON: First of all, I've been talking about this for over a year. We have to destroy their caliphate because that gives them legitimacy to go ahead with the global Jihad. We have to take their energy because they are -- ISIS is the richest terrorist organization there is. We have to take their oil, shut down all of the mechanisms whereby they can disperse money because they go after disaffected individuals from all over the place, and they're able to pay them. That makes a difference.
As far as the command centers are concerned in Raqqa and to a lesser degree Mosul, cut those off. Do the same kind of thing that we did with Sinjar a few weeks ago, working with our embedded special forces with the Kurds, shut off the supply route, soften them up, then we go in with specials ops followed by our air force to take them over. Those are things that work.
But also, you know, this whole concept of boots on the ground, you know, we've got a phobia about boots on the ground. If our military experts say, we need boots on the ground, we should put boots on the ground and recognize that there will be boots on the ground and they'll be over here, and they'll be their boots if we don't get out of there now.
BLITZER: Thank you.
Everyone stand by. We're only just beginning. Coming up, which candidates on this stage tonight want to move foreign policy in a dramatically new direction?
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to the CNN-Facebook Republican Presidential Debate here at the Venetian, Las Vegas.
The war against ISIS will pose many new challenges for the next commander-in-chief. The last two presidents pursued a Middle East policy that supported toppling dictators to try to promote democracy.
Senator Cruz, you have said the world would be safer today if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq, Moammar Gadhafi ruled Libya, and Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt. So would it be your policy to preserve dictatorships, rather than promoting democracy in the Middle East?
CRUZ: Wolf, I believe in a America first foreign policy, that far too often President Obama and Hillary Clinton -- and, unfortunately, more than a few Republicans -- have gotten distracted from the central focus of keeping this country safe.
So let's go back to the beginning of the Obama administration, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama led NATO in toppling the government in Libya. They did it because they wanted to promote democracy. A number of Republicans supported them. The result of that -- and we were told then that there were these moderate rebels that would take over. Well, the result is, Libya is now a terrorist war zone run by jihadists.
Move over to Egypt. Once again, the Obama administration, encouraged by Republicans, toppled Mubarak who had been a reliable ally of the United States, of Israel, and in its place, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood came in, a terrorist organization.
And we need to learn from history. These same leaders -- Obama, Clinton, and far too many Republicans -- want to topple Assad. Assad is a bad man. Gadhafi was a bad man. Mubarak had a terrible human rights record. But they were assisting us -- at least Gadhafi and Mubarak -- in fighting radical Islamic terrorists.
And if we topple Assad, the result will be ISIS will take over Syria, and it will worsen U.S. national security interests. And the approach, instead of being a Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter...
BLITZER: Thank you.
CRUZ: ... we ought to hunt down our enemies and kill ISIS rather than creating opportunities for ISIS to take control of new countries.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
Senator Rubio, you supported the removal of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Now that country is in turmoil, as ISIS is clearly growing there. Senator Cruz says you haven't learned your lesson. Do you have any regrets for supporting President Obama's intervention in Libya?
RUBIO: To begin with, Moammar Gadhafi and the revolt against Gadhafi was not started by the United States. It was started by the Libyan people. And the reason why I argued we needed to get involved is because he was going to go one way or the other. And my argument then was proven true, and that is, the longer that civil war took, the more militias would be formed and the more unstable the country would be after the fact.
As far as Moammar Gadhafi is concerned, by the way, Moammar Gadhafi is the man that killed those Americans over Lockerbie, Scotland. Moammar Gadhafi is also the man that bombed that cafe in Berlin and killed those Marines. And you want to know why Moammar Gadhafi started cooperating on his nuclear program? Because we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And so he got scared that he would be next, and that's why he started cooperating.
Look, we will have to work around the world with less than ideal governments. The government in Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, but we will have to work with them. The government in Jordan is not perfect, but we will have to work with them. But anti-American dictators like Assad, who help Hezbollah, who helped get those IEDs into Iraq, if they go, I will not shed a tear.
BLITZER: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Well, it's more than not shedding a tear. It's actively getting involved to topple a government. And we keep hearing from President Obama and Hillary Clinton and Washington Republicans that they're searching for these mythical moderate rebels. It's like a purple unicorn. They never exist. These moderate rebels end up being jihadists.
And I'll tell you whose view on Assad is the same as mine. It's Prime Minister Netanyahu. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said Israel doesn't have a dog in that fight because Assad is a puppet of Iran, a Shia radical Islamic terrorist, but at the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't want to see Syria governed by ISIS. And we need to focus on American interests, not on global aspirations...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Standby. Everybody standby for a moment. Governor Kasich, go ahead.
KASICH: I don't understand this thing about Assad. He has to go. Assad is aligned with Iran and Russia. The one thing we want to prevent is we want to prevent Iran being able to extend a Shia crescent all across the Middle East. Assad has got to go.
KASICH: And there are moderates there. There are moderates in Syria who we should be supporting. I do not support a civil war. I don't want to be policeman of the world. But we can't back off of this. And let me tell you, at the end, the Saudis have agreed to put together a coalition inside of Syria to stabilize that country.
BLITZER: Thank you.
KASICH: He must go. It will be a blow to Iran and Russia.
BLITZER: We're going to talk about Assad in a moment.
Mr. Trump, are Americans safer with dictators running the world in the Middle East?
TRUMP: In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now.
We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle East, we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have wiped away, and for what? It's not like we had victory.
It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart.
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: That is exactly what President Obama said. I'm amazed to hear that from a republican presidential candidate. But let's just start with, who got it wrong? Who really got it wrong?
Hillary Clinton has gotten every foreign policy challenge wrong. Hitting the reset button with Vladimir Putin - recall that she called Bashar Al-Assad a positive reformer and then she opened an embassy and then later she said, over, and over, and over again, "Bashar Al-Assad must go." Although she wasn't prepared to do anything about it. Recall that Hillary Clinton was all for toppling Gadhafi then didn't listen to her own people on the ground. And then of course, when she lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, she invited more terrorist attacks.
BLITZER: Thank you.
Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Well, there's nothing to respond to. Well, people feel differently. I mean, the fact is Benghazi was a disaster because of Libya, everything just fell into place. It could not have been worse.
What do we have now? We have nothing. We've spent $3 trillion and probably much more - I have no idea what we've spent. Thousands and thousands of lives, we have nothing. Wounded warriors all over the place who I love, we have nothing for it.
And by the way - and Ben said incorrectly - and I'm not saying this as a knock - he's one of finest men. You're not going to find a finer men.
But I've been talking about oil for three years. I've been saying,, "take the oil, take the oil." I didn't say, "just bomb it," I said," take it and use it and distribute it so that the wounded warriors -" People, I've been saying this now for many years.
BLITZER: All right.
TRUMP: Now, all of a sudden everybody's saying, "take the oil." It wasn't so fashionable to take the oil six months ago. I've been saying it for years.
BLITZER: Thank you.
FIORINA: We've mismanaged going into Iraq.
BLITZER: Dr. Carson, is the Middle East...
FIORINA: We've mismanaged going out of Iraq.
BLITZER: Dr. Carson, is the Middle East better off with dictators?
CARSON: No one is ever better off with dictators but there comes a time you know, when you're on an airplane, they always say, "in case of an emergency oxygen masks will drop down. Put yours on first and then administer help to your neighbor." We need oxygen right now.
And we need to start thinking about the needs of the American people before we go and solve everybody else's problems. The fact of the matter is, is that the Middle East has been in turmoil for thousands of years. For us to think that we're going to in there and fix that with a couple of little bombs and a few little decorations is relatively foolish.
FIORINA: We actually...
BLITZER: Governor Bush.
BUSH: I think we're focusing a whole...
BLITZER: Hold on Governor Bush., here's the question. You said, "getting rid of Saddam Hussein in your words was a pretty good deal." In light of what has happened in Iraq, do you still feel that way?
BUSH: I do. I think the lesson's learned are that we have to have to have a strategy to get and a strategy to get out. Which means, that you create a stable situation.
This president and this is what the focus ought to be, it's not the differences between us, it's Barack Obama does not believe America's leadership in the world is a force for good. He does not believe that our strength is a place where security can take place. He leads from behind. He creates an environment that now we're creating the most unstable situation we've had since the World War II era.
The focus ought to be on the single fact that Hillary Clinton wants to double down on a failed foreign policy and we need to be united to defeat that because we're going to be in a place that is far less secure than it is today. Don't you all agree?
BLITZER: Senator Paul, was getting rid of Saddam Hussein a pretty good deal?
PAUL: These are the fundamental questions of our time, these foreign policy questions, whether or not regime change is a good idea or a bad idea. I don't think because I think the regime change was a bad idea it means that Hussein was necessarily a good idea.
There is often variations of evil on both sides of the war. What we have to decide is whether or not regime change is a good idea. It's what the neoconservatives have wanted. It's what the vast majority of those on the stage want.
They still want regime change. They want it in Syria. They wanted it in Iraq. They want it in Libya. It has not worked.
Out of regime change you get chaos. From the chaos you have seen repeatedly the rise of radical Islam. So we get this profession of, oh, my goodness, they want to do something about terrorism and yet they're the problem because they allow terrorism to arise out of that chaos.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hugh Hewitt, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hugh.
CRUZ: The question of whether we should toppling dictatorships is asking the wrong question. We should be defeating our enemies. So the problem with defeating...
BLITZER: Senator, Senator, we're going to get to you. Wait your turn. We have two hours of debate. We'll have plenty of time. Let Hugh ask his question.
CRUZ: Well, but let me explain, the focus should be...
BLITZER: Senator, please.
CRUZ: ... on defeating our enemies. So, for example...
BLITZER: Senator... CRUZ: ... a regime we should change is Iran...
BLITZER: You'll have plenty of opportunity.
Hugh, go ahead.
CRUZ: ... because Iran has declared war on us. But we shouldn't be toppling regimes...
(CROSSTALK)
CRUZ: ... that are fighting radical Islamic terrorists that are helping...
BLITZER: These are the rules all of you agreed to.
Hugh, go ahead with your question.
HEWITT: Mr. Trump, we are talking about the most important thing, that's why it's heated. And it's, you are OK with Mr. Assad staying in power, but you are also in favor of winning.
If he stays in power, Iran is winning, Hezbollah is winning. Iran is winning in Yemen. They are winning everywhere. If they are winning how can we be winning?
TRUMP: I think Assad is a bad guy, a very bad guy, all right? Lots of people killed. I think we are backing people we have no idea who they are. The rebels, we call them the rebels, the patriotic rebels. We have no idea. A lot of people think, Hugh, that they are ISIS.
We have to do one thing at a time. We can't be fighting ISIS and fighting Assad. Assad is fighting ISIS. He is fighting ISIS. Russia is fighting now ISIS. And Iran is fighting ISIS.
We have to do one thing at a time. We can't go -- and I watched Lindsey Graham, he said, I have been here for 10 years fighting. Well, he will be there with that thinking for another 50 years. He won't be able to solve the problem.
We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we'll start thinking about it. But we can't be fighting Assad. And when you're fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you're fighting -- you're fighting a lot of different groups.
But we can't be fighting everybody at one time.
HEWITT: Governor Christie, is he right? Because if we step back, Iran goes nuclear. Is Donald Trump right?
CHRISTIE: Well, I think we have to focus, Hugh, on exactly what the priorities are. And to me, what I've always said is that the president has set up an awful situation through his deal with Iran, because what his deal with Iran has done is empower them and enrich them. And that's the way ISIS has been created and formed here. ISIS is created and formed because of the abuse that Assad and his Iranian sponsors have rained down on the Sunnis in Syria.
And so when we empower Iran, this is why this president -- and when Hillary Clinton says her theory against ISIS will be just about the same as the president, then get ready for more unrest and more murder and more violence in the Middle East.
We need to focus our attention on Iran, because if you miss Iran, you are not going to get ISIS. The two are inextricably connected because one causes the other.
HEWITT: Senator Paul, let me ask you, you heard Governor Kasich say Assad must go. Do you agree?
PAUL: No, I think it's a huge mistake. I think regime change in Syria, and this is what -- I've been saying this for several years now. In 2013 when we first went in, I said, you are going to give arms to the allies of al Qaida, to radical jihadists? That's crazy.
But the other thing I said is the great irony is you will be back fighting against your own weapons. Had Assad been bombed when he used chemical weapons two years ago, ISIS would be in charge of all of Syria now.
We have to have a more realistic foreign policy and not a utopian one where we say, oh, we're going to spread freedom and democracy, and everybody in the Middle East is going to love us. They are not going to love us.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
KASICH: The foreign policy, you have to know how to pick and choose. There's no way, if Saddam had not had weapons of mass destruction, I would have gone, because I don't believe that the U.S. should be involved directly in civil wars.
I opposed the U.S. involvement in Lebanon. We ended up having to withdraw our marines after our barracks were blown up.
There is a difference between Iraq, where you have Sunni, Shia, and Kurds put together after the First World War by the Western powers. It doesn't work. It needs to break up into three parts.
KASICH: And for the Russians, frankly, it's time that we punched the Russians in the nose. They've gotten away with too much in this world and we need to stand up against them, not just there, but also in Eastern Europe where they threaten some of our most precious allies.
BLITZER: Let's continue with Russia right now. We have another question from Facebook. Listen and watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: My name is Ashley Tofil. Ms. Fiorina, in November, you said that you would not talk to Vladimir Putin after you were elected because you would be communicating from a position of weakness. Do you believe that it is feasible to not communicate with another world leader? And do you think that that also is a sign of weakness?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Ms. Fiorina, as you know, U.S. and Russian warplanes are flying all over Syria right now. With so many lives on the line, is this a good time for the United States not to talk to Putin?
FIORINA: I didn't say I would cut off all communication with Putin. What I said was as president of the United States, now is not the time to talk with him. Reagan walked away at Reykjavik. There is a time and a place for everything. There is a time and a place for talk. And there is a time and a place for action.
I know Vladimir Putin. He respects strength. He lied to our president's face; didn't both to tell him about warplanes and troops going into Syria. We need to speak to him from a position of strength. So as commander in chief, I will not speak to him until we've set up that no-fly zone; until we've gathered our Sunni-Arab allies and begun to deny ISIS territory; until I've called the supreme leader of Iran and told him new deal -- new deal. We the United States of America are going to cut off the money flow, which we can do; which we don't need anyone's permission or collaboration to do.
And I will not speak to him personally until we've rebuilt the 6th Fleet a little bit right under his nose; rebuilt the missile defense program in Poland right under his nose; and conducted a few military exercises in the Baltic states.
And let us remember one other thing. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible for the growth of ISIS because they precipitously withdrew from Iraq in 2011 against the advice of every single general and for political expediency. It's not these people up here. It's Hillary Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Ms. Fiorina.
Governor Christie, if the U.S. imposed a no-fly zone over Syria and a Russian plane encroached, invaded that no-fly zone, would you be prepared to shoot down that Russian plane and risk war with Russia?
CHRISTIE: Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it. A no-fly zone means a no-fly zone, Wolf. That's what it means.
(APPLAUSE)
See, maybe -- maybe because I'm from New Jersey, I just have this kind of plain language hangup. But I would make very clear -- I would not talk to Vladimir Putin. In fact, I would talk to Vladimir Putin a lot. But I'd say to him, "Listen, Mr. President, there's a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you." And yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling that the president we have in the Oval Office is right now.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator Paul -- Senator Paul, I want you to respond to what we just heard from Governor Christie. If there was a no-fly zone, you say that potentially could lead to World War III. Why?
PAUL: Well, I think if you're in favor of World War III, you have your candidate. You know, here's...
(APPLAUSE)
... the thing. My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, "Yes, I'm jumping up and down; I'm going to shoot down Russian planes." Russia already flies in that airspace. It may not be something we're in love with the fact that they're there, but they were invited by Iraq and by Syria to fly in that airspace.
And so if we announce we're going to have a no-fly zone, and others have said this. Hillary Clinton is also for it. It is a recipe for disaster. It's a recipe for World War III. We need to confront Russia from a position of strength, but we don't need to confront Russia from a point of recklessness that would lead to war.
This is something -- this type of judgment, you know, it's having that kind of judgment; who you would appoint and how you're going to conduct affairs, that is incredibly important.
I mean, I think when we think about the judgment of someone who might want World War III, we might think about someone who might shut down a bridge because they don't like their friends; they don't want to -- you know, they want to (inaudible) a Democrat.
So I think we need to be very careful.
BLITZER: Governor Christie?
CHRISTIE: Well, Wolf, I'll tell you what reckless is. What reckless is is calling Assad a reformer. What reckless is allowing Russia to come into Crimea and Ukraine. What reckless is is inviting Russia into Syria to team with Iran. That is reckless. And the reckless people are the folks in the White House right now. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the reckless people.
CHRISTIE: And if you think that a no-fly zone is a reckless policy, you're welcome to your opinion. But how is it working so far? As we have 250,000 Syrians murdered, slaughtered; millions running around the world, running for their lives. It's not working. We need to try something else. And that is not reckless.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: All right, let's go back -- Hugh and Dana?
HEWITT: Governor Bush, a commander-in-chief question. You've said that Mr. Trump is not qualified to be president because he's not qualified to deal with Vladimir Putin. Why are you better qualified to deal with Vladimir Putin than Mr. Trump?
BUSH: Because I -- first of all, I know what I don't know. I know what I don't know. I would seek out, as I have, the best advice that exists. I won't get my information from the shows. I don't know if that's Saturday morning or Sunday morning. I don't know which one.
(LAUGHTER)
I will seek out the best advice, and I will create a strategy and I will persuade the American people what the role of America should be. I've laid out a policy of rebuilding our military.
All of the talk that we're seeing here -- most of which I agree on, frankly -- requires a much stronger military. We now have a lack of readiness that is quite scary. We have planes that were -- that Harry Truman inaugurated, the B-52. We have -- the Navy has been gutted and decimated. The readiness of the Marines is way down.
If we're serious about America's leadership in the world, then we need to make sure that we have the back of the armed forces. The Armed Forces Radio is here listening to this today. I hope they know that if I'm president, I'll be a commander-in-chief, not an agitator- in-chief or a divider-in-chief, that I will lead this country in a way that will create greater security and greater safety.
HEWITT: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: I think it's very sad that CNN leads Jeb Bush, Governor Bush, down a road by starting off virtually all the questions, "Mr. Trump this, Mister" -- I think it's very sad. And, frankly, I watched -- I think it's very sad. And, frankly, I watched the first debate, and the first long number of questions were, "Mr. Trump said this, Mr. Trump said that. Mr. Trump" -- these poor guys -- although, I must tell you, Santorum, good guy. Governor Huckabee, good guy. They were very nice, and I respect them greatly. But I thought it was very unfair that virtually the entire early portion of the debate was Trump this, Trump that, in order to get ratings, I guess. In order to get ratings, I guess.
HEWITT: But, Mr. Trump, it's not CNN -- I was on CNN last night...
TRUMP: I just think it's very -- excuse me.
HEWITT: ... watching...
TRUMP: Excuse me. I think it's very unprofessional.
HEWITT: But it wasn't -- it wasn't CNN. It was me. I watched you last night for 16 minutes. It's not CNN.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Well, I think it's very unprofessional.
HEWITT: It's not CNN. It's America's watching you.
TRUMP: OK, fine.
HEWITT: It's America's watching.
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: So I was -- I was -- I was mentioned, so I can bring up something, I think, right? Look, the simple fact is, if you think this is tough you're not being treated fairly...
TRUMP: This isn't tough and easy. I wish it...
BUSH: ... imagine what it's going to be like dealing with Putin or dealing with President Xi.
TRUMP: I wish it was always this easy as you, Jeb.
BUSH: Or dealing with the Islamic terrorism that exists.
TRUMP: Oh, yeah.
BUSH: This is a tough business to run for president.
TRUMP: Oh, I know. You're a tough guy, Jeb. I know.
BUSH: And it's -- and we need...
(LAUGHTER)
... to have a leader that is...
(CROSSTALK) TRUMP: You're tough.
BUSH: You're never going to be president of the United States by insulting your way to the presidency.
TRUMP: Well, let's see. I'm at 42, and you're at 3. So, so far, I'm doing better.
BUSH: Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.
TRUMP: So far, I'm doing better. You know, you started off over here, Jeb. You're moving over further and further. Pretty soon you're going to be off the end...
(CROSSTALK)
FIORINA: This doesn't do a thing to solve the problems.
(CROSSTALK)
FIORINA: It doesn't do a thing to solve the problems.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: One at a time. Hugh, go ahead.
KASICH: It sounds more and more what my daughter said that I said in the beginning, all the fighting and arguing is not advancing us.
FIORINA: It will not solve the problem.
KASICH: It is not the way we're going to strengthen our country. We will strengthen our country when we come together.
(APPLAUSE)
And, look, you've got Rand Paul, you've got Ted Cruz, you've got Marco, you've got a lot of people on this stage that have studied these issues. You know what a leader does? A leader has a sound program, has a good policy, and then brings people together to solve problems.
(APPLAUSE)
Guess what? Both in Congress in balancing the budget and in Ohio fixing the economy -- and, by the way, we talk about the fence. The first thing we better get going is strengthening our economy, because if we don't have a strong economy, we can't pay for all of this. And the world wants us to be able to function from strength, believe it or not. Get our economy going, get these people together in a room. We can fix this, ladies and gentlemen.
(CROSSTALK)
KASICH: We don't have to fight all the time. It can be done, and we will be great...
HEWITT: Governor -- thank you, Governor.
KASICH: ... when we join together. Thank you, Hugh.
HEWITT: Dr. Carson, commander-in-chief question again. You've been the head of neurosurgery for a big hospital. You're on a lot of boards of a lot of companies. You've traveled the world. You're going traveling again next week. But does that prepare you to command troops from Djibouti to Japan, troops from Afghanistan to Iraq to be in charge of the men and women watching on Armed Services Network tonight?
CARSON: Well, you know, there's a false narrative that only the political class has the wisdom and the ability to be commander-in- chief. But if you go back and you study the design of our country, it was really designed for the citizen statesman.
And we need to be talking about where does your experience come from? You know, and I've had a lot of experience building things, organizing things, you know, a national scholarship program.
One of the things that you'll notice if you look through my life is that I don't do a lot of talking. I do a lot of doing. And really, it says more about a person than how much they talk. And then some people say you're weak because, you know, you're not loud and you're not boisterous and you're not rude. But the fact of the matter is, look and see what I've done. And that speaks volumes about strength.
BASH: Thank you, Dr. Carson. We've been talking tonight about programs and policy proposals that you all have to keep Americans safe and it's a big discussion on the campaign trail. Also about border security and immigration. So let's talk about immigration.
Senator Rubio. You co-authored a bill with Democrats two years ago that allowed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Do you still support that path to citizenship, which means giving those immigrants rights, like the right to vote?
RUBIO: Yeah. Immigration is not an issue that I read about in the newspaper or watch a documentary on PBS or CNN. It's an issues I've lived around my whole life. My family are immigrants. My wife's family are immigrants. All of my neighbors are immigrants.
I see every aspect of this problem. The good, the bad, and the ugly. And here's what we learned in 2013. The American people don't trust the Federal Government to enforce our immigration laws, and we will not be able to do anything on immigration until we first prove to the American people that illegal immigration is under control. And we can do that. We know what it takes to do that.
It takes at least 20,000 more additional border agents. It takes completing those 700 miles of fencing. It takes a mandatory e-verify system and a mandatory entry/exit tracking system to prevent overstays. After we have done that, the second thing we have to do is reform and modernize the legal immigration system. And after we have done those two things, I think the American people are gonna be reasonable with what do you do with someone who has been in this country for 10 or 12 years who hasn't otherwise violated our laws -- because if they're a criminal they can't stay. They'll have to undergo a background check, pay a fine, start paying taxes. And ultimately, they'll given a work permit and that's all they're gonna be allowed to have for at least 10 years. But you can't get to that third step until you have done the other two things, and that was the lesson we learned in 2013. There is no trust that the Federal Government will enforce the law. They will not support you until you see it done first.
BASH: Senator, you haven't answered the question. You described a very long path but does that path end at citizenship?
RUBIO: But I've answered that question repeatedly. I am personally open -- after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card.
That may not be a majority position in my party, but that's down the road. You can't even begin that process until you prove to people -- not just pass a law that says you're gonna bring illegal immigration under control. You're gonna have to do it and prove to people that it's working.
And that was the lesson of 2013. And it's more true today, than it was then. After a migratory crisis on the border with minors coming over that you're seeing start up again now, after all these executive orders the President has issued. More than ever we need to...
BASH: Thank you, senator.
RUBIO: ... prove to people that illegal immigration is under control.
BASH: Thank you, senator. Senator Cruz.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Cruz, on the campaign trail, Senator Rubio has said that his immigration plan is not that different from yours. Is that true?
CRUZ: Well, he -- he has attempted to muddy the waters, but I think that anyone who watched the battle that we had. You know, there was a time for choosing as Reagan put it. Where there was a battle over amnesty and some chose, like Senator Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and support a massive amnesty plan.
Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people and secure the border.
And let me mention, this issue is actually directly connected to what we've been talking about. Because the front line with ISIS isn't just in Iraq and Syria, it's in Kennedy Airport and the Rio Grande. Border security is national security. And, you know, one of the most troubling aspects of the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight Bill was that it gave President Obama blanket authority to admit refugees, including Syrian refugees without mandating any background checks whatsoever. Now we've seen what happened in San Bernardino. When you are letting people in, when the FBI can't vet them, it puts American citizens at risk. And I tell you, if I'm elected president, we will secure the border. We will triple the border patrol. We will build a wall that works and I'll get Donald Trump to pay for it.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Rubio, please.
RUBIO: Yeah, a couple points. In 2013 we had never faced a crisis like the Syrian refugee crisis now. Up until that point, a refugee meant someone fleeing oppression, fleeing Communism like it is in my community.
As far as Ted's record, I'm always puzzled by his attack on this issue. Ted, you support legalizing people who are in this country illegally. Ted Cruz supported a 500-percent increase in the number of H-1 visas, the guest workers that are allowed into this country, and Ted supports doubling the number of green cards.
So I think what's important for us to understand and there is a way forward on this issue that we an bring our country together on. And while I'm president I will do it. And it will begin by bringing illegal immigration under control and proving to the American people.
BASH: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Look, I understand Marco wants to raise confusion, it is not accurate what he just said that I supported legalization. Indeed, I led the fight against his legalization and amnesty. And you know, there was one commentator that put it this way that, for Marco to suggest our record's the same is like suggesting "the fireman and the arsonist because they are both at the scene of the fire."
He was fighting to grant amnesty and not to secure the border, I was fighting to secure the border. And this also goes to trust, listening on to campaign trails. Candidates all the time make promises. You know, Marco said," he learned that the American people didn't trust the federal government."
BASH: Senator Cruz?
RUBIO: No, no, give him time.
CRUZ: In Florida promising to...
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: Ted, do you...
CRUZ: go in the fight against amnesty...
RUBIO: Did Ted Cruz fight to support legalizing people that are in this country illegally?
CRUZ: He campaigned promising to lead the fight against amnesty.
FIORINA: Ladies and gentleman, this is why the American people are standing up.
BASH: Senator Cruz, can you answer that question please?
RUBIO: Does Ted Cruz rule out ever legalizing people that are in this country now?
BASH: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ; I have never supported a legalization...
RUBIO: Would you rule it out?
CRUZ : I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization. Let me tell you how you do this, what you do is you enforce the law...
(CROSSTALK)
FIORINA: This is why the nation is fed up...
BASH: One at a time please.
CRUZ: Watt you do is enforcement the law...
FIORINA: We have been talking about this...
BASH: Ms. Fiorina, please wait your turn, we're going to get to you.
FIORINA: Sorry, but you haven't gotten to me. This is why...
CRUZ: What you do...
BASH: Senator Cruz go ahead.
FIORINA: the people are fed up with the political class.
CRUZ: What you do is you enforce the law. I've laid out a very, very detailed immigration plan on my website, tedcruz.org. It's 11 pages of existing federal law and in particular the question of what to do with people who are here now? You enforce the law.
That means you stop the Obama administration's policy of releasing criminal illegal aliens. Do you know how many aliens Bill Clinton deported? 12 million. Do you know how many illegal aliens, George W. Bush deported? 10 million.
We can enforce the laws and if we secure the border, that solves the problem. And as president I will solve this problem and secure the border.
BASH: Mr. Trump, you like to say that you restarted this conversation in the campaign. TRUMP: I believe I did.
BASH: So who do you side with? Who do you side with in this, Senator Rubio or Senator Cruz?
TRUMP: I have a very hardline position, we have a country or we don't have a country. People that have come into our country illegally, they have to go. They have to come back into through a legal process.
I want a strong border. I do want a wall. Walls do work, you just have to speak to the folks in Israel. Walls work if they're properly constructed. I know how to build, believe me, I know how to build.
I feel a very, very strong bind, and really I'm bound to this country, we either have a border or we don't. People can come into the country, we welcome people to come but they have to come in legally.
BASH: Thank you.
Governor Bush?
BUSH: Yes.
BASH: Listening to this, do you think this is the tone -- this immigration debate that republicans need to take to win back Hispanics into our party especially states like where we are in Nevada that has a pretty Hispanic community?
BUSH: No it isn't but it is an important subject to talk about for sure. And I think people have good ideas on this. Clearly, we need to secure the border. Coming here legally needs to be a lot easier than coming here illegally.
If you don't have that, you don't have the rule of law. We now have a national security consideration, public health issues, we have an epidemic of heroine overdoses in all places in this country because of the ease of bringing heroine in. We have to secure the border.
It is a serious undertaking and yes, we do need more fencing and we do need to use technology, and we do need more border control. And we need to have better cooperation by the way with local law enforcement. There are 800,000 cops on the beat, they ought to be trained to be the eyes and ears for law enforcement for the threat against terror as well as for immigration.
This is a serious challenge and if we can get it right, yes, we'll start winning votes again. The real problem isn't anybody on this stage, the real problem is Barack Obama has had six years to advocate a position to fix this and he's done nothing. The congress has funded these programs of building more fencing and doing all this and he hasn't done it.
He wants to maintain it as a wedge issue and so does Hillary Clinton. Republicans need to fix it and when we do, we'll be better off.
BLITZER: Governor, thank you very much.
BLITZER: So, Dr. Carson, you recently visited a refugee camp in Jordan and you deemed it your words, "really quite nice." Saying the people there didn't want to come to the United States. Do you think these camps are a long-term solution of the problem of Syrian refugees?
CARSON: Well, it was very interesting having an opportunity to talk to the Syrians themselves. And I asked them: What do you want? What is your supreme desire? Their supreme desire was to be settled back in their own country. I said, "What can Americans and other countries do?" They said, "Support the efforts of those who are trying to provide safety for us, including the Jordanians."
Of course, they had a brand new hospital, for instance, that was unstaffed because there wasn't enough money to do it. But here's what's really neat. If you go into Hasakah province in northeast Syria, that's an area that's as big as Lebanon. It's controlled by the Kurds, the Christians and the moderate Sunnis. And there are airstrips and hotels. You could settle a lot of people there.
All we would have to do is be willing to provide them with some weaponry, some defensive weaponry. And we seem to be afraid to give the Kurds weaponry. We like to send it for some strange reason through Baghdad, and then they only get a tenth of it.
And if we would support them, we'd have a perfect ideal there. We don't need to set this up as we either take a bunch of refugees who will be infiltrated with terrorists, I guarantee you. For them not to be would be terrorist malpractice. And we need to -- to choose the right choice, not these false choices.
BLITZER: Senator Paul, you oppose letting in Syrian refugees at this time into the United States. The U.S. has already accepted 2,000 Syrian refugees, including 13 living here in Las Vegas right now. Would you send them back? What would you do with these people?
PAUL: You know, I think we need to set the record straight on this, because I think Marco misspoke about the bill. On the Gang of Eight bill, there was no provisions really for extra scrutiny or safety for refugees. At the time the bill came up, two Iraqi refugees came to my home town, Bowling Green, Kentucky. Their fingerprints were on a bomb from Iraq. They were in the database, but we didn't pick them up.
We relocated them here, put them in government housing, got them on food stamps. And we began providing for them, but we didn't have adequate security. On the Gang of Eight bill, on Marco's bill, we had an opportunity. There was a conservative consensus for an amendment I put forward called Trust, But Verify that would have strengthened border security on both refugees, students and those coming here. And Marco sided and I guess was more sympathetic to Chuck Schumer and to the president than he was to conservative principles.
But this goes directly to national defense. And if he wants to run as a national -- national defense conservative, he's got to explain why he hasn't stepped up to support border security.
BLITZER: Senator Rubio?
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: Well, he's just admitted -- as he's just admitted, the reason why those refugees were allowed in was because they messed up in how they used the actual database. They should have know. They didn't because they didn't run the actual law as it exists now. It didn't work well.
As far as the refugees are concerned, it's not that America doesn't want to accept refugees, Wolf. It's that we may not be able to, because this is an issue we have to be 100 percent right on. If we allow 9,999 Syrian refugees into the United States, and all of them are good people, but we allow one person in who's an ISIS killer -- we just get one person wrong, we've got a serious problem.
And there is not a single person in the national defense apparatus of this country that can guarantee you are going to be 100 percent right. And that's why as president, I'll take this very seriously.
BLITZER: Senator Paul, you didn't answer the question about the 2,000 Syrian refugees who are already here in the United States. Will you send them back or let them stay?
PAUL: What my bill would do would be only for refugees going forward. So I haven't taken a position on sending anyone home. But I have taken the position that we have a lot of problems here in our country. And that one of the things that we do -- charity is about giving your own money. Charity isn't giving someone else's money. To put everyone in government housing and food stamps and bring them in from around the world I think is a mistake. To give of your own money, I've given to my church. My church has helped people that came from Bosnia. That's a good thing.
But we shouldn't have a program where we just say that we're going to take care of the world's refugees. Nobody in the Middle East is doing anything. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait -- all the Gulf nations are doing nothing. They need to step up and take...
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: We have another -- we have another question. We have another question from Facebook. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: My name is Carla Hernandez. I'm from the University of Texas at Austin. And my question is directed to all the candidates.
If the Bible clearly states that we need to embrace those in need and not fear, how can we justify not accepting refugees?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Governor Christie, you say there should be a pause in allowing new refugees to come into the United States, including orphans under the age of five. What do you say to Carla?
CHRISTIE: What I say to Carla is that the first job of the president of the United States is to protect your safety and your security and the security and safety of your family. And this debate stops with me in the discussions with the FBI director.
CHRISTIE: Now, listen, I'm a former federal prosecutor, I know Jim Comey. We've worked together. He was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan when I was a U.S. attorney in New Jersey.
And when Jim Comey gets up before Congress and says, we cannot effectively vet these people, for me as president, that's the end of the conversation. We have to put America's security first.
(APPLAUSE)
The American people -- we on this stage need to open our ears. We need to open our ears. The American people are not whispering to us. They are screaming to us. And they're screaming to us that it's our job to actually make this government work.
It's so dysfunctional under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's so ineffective. It's so ineffectual that the American people say, we don't trust them to do anything anymore. So I'm not going to let Syrian refugees, any Syrian refugees in this country.
And it was widows and orphans, by the way, and we now know from watching the San Bernardino attack that women can commit heinous, heinous acts against humanity just the same as men can do it.
And so I don't back away from that position for a minute. When the FBI director tells me that he can vet those people, then we'll consider it and not a moment before because your safety and security is what's most important to me.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Kasich.
KASICH: You know, obviously, as president of the United States, we've got to keep the people safe. That's first and foremost.
But as governor of Ohio, I have an obligation to keep the 11.5 million people in Ohio safe. And we have been very effective with our Joint Terrorism Task Force, being able to make busts.
In fact, we just made one three-four weeks ago against a person who was favorable to ISIS living in Akron.
But let me tell you what is interesting about the administration. We had Central American miners that were placed in Ohio, and we never knew a thing about it. We didn't know where they were. And, in fact, we know now that some of them, there is a case going on where some of them may have been human-trafficked.
So when the administration tells me we have a great vetting process, the proof is in the pudding. They sent these miners to us. Our schools were disrupted. We didn't know where they were. And bad things happened to them. And now they tell me that we ought to be able to admit these Syrian refugees.
So, Wolf, look, people have accused me at times of having too big of a heart. You know, that's OK. But I have to also to say I must keep the people of my state safe. So we take a pause.
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
There is much more coming up. We are only just beginning. Coming up, what other global hot spots await the next president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to the CNN-Facebook Republican Presidential Debate. We're here at the Venetian Las Vegas. Tonight we have been focusing on the Middle East, but let's turn to some other world threats that you will potentially face as Commander in Chief.
Ms. Fiorina, candidates here have called the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un a maniac who is mentally unstable. Last week he said he now has a hydrogen bomb. If you were elected president, what would you do about Kim Jong-Un?
FIORINA: Well, first, Kim Jong-Un is a dangerous leader, without a doubt. And both Republican and Democrat administrations have been completely ineffective in dealing with him. So we must continue to isolate him. We will need China as part of that strategy.
China is a rising adversary. So one of the things we have to do if we want China's support is to push back on China. They, too, recognize one thing -- strength and their own economic interest.
I have done business in China for 25 years, so I know that in order to get China to cooperate with us, we must first actually retaliate against their cyber-attacks so they know we're serious. We have to push back on their desire to control the trade route through the South China Sea through which flows $5 trillion worth of goods and services every year.
We cannot let them control the disputed islands, and we must work with the Australians, the South Koreans, the Japanese and the Filipinos to contain China. And then we must ask for their support and their help with North Korea. Because believe it or not, China is as concerned about Kim Jong-Un as we are.
BLITZER: Dr. Carson, what would you do about Kim Jong-Un?
CARSON: Well, I definitely believe that he is unstable, and I do, in fact, believe that China has a lot more influence with him than we do. But we also recognize that North Korea is in severe financial straits, and they have decided to use their resources to build their military, rather than to feed their people and to take care of the various humanitarian responsibilities that they have.
We can capitalize upon that. You know, we should use our economic power in lots of different ways. I think we can use that in order to keep Putin contained, because he is a one-horse show. Energy. And we have an abundance of energy, but we have archaic energy exportation rules. We need to get rid of those, allow ourselves to really make Europe dependent on us and other parts of the world dependent on us for energy. Put him back in his little box where he belongs.
And, you know, we need to be doing lots of other things with the resources that we have. So economic power works just as well as military power, perhaps even better. And speaking of that, our Military needs to be upgraded. You know, you look at things like our Ohio Class submarines, they're 25 years old. Our minuteman 3 missiles -- they are 34 years old. Our B-52 bombers -- 50 years old. You know, if we don't get the military right nothing else matters.
BLITZER: Thank you, Dr. Carson. Dana and Hugh you have questions as well.
BASH: Governor Christie, you've said if China launches a cyber- attack against the U.S. on your watch, "they're going to see cyber- warfare like they have never seen before." What exactly would that response look like?
CHRISTIE: Well, what it would like is, we have one of the great advantages of America being the open society that we are. It is, we are not hiding things from the American people, but China everyday is conducting business in a way that hides things from their people.
CHRISTIE: So if they want to come in and attack all the personnel records in the federal government, which they've done, and which -- they now have my Social Security number and my fingerprints, as well as maybe some other folks' who are on this stage.
The fact is, they need to be fought back on. And what we need to do is go at the things that they are most sensitive and most embarrassing to them; that they're hiding; get that information and put it out in public. Let the Chinese people start to digest how corrupt the Chinese government is; how they steal from the Chinese people; and how they're enriching oligarchs all throughout China.
They need to understand that. And we need to take those type of steps. This president has seen personnel records of people who have sacrificed for the American people and for the federal government stolen by the Chinese and he's done nothing in return. This is why -- this is what I said at the beginning that this administration, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton through their foreign policy, have betrayed the American people, because the weakness they've displayed has led to Putin's incursions in the Middle East and in eastern Europe, and has led -- has led to significant problems in the Middle East as well, and the death and murder of lots of folks.
BASH: Governor Bush, what you just heard from Governor Christie, are you concerned that that could really escalate with China, that they would retaliate? And, for example, as the NSA has said, attack the U.S. and maybe it's power grid, which the Chinese have the capability to do?
BUSH: I completely agree with Chris. And this administration has been so lax. Think about it. Hillary Clinton is using a private server for -- where classified information go by. This is a -- this is a serious administration?
The president receives an inspector general's report that the Office of Personnel Management could be hacked into; they had antiquated firewalls; 23 million files have been -- are in the hands of the Chinese allegedly, including, by the way, members of the press, it turns out, last week. Maybe that's the only part that's good news, so that you guys can get a feel for what it's like now to see this type of attack.
This is something -- we have to have the best defensive capabilities. We need to coordinate all of our efforts with the private sector. We need to give them liability relief so that we can do that. And offensively, we need to have capabilities second to none. We need to create a situation where they know that there will be adverse impacts if they continue to do what they're doing.
They'll respect that. They'll respect a United States that is serious about protecting our -- our infrastructure. If we don't do it, we'll continue to see what's -- exactly what's happening, not just from the Chinese, by the way. The Russians and rogue actors, including ISIS -- this is a serious part of the 21st century security challenge that we face.
HEWITT: Mr. Trump...
(APPLAUSE)
... Dr. Carson just referenced the single most important job of the president, the command, the control and the care of our nuclear forces. And he mentioned the triad. The B-52s are older than I am. The missiles are old. The submarines are aging out. It's an executive order. It's a commander-in-chief decision.
What's your priority among our nuclear triad?
TRUMP: Well, first of all, I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible; who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important. And one of the things that I'm frankly most proud of is that in 2003, 2004, I was totally against going into Iraq because you're going to destabilize the Middle East. I called it. I called it very strongly. And it was very important.
But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ball game. Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out -- if we didn't have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can't just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn't care. It was hand-to-hand combat.
The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming, which is inconceivable, this is what he's saying. The biggest problem we have is nuclear -- nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.
HEWITT: Of the three legs of the triad, though, do you have a priority? I want to go to Senator Rubio after that and ask him.
TRUMP: I think -- I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.
HEWITT: Senator Rubio, do you have a response?
RUBIO: I do. First, let's explain to people at home who the triad -- what the triad is. Maybe a lot of people haven't heard that terminology before. The triad is our ability of the United States to conduct nuclear attacks using airplanes, using missiles launched from silos or from the ground, and also from our nuclear subs' ability to attack. And it's important -- all three of them are critical. It gives us the ability at deterrence.
Now, some have become more critical than others; for example, the submarines. And that's the Ohio Class submarine that needs to be modernized. The air component also needs to be modernized. The B-52, as someone earlier pointed out, is an outdated model that was flown by the grandparents of people that are flying it now. And we need a serious modernization program as well on our silo-launched missiles. All three are critical for the defense of the country.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Some of you on this stage have questioned whether your opponents have temperament, the right temperament, to be in control of the nuclear codes.
Dana, you have a question on this?
BASH: Mr. Trump, just this weekend you said Senator Cruz is not qualified to be president because he doesn't have the right temperament and acted like a maniac when he arrived in the Senate. But last month you said you were open to naming Senator Cruz as your running mate.
TRUMP: I did.
BASH: So why would you be willing to put somebody who's a maniac one heartbeat away from the presidency?
TRUMP: Let me just say that I have gotten to know him over the last three or four days. He has a wonderful temperament.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: He's just fine. Don't worry about it.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Okay.
Senator Cruz. Senator Cruz, you have not been willing to attack Mr. Trump in public.
TRUMP: You better not attack...
(LAUGHTER)
BASH: But you did question his judgment in having control of American's nuclear arsenal during a private meeting with supporters. Why are you willing to say things about him in private and not in public?
CRUZ: Dana, what I said in private is exactly what I'll say here, which is that the judgment that every voter is making of every one of us up here is who has the experience, who has the vision, who has the judgment to be commander in chief. That is the most important decision for the voters to make. That's a standard I'm held to. And it's a standard everyone else is held to.
And I will note, you know, in the whole course of this discussion about our foreign policy threats, it actually illustrates the need for clarity of focus.
You know, my daughters, Caroline and Catherine, came tonight. They're 7 and 5. And you think about the Los Angeles schools canceling their schools today.
And every parent is wondering, how do we keep our kids safe? We need a commander in chief who does what Ronald Reagan did with communism, which is he set out a global strategy to defeat Soviet communism. And he directed all of his...
(CROSSTALK)
CRUZ: I'm answering the question, Dana.
He directed all of his forces to defeating communism.
One of the things we've seen here is how easy it is for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to get distracted from dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. They won't even call it by its name.
We need a president who stands up, number one, and says, we will defeat ISIS. And number two, says the greatest national security threat facing America is a nuclear Iran.
BASH: Senator, senator, I just...
CRUZ: And we need to be focused on defeating...
BASH: Senator, a lot of people have seen...
CRUZ: ... defeating radical Islamic terrorists.
BASH: ... a lot of people have seen these comments you made in private. I just want to clarify what you're saying right now is you do believe Mr. Trump has the judgment to be commander in chief?
CRUZ: What I'm saying, Dana, is that is a judgment for every voter to make. What I can tell you is all nine of the people here would make an infinitely better commander in chief than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, senator. Thank you.
CRUZ: And there is a real danger, Dana, when people get distracted.
I'm answering the question, Wolf.
CRUZ: There's a real danger when people get distracted by peripheral issues. They get distracted by democracy building. They get distracted about military conflicts. We need to focus on defeating jihadism. ISIS and Iran have declared war on America, and we need a commander in chief who will do everything necessary to keep our children safe.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
CRUZ: And I will do everything necessary to keep our children safe.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
We're a month and a half away now from the first real test who will be the Republican presidential nominee.
Hugh, you have a question?
HEWITT: My listeners tell me again and again they are worried that Hillary Clinton will win the White House because you'll run as an independent. Are you ready to assure Republicans tonight that you will run as a Republican and abide by the decision of the Republicans?
TRUMP: I really am. I'll be honest, I really am.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I mean, the people have been putting me...
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I really am.
(APPLAUSE)
HEWITT: Dr. Carson, last week...
TRUMP: Let me just. Can I just finish my...
HEWITT: Please.
TRUMP: I've gained great respect for the Republican leadership. I've gained great respect for many -- and I'm going to even say -- I mean, in different forms for the people on the dais, in different forms.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: In different forms.
But I have great respect for the people I have met through this process. I've never done this process before. I've never been a politician. I mean, for the last six months I've been a politician.
But I will tell you, I am totally committed to the Republican Party. I feel very honored to be the front runner.
(APPLAUSE) TRUMP: And I think I'll do very well if I'm chosen. If I'm so fortunate to be chosen, I think I'll do very well.
Polls have come out recently saying I would beat Hillary. I will do everything in my power to beat Hillary Clinton, I promise you.
(APPLAUSE)
HEWITT: Dr. Carson, Mr. Trump just committed to stay the distance regardless of the result. How about you?
CARSON: Well, you know, the statement that I made last week, that I would leave the party was contingent upon whether in fact the party acts like they have in the past with a lot of subterfuge and dishonesty, or like they're going act now because I spike to Reince Priebus, and he assured me that the Washington Post writer had it all wrong, and that they're not be engaging in anything to thwart the will of the people.
That's why I got into this race, as a member of we the people, to try bring some honesty and integrity back to the process.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: All right. Candidates, we have more coming up. When we come back, everyone will have an opportunity to explain why this particular candidate, each of you on the stage, believes he or she should be the Republican presidential nominee.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Now it's time for the closing statements from the candidates. Each one has 30 seconds.
Senator Paul.
PAUL: The greatest threat to our national security is our debt. We borrow a million dollars a minute. And whose fault is it? Well, frankly, it's both parties' fault. You have those on the right who clamor and say, oh, we will spend anything on the military, and those on the left who say the same for domestic welfare.
But what most Americans don't realize is there is an unholy alliance. They come together. There's a secret handshake. We spend more money on everything. And we are not stronger nation if we go further into debt. We are not projecting power from bankruptcy court.
To me, there is no greater threat than our debt. I'm the only fiscal conservative on the stage because I'm willing to hold the line on all spending. I hope you will consider me in the election. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Kasich. KASICH: No Republican has ever been elected president of the United States without winning Ohio. Let me give you a little tip on how you win Ohio, it's reform, it's hope, it's growth, it's opportunity, and it's security.
The people of Ohio are the people of America. The people of America are reflected in Ohio. Our message has to be big, and bold, and positive, and connect, not just with people's heads but also connect with their hearts.
If we do it, we will beat Hillary Clinton, and we will run the White House, and we will strengthen and fix America, I promise you.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor Christie.
CHRISTIE: On September 10th, 2001, I was named chief federal prosecutor in New Jersey and on September 11th, 2001, my wife and my brother who are in the audience tonight went through the World Trade Center and to their offices just blocks away from the Trade Center.
I lost touch with them for six hours that day and prayed that they were alive. Luckily, they were sent home. But many of our friends and others in our neighborhood lost their lives that day.
Terrorism -- radical jihadist terrorism is not theoretical to me. It's real. And for seven years, I spent my life protecting our country against another one of those attacks. You won't have to worry when I'm President of the Untied States whether that can be done because I've already done it. I want the chance to do it again to protect you, your children and your families.
If you give me the chance and give me your vote I will protect America from the wars that are being brought to our door step.
BLITZER: Ms. Fiorina.
FIORINA: I too remember September 11th. I remember immediately putting into place security procedures all throughout our company that did business in 170 countries where we thought corporate interests would be attacked next. To take our country back, to keep our nation safe, we have to begin by beating Hillary Clinton.
We need to unify our party. We need to better than our government, which 75 percent of the American people now think is corrupt and incompetent. They're right. We need to better than our politics. 80 percent think we have a professional/political class of both parties that cares more about its power, position and privilege than actually on getting anything done.
We need to unify our party, we need a real Conservative in the White House, and we need to beat Hillary Clinton to take our country back and keep our nation safe.
I can. I am. And together, if you join me, we will take our country back.
BLITZER: Governor Bush. BUSH: Ask yourself, which candidate will keep you and our country safer, stronger and freer?
Hillary Clinton has aligned herself with Barack Obama on ISIS, Iran and the economy. It's an alliance doomed to fail. My proven record suggests that -- my detailed plans will fortify our national and economic security. And my proven record as governor makes -- will give you a sense that I don't make false promises. I deliver real results.
For America to be safe and sound, I ask for you support. Thank you all very much.
BLITZER: Senator Rubio.
RUBIO: Thank you. As we near the end of this year, we enter one of the most important elections in a generation. For what's at stake in this election is not simply what party's going to be in charge. But our very identity as a people and as a nation. For over 200 years this has been a special country. A unique place where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything. But now millions of Americans feel like they're being left behind. Insecure in their future and unsafe in the face of terrorism. This election is about electing a president that will restore our economic vibrancy so that the American dream can expand to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. And rebuild our Military and our intelligence programs so that we can remain the strongest nation on earth. Tonight I ask you for your vote.
If you do this, we will rebuild this country, and together we will usher in a new American century -- the greatest era in the history of this great land.
BLITZER: Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: Judgment, strength, clarity and trust. Barack Obama has said he doesn't believe in American leadership or America winning -- he is wrong. America can win again and we will win again. Ronald Reagan reignited the American economy, rebuilt the Military, bankrupted the Soviet Union and defeated Soviet Communism. I will do the same thing.
Cutting taxes, cutting regulation, unleashing small businesses and rebuilding the Military to defeat radical Islamic terrorism -- our strategy is simple. We win, they lose. We've done it before and we can do it again.
BLITZER: Dr. Carson.
CARSON: I've been fortunate enough to travel to 58 different countries and I thank God everyday that I was born in this country. The most exceptional country that the world has ever known. And I want to make sure that we preserve that exceptionalism for the next generation. My mother told me if I work hard and I really believed in American principles and I believed in God, anything is possible. I believe that is true, and that's why I'm not anxious to give away American values and principles for the sake of political correctness.
TRUMP: Our country doesn't win anymore. We don't win on trade. We don't win on the military. We can't defeat ISIS. We're not taking care of our great people, the veterans. We're not taking care of them.
We have to change our whole way, our health care system is a disaster. It's going to implode in 2017, just like you're sitting there. It doesn't work. Nothing works in our country. If I'm elected president, we will win again. We will win a lot. And we're going to have a great, great country, greater than ever before.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thanks to all the Republican presidential candidates. That does it for this Republican presidential debate.
On behalf of everyone at CNN, we want to thank the candidates, Facebook, the Republican National Committee, and the Venetian Las Vegas. My thanks also to Hugh Hewitt and Dana Bash.
We especially want to wish everyone a very merry Christmas, happy holidays, especially to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines protecting us around the world.
Anderson Cooper picks up our coverage of tonight's debate right now -- Anderson.
Observers Slam CNN for Aiding and Abetting Hate Speech in GOP Debate "The moderators of last night's CNN presidential debate provided a two hour platform for every Republican candidate to further fear and hatred against Muslims," said Steven Renderos of the Center for Media Justice. Watchdogs say corporate media is stoking racist and fear-mongering rhetoric December 16, 2015 http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/16/observers-slam-cnn-aiding-and-abetting-hate-speech-gop-debate [with comments]
Video And Transcript: NPR's Interview With President Obama
NPR's wide-ranging interview with President Obama covers his strategy fighting ISIS, the 2016 elections, his legacy and the Paris climate deal.
December 21, 2015, Updated December 22, 2015 December 28, 2015
NPR's Steve Inskeep interviews President Obama at the White House [on December 17, 2015].
STEVE INSKEEP: I have been reading a history of part of the Cold War. Dwight Eisenhower was president, he's meeting his Cabinet sometimes in this room where we're sitting. The Soviet Union has emerged as a major nuclear threat. The country is very worried at this point in the 1950s. But Eisenhower is convinced that they are not that strong, that the United States is stronger, that the U.S. will win if we just avoid a huge war.
And he decides to try to reassure the public, gives a series of speeches, saying "keep your chin up, everything's fine, our strategy is working." It's a total failure. The public doesn't believe him. He is accused of a failure of leadership, and his approval rating goes down.
Are you going through the same experience now with regard to ISIS?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I tell you, first of all, I wasn't the Supreme Allied Commander helping to defeat Hitler, so he had a little credibility that he was working with. But ISIL is also not the Soviet Union. And I think that it is very important for us to understand this is a serious challenge. ISIS is a virulent, nasty organization that has gained a foothold in ungoverned spaces effectively in Syria and parts of western Iraq.
We have to take it seriously. They've shown in Paris what they can do in an organized fashion, and in San Bernardino what we've seen is their ability to proselytize for their perverted brand of Islam and spur small-scale terrorist attacks. And those are very difficult to detect, so it is going to be important for us to be vigilant. We are pounding ISIL's core structure in Syria and Iraq. We have put together a coalition that is increasingly effective. We have seen ISIL lose about 40 percent of its populated territory in the region, and both in terms of homeland security and in terms of our efforts over there, I am confident that we are going to prevail.
But it is also important for us to keep things in perspective, and this is not an organization that can destroy the United States. This is not a huge industrial power that can pose great risks to us institutionally or in a systematic way. But they can hurt us, and they can hurt our people and our families. And so I understand why people are worried.
The most damage they can do, though, is if they start changing how we live and what our values are, and part of my message over the next 14 months or 13 months that I remain in office is to just make sure that we remember who we are and make sure that our resilience, our values, our unity are maintained. If we do that, then ISIL will be defeated.
INSKEEP: What is the public missing about your strategy? And I say that simply because, according to polls, you don't have very much approval for it.
OBAMA: Well, I think what's fair is that post-Paris you had a saturation of news about the horrible attack there. And ISIL combines viciousness with very savvy media operations. And as a consequence, if you've been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you.
And so I understand why people are concerned about it, and this is a serious situation, but what is important is for people to recognize that the power, the strength of the United States and its allies are not threatened by an organization like this; in the same way that al-Qaida was able to carry out one spectacular attack, we ended up making some significant changes to harden homeland defenses. It then took awhile for us to ultimately snuff out core al-Qaida in the FATA, and there are still lingering remnants, but at no point was there ever a sense that in fact it could do catastrophic damage to us.
INSKEEP: You referred to ISIL's sophisticated media operation and also referred to what Americans are seeing in the American media. Are you suggesting that the media are being played in a sense here?
OBAMA: Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it's up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things. There is no doubt that the actions of ISIL are designed to amplify their power and the threat that they pose. That helps them recruit, that adds in the twisted thoughts of some young person that they might want to have carry out an action, that somehow they're part of a larger movement. And so I think that the American people absorb that, understandably are of concern.
Now on our side, I think that there is a legitimate criticism of what I've been doing and our administration has been doing in the sense that we haven't, you know, on a regular basis I think described all the work that we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL.
And so if people haven't seen the fact that in fact 9,000 strikes have been carried out against ISIL, if they don't know that towns like Sinjar that were controlled by ISIL have been taken back, or that a town like Tikrit, that was controlled by ISIL, now has been repopulated by previous residents, then they might feel as if there's not enough of a response.
And so part of our goal here is to make sure that people are informed about all the actions that we're taking. But one of the interesting things that you've seen evolve over the last several weeks, including in the debates that are taking place between the Republican candidates, is that those who are critics of our administration response, or the military, the intelligence response that we are currently mounting, when you ask them, well, what would you do instead, they don't have an answer.
And the reason they don't have an answer is because the truth is that the approach that we are taking is one that's based on the best counsel and best advice of our top military, top intelligence, top diplomatic teams. And we are going after ISIL effectively. We are going after them hard. And we are confident that we are going to prevail.
INSKEEP: Your critics have said they want to use more force. You have sometimes responded by suggesting that people who want to use more force want another Iraq War and that that is not practical.
OBAMA: Well, when you listen to them, though, and you ask, well, what exactly are you talking about? "Well, we are going to bomb more." Well, who is it you are going to bomb? Where is it that you are going to bomb? When you talk about something like carpet-bombing, what do you mean?
We carry out precision strikes based on intelligence of where ISIL is, where their infrastructure is, where their oil tankers are. And if the suggestion is is that we kill tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians and Iraqis, that is not who we are and that would be a strategy that would have enormous backlash against the United States. It would be terrible for our national security.
And, you know, unfortunately many of these critics can get away with just suggesting that bombing more, or being less discriminant in how we approach that, would make a difference. Let me put it this way. I trust my commanders, folks who have fought long and hard in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, when they describe to me, here's how we're going to gather intelligence, here is how we are going to approach targeting.
We've been at this for a long time in Afghanistan, Iraq, and places like Somalia and Yemen, where we have gone after terrorist targets. And the key is to make sure that we've got sound intelligence. And I make no apologies for us wanting to do this appropriately and in a way that is consistent with American values.
INSKEEP: Are you avoiding more force because you are concerned that even a little more force might call for the demand for even more force, and you would end up with a large war?
OBAMA: No. What's interesting is that most of the critics have not called for ground forces. To his credit, I think Lindsey Graham is one of the few who has been at least honest about suggesting "here is something I would do that the president is not doing." He doesn't just talk about being louder or sounding tougher in the process.
But as I explained, and I've tested this repeatedly with our military intelligence folks, when you start looking at an Iraq-type deployment of large numbers of troops — 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 troops — we are now in a situation in which we are committing ourselves not only to going door to door in places like Mosul and Raqqa, which I'm confident that we could do, but we have essentially said to the Iraqis and the Syrians that we are going to govern for you. And that ends up being of an indefinite period.
So part of what we have to do for a sustained defeat of ISIL is to help local forces develop capacity, do it the right way, do it for themselves with our assistance and our help, so that we can actually create a stable government structure in this region. Now that sometimes requires more patience than simply deploying a bunch of Marines. Our fighting forces are the best in the world, but in order to defeat an enemy like this, what we have to do is have a situation in which people can govern.
INSKEEP: You've acknowledged this requires patience. It can be a slow process. During that slow process, there might be more attacks on the United States. In October, before San Bernardino, a Justice Department official stated that he believed that domestic terrorists were a greater threat to the United States than international groups like al-Qaida or ISIS.
Do you believe that still now, after San Bernardino and Paris?
OBAMA: I don't know the exact citation that you are referring to. If you just ...
INSKEEP: John Carlin on Oct. 14.
OBAMA: If you just look at the numbers, then non-Islamic, non-foreign-motivated terrorist actions have killed at least as many Americans on American soil as those who were promoted by jihadists. But what we have also seen is ISIL evolve, because of the sophistication of their social media, to a point where they may be inspiring more attacks, even if they are self-initiated, even if they don't involve complex planning, than we would have seen two years ago, three years ago, five years ago.
Now this isn't unprecedented. The Fort Hood attack was inspired by Anwar Awlaki, who was with AQAP, al-Qaida in the Peninsula or in Yemen, and we've seen periodically self-radicalization through the Internet or jihadist propaganda.
But ISIL is more systematic and more effective in their media, in their online presence, and that raises additional concerns. So part of what we have to do in response is to ramp up countering that narrative online, working with local communities to make sure that we are inoculating ourselves and our young people from this kind of recruitment.
It is a more complicated problem because of the fact that a couple like the San Bernardino couple, you don't see in a way that you would see an organization that is planning a complex plot like 9/11.
So in that sense we have some new dangers, some new concerns that we have to deal with. But this is not completely new. It's something that we've known could happen for quite some time, and it's something that, as I said over at the National Counterterrorism Center today when I visited, it's something that we've got some incredibly effective intelligence folks working on every single day.
INSKEEP: Leading candidates in both parties have suggested in one way or another that they want to be more active against this threat. You have argued for the approach that you are taking and that too much action would be unwise.
What advice would you give whoever you are going to turn this room over to in a year or so?
OBAMA: Again, I would just repeat, Steve, that when you really sort through all the rhetoric, the notion more active or a stronger response ...
INSKEEP: Hillary Clinton spoke about no-fly zones.
OBAMA: I was going to say. There are basically two things that I've heard people say. One would be we're just going to bomb more, and that, I would advise, is not a wise course. You bomb ISIL. You're not trying to bomb innocent people. And that requires intelligence and confidence in our military to be able to develop the kinds of targets that we need.
We are already doing special forces who are going to help us gather that intelligence and help advise and assist and train local forces so that they can go after ISIL in areas like Raqqa and Mosul.
The other new thing that people have suggested would be some variation of the no-fly zone or a safe zone. This is something we've been talking about for three or four years. The challenge there is that ISIL doesn't have an air force, so the damage done there is not against ISIL, it's against the Syrian regime.
And what is absolutely true is that we need to make sure that we bring about an end to the civil war in Syria, and John Kerry, through the work he's been doing in Vienna negotiations and this week in New York, is seeing some progress in bringing Russians and Iranians together but creating a safe zone for Syrian refugees. We've tested, we've looked at repeatedly, the problem is that, again, without a large number of troops on the ground, it's hard to create a safe zone like that. And that doesn't solve the ISIL problem.
My point is, Steve, that I think my main advice to my successor — now hopefully by the time I turn over the keys, we've made the kind of progress that I am expecting and will have pushed for over the course of the next 13 months ...
INSKEEP: Do you think there will be a united front against ISIS by then?
OBAMA: I think we will have made significant progress in degrading ISIL by then.
INSKEEP: But that there will be a united front, this negotiation of diplomacy ...
OBAMA: Well, we'll see. The diplomacy I think is critically important because to the extent that we can get the Syrian regime, Iran, Russia to recognize what we believe is the core threat, which is ISIL, and the disintegration of social order in Sunni-controlled areas in Iraq and Syria, the more effective and faster we can go.
But what I would say to my successor is that it is important not just to shoot but to aim, and it is important in this seat to make sure that you are making your best judgments based on data, intelligence, the information that's coming from your commanders and folks on the ground, and you're not being swayed by politics.
INSKEEP: Whoever takes over this office after you might be a Democrat, might be a Republican, there may be a Republican Congress again. There likely will be a majority of Republican governors across the country, Republican state legislatures, because Democrats have lost so very many elections in the last several years.
How much risk is there that they will undo large parts of your legacy, as many Republicans actually have promised to do?
OBAMA: Well, first of all I'm confident that a Democrat will win the White House, and I think when you look at the quality of our Democratic candidates and what the Republican Party seems to be offering up, I think we will do well.
Second of all, I think we've got a good chance of winning back the Senate, and the truth of the matter is is that where Democrats have had problems is we had the misfortune of doing poorly in 2010 when there was redistricting, and in many of the successive elections Democrats have actually voted at higher rates. This was true in 2012, for example. There were more Democratic ballots cast for Democratic candidates than there were Republicans, but because of where Democrats live and where Republicans live, and because of the nature of the Senate, we ended up having problems.
So one of the things that I will be arguing over the course of the next year is to make sure that Democrats run an issue-based campaign on the things that we believe in and care about, and I think we've got a great track record of real progress on a whole range of fronts.
If we make those arguments clearly and forthrightly and aren't defensive, then I'm actually confident we will do just fine.
INSKEEP: Have you insulated the climate deal, for example, which is so important to your legacy, from being undone by future presidents, given that many of the commitments you made in Paris are not legally binding?
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that the Republican Party in the United States is perhaps literally the only major party in the developed world that is still engaging in climate denial. Even far-right parties in other places acknowledge that the science shows that temperatures are going up and that that is a really dangerous thing we've got to do something about.
And the deal that we struck in Paris was an example of American leadership at its best. We were able to mobilize 200 countries to make serious commitments that are transparent, where every country is going to be held accountable, where everybody chips in, and it doesn't solve the entire problem, but it puts the world on track to deal with a problem that could be monumental in its effect if we don't do something about it.
Now, the Republican Party right now is still resistant to it, but I'm confident that given the progress we can make with the clean power plant rule that reduces carbon emissions through our power plants ...
INSKEEP: Which dozens of Republican governors are suing.
OBAMA: Well, they oppose, but it's under the Clean Air Act and we are confident that it's within our power. I think that the signal that we are sending to the private sector, that will in turn invest heavily in solar and wind and battery technologies, the doubling of fuel efficiency standards on cars, all these things start taking on a momentum of their own. And we have seen this since I came into office. Since my inauguration, the amount of wind power has tripled, the amount of solar power has gone up by 20 times. We've seen the costs of clean energy go down much faster than any of us anticipated. And the reason is is because people started adapting, and it turns out that, hey, Americans know how to innovate.
INSKEEP: So they can't stop you?
OBAMA: And when we decide — what it means is that by the time that even a Republican president came into office, what you would have seen would be a growing realization that not only should we do something about climate change, but it's not only a challenge, it's also an opportunity, that it's creating jobs, that it's making a difference in people's lives, that consumers are saving money.
When I doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars, that puts money in people's pockets. When you retrofit a building so that it's got better temperature control and you cut your light bill by 20 percent, 30 percent, you know what? Even consumers — or even Republican consumers end up saying that's not a bad deal.
In fact, when it comes to solar power, you've got this weird coalition between environmentalists and Tea Party-ers in some Western states because the traditional dirty fuel industry is trying to prevent greater utilization of solar power.
So a lot of these things get institutionalized not just through government policy but through the impact that it has on the marketplace and the private sector.
INSKEEP: Mr. President, we are nearing the end of a year where the question of national identity, who we are, has been a part of one large event after another. I made a list here, in fact. Gay marriage, the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, the question of whether to admit Syrian refugees into the country, the question of whether to admit Muslims into the country. All of them in some sense touch on that question of who we are.
What is the reason, the cause, what has caused that issue of who we are to come forward again and again and again at this moment in history?
OBAMA: Steve, it never went away. That's at the center of the American experience. You pick any year or any decade in American history, and this question has been wrestled with. Sometimes it pops up a little more prominently, sometimes it gets tamped down a little bit, but this has been true since the founding and the central question of slavery and who is a citizen and who is not.
It was a debate that took place when, you know, there were signs on the doors saying "no Irish need apply." It was a debate that happened during Japanese internment in World War II. It was obviously a debate in the South for most of our history and during the civil rights movement. And it's been a debate that we've been having around issues of the LGBT community for at least most of my adult life.
So I don't think there's anything new about it. I do think that the country is inexorably changing, I believe in all kinds of positive ways. I think we are — when I talk to my daughters and their friends, I think they are more tolerant, more welcoming of people who are different than them, more sophisticated about different cultures and what's happening around the world.
But I do think that when you combine that demographic change with all the economic stresses that people have been going through because of the financial crisis, because of technology, because of globalization, the fact that wages and incomes have been flatlining for some time, and that particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck, you combine those things and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear. Some of it justified but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That's what he's exploiting during the course of his campaign.
But in other cases, an issue like Black Lives Matter and the question of whether, you know, the criminal justice system applies equally to everybody, that's been an issue in the African-American community, and to some degree in the Latino community, for decades. There's no black family that hasn't had a conversation around the kitchen table about driving while black and being profiled or being stopped.
I think really what's changed over the last several years is the pervasiveness of smartphones and the visuals that suddenly have sparked a conversation about how we can deal with it. And although it's uncomfortable sometimes, I actually think that over the long term it's how, in Dr. King's word, you get a disinfectant by applying sunlight to it, and people see, you know what? This is a true problem, and as a consequence we've been able to have conversations that might not have happened 20, 30, 40 years ago, with police chiefs who genuinely want to do the right thing, law enforcement who recognize that they are going to be able to deal with crime more effectively if they've got the trust of the communities.
You know, during that process there's going to be some noise and some discomfort, but I am absolutely confident that over the long term, it leads to a fair, more just, healthier America. Sometimes progress is a little uncomfortable.
INSKEEP: Let me follow up on a couple of things you mentioned. You mentioned slavery. Among the many protests this year are two small but symbolically interesting ones at Ivy League universities. At your alma mater, Harvard Law, there is a seal for the school that is based on the family crest of a slave owner. At Yale there is a school named after John C. Calhoun, who was a great defender of slavery.
The call is to get rid of those symbols. What would you have the universities do?
OBAMA: You know, as president of the United States I probably don't need to wade into every specific controversy at a ...
INSKEEP: But you can do it. We're here.
OBAMA: But here's what I will say generally. I think it's a healthy thing for young people to be engaged and to question authority and to ask why this instead of that, to ask tough questions about social justice. So I don't want to discourage kids from doing that.
As I've said before, I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right, and that, you know ...
INSKEEP: Meaning listen to people that you might initially think are bigoted or ...
OBAMA: Yes, there have been times where you start seeing on college campuses students protesting somebody like the director of the IMF or Condi Rice speaking on a campus because they don't like what they stand for. Well, feel free to disagree with somebody, but don't try to just shut them up.
If somebody doesn't believe in affirmative action, they may disagree — you may disagree with them. I disagree with them, but have an argument with them. It is possible for somebody not to be racist and want a just society but believe that that is something that is inconsistent with the Constitution. And you should engage.
So my concern is not whether there is campus activism. I think that's a good thing. But let kids ask questions and let universities respond. What I don't want is a situation in which particular points of view that are presented respectfully and reasonably are shut down, and we have seen that sometimes happen.
INSKEEP: And you mentioned Donald Trump taking advantage of real anxieties in the country but that the anxieties are real. Some of that anxiety, as you know, focuses on you, Mr. President. And I want to set aside the politicians for a moment and just talk about ordinary voters. Do you feel over seven years that you've come to understand why it is that some ordinary people in America believe or fear that you are trying to change the country in some way that they cannot accept?
OBAMA: Well, look, if what you are asking me, Steve, is are there certain circumstances around being the first African-American president that might not have confronted a previous president, absolutely. You know, I think ...
INSKEEP: I don't know if that's all of it.
OBAMA: I'm sure that's not all of it ...
INSKEEP: It's not all I am asking, anyway. You could answer it anyway you want.
OBAMA: Well, you are asking a pretty broad question. I don't know where to take it, so if you want to narrow it down, I can. If what you are suggesting is is that, you know, somebody questioning whether I was born in the United States or not, how do I think about that, I would say that that's something that is actively promoted and may gain traction because of my unique demographic. I don't think that that's a big stretch.
But maybe you've got something else in mind.
INSKEEP: Years ago you made that remark, you were much criticized for saying something about people clinging to guns and religion. This is before you were even elected president. And although you were criticized for the phrasing of that, it seemed to me that you were attempting to figure out, what is it that people are thinking, what is it that's bothering people? Now you've had several more years to think about that.
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind, Steve, I was elected twice by decent majorities. So the fact of the matter is that in a big country like this there is always going to be folks who are frustrated, don't like the direction of the country, are concerned about the president. Some of them may not like my policies, some of them may just not like how I walk, or my big ears or, you know. So, I mean, no politician I think aspires to 100 percent approval ratings.
If you are referring to specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I'm different, I'm Muslim, I'm disloyal to the country, etc., which unfortunately is pretty far out there and gets some traction in certain pockets of the Republican Party, and that have been articulated by some of their elected officials, what I'd say there is that that's probably pretty specific to me and who I am and my background, and that in some ways I may represent change that worries them.
But that's not to suggest that everybody who objects to my policies may not have perfectly good reasons for it. If you are living in a town that historically has relied on coal and you see coal jobs diminishing, you probably are going to be more susceptible to the argument that I've been wiping out the economy in your area.
It doesn't matter if I tell them actually it's probably because natural gas is a lot cheaper now so it doesn't pay to build coal plants. If somebody tells you that this is because of Obama's war on coal, well, you know, that's an argument you may be sympathetic to. And that's perfectly legitimate. So as I said, you asked a pretty open-ended question. I think you were being a little coy in how you asked it.
INSKEEP: I'm trying to give you room to answer.
OBAMA: No, I understand, but what I'm saying is that I think that there's always going to be, every president, a certain cohort that just doesn't like your policies, doesn't like your party, what have you. I think if you are talking about the specific virulence of some of the opposition directed towards me, then, you know, that may be explained by the particulars of who I am.
On the other hand, I'm not unique to that. I always try to remind people that, goodness, if you look at what they said about Jefferson or Lincoln or FDR — finding reasons not to like a president, that's, you know, a well-traveled path here in this country.
"You know, one of the best things about this job is that you can talk to anybody," President Obama said to NPR's Steve Inskeep.
"I don't think this country works best on fear," President Obama said.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, one of the best things about this job is that you can talk to anybody. It turns out you pick up the phone if somebody is doing something interesting, something that inspires you, you can usually get them to take your phone call. You know, sometimes I do it to learn myself what is it that, you know, makes them tick and what can they teach me about the world.
Sometimes I just want to shine a light on somebody who I think is extraordinary. When I talked to that young teenager, that high school kid...
INSKEEP: Eighteen-year-old African-American.
OBAMA: You know, here's a guy who was on the streets and going down the wrong path, most likely would have ended up in jail if you looked at the odds, and he was able, through faith and some timely intervention, to completely turn his life around and was on his way to college, and at a time where popular culture often portrays young African-American men coming from low-income neighborhoods as a danger, I wanted people to hear what an extraordinary kid this was, and how much he was like a lot of teenage boys who just may be growing up in more forgiving environments.
The novelist Marilynne Robinson, she's become a friend of mine. I just love her books, and I think she says something about the essential decency and goodness of the American people. The folks she writes about are from Midwest and small towns and are rooted in, you know, flags and apple pie and Americana. And yet they've got these really complicated lives. What she says about our democracy and what's best in us I thought was important for people to hear.
Part of what I hope people take from this year and the remainder of my presidency is that we have got big challenges. We've got divisions, we've got frustrations. There are real challenges and dangers like ISIL. There are big problems around how we make sure the economy is working for everybody and for middle-class families, how do we educate our kids for the 21st century when the kinds of skills that are going to be demanded are going to be so much more sophisticated and different from what a previous generation needed.
Those are all real challenges, real issues, but I hope people remember that this country is just brimming with incredible possibility and opportunity and that actually we're surprisingly strong considering what we went through in 2007, 2008 with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. You've got an unemployment rate that has dropped down to 5 percent. You've got essentially five years of growth that's been uninterrupted. People have recovered the value of their homes and their 401(k)s. You've got fewer kids dropping out of high school than ever before, more kids going to college than ever before.
We continue to produce incredible businesses that are transforming the planet. Internationally, just this year we've been able to help shape trade rules that are good for American workers, American businesses in the entire Asia-Pacific region. We've been able to forge a climate pact that can preserve the planet for future generations. Normalized Cuba. Made sure that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons without having to fire a shot. And are every day making incredible contributions to reduce poverty and violence and abuse against women and gays and lesbians around the world. There is just good stuff happening.
And that doesn't make us complacent about all the challenges that remain, but it's a useful reminder as we wrap up this year. I remember standing outside, or looking at people standing outside the White House the day that the ruling about same-sex marriage came down. Families and friends and partners — people who had once felt that their lives had to be cramped and undercover, and now they're hearing people say that they're full American citizens like everybody else. That's a good thing. That's, that's America.
I think it's important for us to make sure that we are fully mindful of the incredible blessings that we received as we go into the holidays.
INSKEEP: If you had an opportunity to ask a question to the people who want your job — which maybe you could. One of these debates you could write in on Facebook and ask your question. What would you ask?
OBAMA: You know, that's a great question, Steve, and I might have to give it some thought. But what I can tell you I ask myself every single day is, how can I be useful in creating an America that is more tolerant, more prosperous, provides greater opportunity, is safer.
So I might just ask somebody, why do you want to do this? And I suppose they'd give a cliche answer because that's what candidates do, but I will tell you as president, if you are interested just because you like the title or you like the trappings or you like the power or the fame or the celebrity, that side of it wears off pretty quick. At least it has for me.
And what sustains me, what lasts, what makes me happy, proud, frustrated sometimes, is the recognition that if you want this job then you really need to love this country and have a very clear vision and idea of what it is that you want to do to help make this country work even better.
I don't think this country works best on fear. I don't think this country works best on hate. I don't think this country works best on cynicism. I think this country works best on community and hope and optimism and dynamism and change.
If you are aspiring to this job then you need to ask yourself some very serious questions about why you're doing it because that's what's going to keep you going on those days that things aren't going so well.
INSKEEP: Mr. President, thanks as always for your time.
Dr. David Duke discusses Donald Trump and why his candidacy is important
David Duke: Trump Speaks “A Lot More Radically” Than I Do The former Louisiana politician and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard says Trump is “head and shoulders” above the rest, but he disagrees with Trump’s support of Israel. Dec. 26, 2015 http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/david-duke-trump-speaks-a-lot-more-radically-than-i-do [with this YouTube embedded, and comments]
How 2015 Fueled The Rise Of The Freewheeling, White Nationalist Alt Right Movement
Rebecca Cook / Reuters
In a year dominated by Trump, the alt right — a loosely connected movement related to obscure political theories and a great feel for how the internet actually works — has hit it big.
By Rosie Gray posted on Dec. 27, 2015, at 10:34 p.m.
Up until now, the alt right labored mostly in obscurity, its internal fights and debates hidden from anyone who wasn’t directly looking for them. But all that’s starting to change, and it’s only getting stronger.
“This is really a phenomenon that’s been happening over the last year,” said Richard Spencer, president of the white nationalist National Policy Institute. “2015 has been huge.”
The movement probably doesn’t look like anything you’ve seen before. The alt right is loosely connected, and mostly online. The white nationalists of the alt right share more in common with European far-right movements than American ones. This is a movement that draws upon relatively obscure political theories like neoreaction or the “Dark Enlightenment,” which reject the premises on which modernity is built, like democracy and egalitarianism. But it’s not all so high-minded as that. Take a glance at the #altright hashtag on Twitter or at The Right Stuff, an online hub of the movement, and you’ll find a penchant for aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs, often delivered in the arch, ironic tones common to modern internet discourse. Trump is a hero on the alt right and the subject of many adoring memes and tweets.
In short, it’s white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times: 4chan-esque racist rhetoric combined with a tinge of Silicon Valley–flavored philosophizing, all riding on the coattails of the Trump boom.
Spencer himself can claim credit for coining the term “alt right”; in 2010, he founded AlternativeRight.com, which is now RadixJournal. But he says the term has gotten a second life in the past year due to a confluence of external factors. “I think it has a lot to do with Trump,” he said. “I think the refugee crisis is also an inspiration. I just think things have gotten so real.”
Jared Taylor, the American Renaissance founder who along with Spencer is considered one of the chiefs of the intellectual wing of white nationalism, also acknowledged Trump’s influence, but said, “It doesn’t have to do only with Trump,” citing Black Lives Matter and “the current rowdiness on college campuses” as other inspirations.
“I think it goes by a lot of different names,” Taylor said. “I consider it a dissident right as well.”
Spencer believes the alt right is “deeply connected” with his work. “I would say that what I’m doing is we’re really trying to build a philosophy, an ideology around identity, European identity,” he said, “and I would say that the alt right is a kind of the take-no-prisoners Twitter troopers of that.”
The alt right’s targets don’t include just liberals, blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, and Muslims, who are all classified a priori as objects of suspicion. (Though this has not gone unnoticed: “It’s definitely something we’re aware of and tracking,” said Marilyn Mayo, director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. “There are more white supremacists who are defining themselves as part of the alt right.”)
The alt right’s real objective, if one can be identified, is to challenge and dismantle mainstream conservatism.
It’s in part responsible for the spread of the “cuckservative” slur that gained currency over the summer and likely originated [ http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/behind-the-racist-hashtag-some-donald-trump-fans-love ] in forums on sites like My Posting Career and The Right Stuff, and has come to define a far-right contempt for conservatives they view as weak or sellouts — often those who oppose Trump.
So far, they haven’t garnered much attention from mainstream conservative figures, though they’ve begun to intersect a bit with national political commentary.
Asked about the alt right and Trump, Coulter told BuzzFeed News in an email: “I have no idea what you’re talking about, but Trump’s support is quite a bit larger than any one small slice of the electorate, much less a small slice of the right-wing electorate. how about covering the surprisingly large support for trump in the black community? THAT’S a story.” Coulter told BuzzFeed News later that she wasn’t familiar with the movement and is “not a member of any group that calls itself the ‘alt right,’ and don’t know anyone who calls himself ‘alt-right.’”
(Upon receiving explanation of what the alt right is, including a link to a description in a Daily Beast piece [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/03/rush-limbaugh-s-favorite-new-white-power-group.html ], Coulter wrote the following: “Oh a ‘white power’ movement. okay, I see where this is going. if there are people out there who support trump because they are for ‘white power’ (daily beast) that says nothing about me or donald trump, any more than it says something about bernie sanders that some of his supporters were undoubtedly fans of stalin’s show trails [sic - trials], the soviet invasion of hungary and the assassination of raoul wallenberg. Hillary endorsed #blacklivesmatter, but I will allow that the majority of hillary’s supporters probably don’t support the murder of police. lots of her supporters absolutely do – and cop-killers have murdered a lot more ppl this year than any ‘white power’ types have. I retweeted that tweet because it’s funny.”)
Rush Limbaugh praised the alt right [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/03/rush-limbaugh-s-favorite-new-white-power-group.html ] on his show earlier this month, though he didn’t appear to know what it was; a caller called in and described a vague version of it, saying, “There’s a group of younger people called ‘the alt right.’ And it started in the last few years in Europe because of the Muslim invasion.” Still, it put the term on the air for Limbaugh’s millions of listeners to hear.
Despite these glimmers of something approaching recognition, the alt right remains proudly outside of the mainstream. For Richard Spencer, the alt right is a rejection of the intellectual conservatism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
“We don’t have a starting point with William F. Buckley, we don’t have the same starting point as Richard Lowry and Jonah Goldberg and National Review,” Spencer said. The alt right is “radically different from George W. Bush, the conservative movement, etc. It really was a notion of an alternative.”
The alt right’s current moment in the sun has actually been a long time coming. The movement is undergirded by some of the ideas espoused by Dark Enlightenment or neoreactionary [ http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ ] thinkers like the English philosopher Nick Land and the the American computer programmer Curtis Yarvin (aka “Mencius Moldbug”). Land and Yarvin have for years espoused a rejection of democracy and a return to traditional authoritarian structures. But the Dark Enlightenment thinkers are the definition of inaccessible; both Land and Yarvin’s writings are eye-glazingly verbose. A representative Land sentence, from his manifesto [ http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/ ] on the Dark Enlightenment: “The war on political incorrectness creates data-empowered, web-coordinated, paranoid and poly-conspiratorial werewolves, superbly positioned to take advantage of liberal democracy’s impending rendezvous with ruinous reality, and to then play their part in the unleashing of unpleasantnesses that are scarcely imaginable (except by disturbing historical analogy).”
The alt right’s genius is in dispensing with the self-marginalizing pseudo-intellectual stuff and getting straight to the point, and not in the creaky hit-you-over-the-head fashion of, say, Stormfront, but the slangy and freewheeling argot of the internet in 2015. The Right Stuff has a page [ http://therightstuff.biz/trs-lexicon/ ] devoted to the lexicon of the alt right, a collection of terms that pop up frequently on Twitter once you know what to look for. “Fash,” for example, for fascist. “Merchant” for Jews. “Dindu nuffins” for “an obviously guilty black man.” Where neoreactionary thinkers refer to “the Cathedral” as shorthand for the politically correct elite establishment, The Right Stuff is more pointed in calling it “the Synagogue.” Rare Pepes, the frog meme native to 4chan, are common. The Right Stuff forums are rife with memes targeting, for example, Jeb Bush as a weakling (a recent Bush-related thread is titled “Suicide Watch Headquarters”) and portraying Trump as a hero (see “Memes of Der Trumpenfuhrer”). The culture clearly draws on 4chan — the /pol/ board is another hub.
This can all make it difficult to discern who’s a real racist and who’s a troll doing it to be edgy, as Ken White, the lawyer and blogger at Popehat and a keen observer of politics on the internet, pointed out. The Popehat Twitter feed, co-run by White, has described [ https://twitter.com/popehat/status/672285154430218240 ] alt right as “white supremacy for people with soft hands.”
“It’s really hard to tease out the genuine white nationalists from the trolls,” White told BuzzFeed News, but, “at a certain point, the distinction isn’t meaningful. If you spend all day saying white nationalist things online but you claim you’re doing it ironically, it’s not clear to me what the difference really is.”
“They’re a lot more internet savvy, a lot more immersed in internet culture as well as mainstream culture, and they’re relatively good at using those tools to get their message out,” White said.
One of the central figures on the alt right internet is Paul Ramsey, a 52-year-old in Oklahoma who makes YouTube videos as RamzPaul. He agreed to an interview with BuzzFeed News on one condition: that he would record it.
I agreed to his terms, and interviewed him over the phone about the alt right movement and his role in it [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmyjooONXI (next below; with comments)].
Right after we got off the phone, Ramsey started tweeting about me and the interview. Immediately, a stream of anti-Semitic tweets came my way, without a word of this story having yet been written or published: “Oy vey! Look at that nose! I can’t imagine this ending well,” read one. “She looks like she echos,” read another, using a slang term on the alt right for being Jewish (see: The Right Stuff’s glossary). “She @RosieGray interviewed me once my .1% Jewish DNA results were published. We MOTs stick together,” Ramsey himself tweeted. Ramsey tweeted about my being “nice” and exhorted his followers to be nice to me in turn, but he also tweeted about how he planned to post the recording online so his followers could assess it — a not-so-subtle invitation to troll me.
Ramsey characterized the alt right as being neither mainstream conservatism nor neo-Nazism. As an example of the differences between the alt-right and neo-Nazis, he stated that the 14/88 crowd (14 for the “14 words” white supremacist slogan and 88 as shorthand for “Heil Hitler”) don’t like Trump because his daughter is Jewish (Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism), whereas the alt right doesn’t care about this and generally support Trump for his policies. Ramsey objects to the word “supremacist,” saying he’s a nationalist and doesn’t hate other people or think he’s better than them. He repeatedly invoked the example of Israel as a template of the kind of nationalism he seeks for the United States. In keeping with the alt right’s affinity for European identity movements, Ramsey often visits Europe and said he has recently been in Romania and Hungary, though he said he isn’t affiliated with any specific groups there.
I pressed him on the ideological specifics of the alt right. For example, does he believe that the Holocaust happened?
“I believe it should be able to be discussed, let me put it that way,” Ramsey said. “And that’s because — and it depends what you mean by the Holocaust. Do you mean that 6 million figure? You know that 6 million figure has been used many times before World War II, did you know that?”
Ramsey framed the alt right is part of a nationalist struggle against globalism — “Do we want to have a global entity or self-determination?” But on the topic of how his ideal United States, a country of people of white European heritage, could be achieved despite the fact that the country is currently racially diverse — a topic that inevitably leads to questions about the use of violence — Ramsey was vague. “These things are kind of organic in that when people are free, they tend to organically make communities,” he said, citing Trump’s immigration policy as the kind of move that constitutes an important first step.
He’s not the only one for whom the actual political project is a little hard to pin down.
“If I had to take a political position, I’d say that I’m pro-secession,” said Jack Donovan, a writer associated with the alt right who is known for his writings about masculinity. “America is too big. The U.S. government is bloated and there is too much money in the game. I think smaller is better, and I’d like to see America break up along its natural dividing lines.”
“Personally, I am focused on building tribal networks of interdependent people who share my values, culture, and heritage — using immigrant communities as an example. I can’t control what hand-puppet legislators do or say, but I can control my own social world,” Donovan said.
Michael Anissimov, another writer associated with the neoreactionary movement, recently proposed a solution in an ebook manifesto titled The Idaho Project. It’s about his plan to move to a rural area in Idaho and invite other people to live with him whom he “personally gets along with.”
“This book proposes an alternative point of view called enclavism, the idea that we should create our own desired societies by coalescing in low-population, defensible regions of the United States like Idaho,” the book’s blurb on Amazon states.
Nebulous future secession plans aside, the real juice for the alt right is in today’s political moment. Donald Trump has been the Republican front-runner for over five months, and shows few signs of slowing down. For Spencer, this is a vindicating moment.
“He’s bigger than the conservative movement, he’s bigger than the GOP establishment, and he’s proven that you don’t have to play their game,” Spencer said. “And I think that’s inspiring and liberating for a lot of alt righters.”
A spokesperson for the Trump campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The White House hosts Celebrating and Protecting America’s Tradition of Religious Pluralism, a gathering that brings together leaders from a broad array of religious traditions, leaders from civil communities and NGOs to celebrate our traditions of religious inclusion, freedom and cooperation among those with different beliefs.
*
Head of the Civil Rights Division Vanita Gupta Delivers Remarks at the White House Convening Celebrating and Protecting America’s Tradition of Religious Pluralism
Washington, DC, United States Thursday, December 17, 2015
Good afternoon. I want to thank my colleagues at the White House, including [Director of the Domestic Policy Council] Cecilia Muñoz and [Executive Director of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships] Melissa Rogers, for organizing this important convening and inviting me to speak. It’s a pleasure to join so many distinguished public servants and engaged advocates for today’s critical conversation about our nation’s tradition of religious pluralism.
I’d like to begin by framing the challenges we face in the context of our national story. In America, our Constitution guarantees all people – regardless of what they look like or where they worship – fundamental fairness and equal justice under the law. That simple but unwavering belief has driven America’s leaders, over generations, to defend and enforce the principles that form the foundation of a tolerant and open society.
Two hundred and twenty five years ago, that belief led President [George] Washington to assure the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, that the United States “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”
It led a poet to describe the enduring American spirit by writing these words, later engraved onto the Statue of Liberty, as a symbol of America’s light that radiates from the shores of Ellis Island: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.”
And it led President [George W.] Bush, in the days of palpable fear after 9/11, to remind the American people that the “terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself,” declaring that, “the enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends.”
And, that simple but unwavering belief of equal justice under the law has also shaped my own personal story. As the daughter of Indian immigrants and as the wife of a Vietnamese refugee, my faith in the promising ideals of our country led me to a career in the law. And it continues to guide me today as the chief civil rights prosecutor for the United States of America.
Of course, as President Obama acknowledged earlier this week, America has not always lived up to the promise of its founding ideals. From our engagement in the slave trade, to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the stains on our history remind us of the dangerous consequences that can arise out of fear and bigotry. Even today, in the 21st century, too many people in this country continue to suffer discrimination and violence because of their religious beliefs, with a backlash particularly pronounced following heinous acts of terrorism.
Similar to what we saw after 9/11, in recent weeks following the terrible and tragic attacks in San Bernardino and Paris – and amidst a ratcheting up of divisive rhetoric around religious intolerance – community members and advocates have reported an uptick in hate-related incidents targeting Muslim Americans, as well as those perceived – rightly or wrongly – as being Muslim. We’ve heard from Muslim parents concerned for the safety of their children being bullied in school. And we’ve heard about reports of criminal threats and violence against mosques, children and adults. We continue to investigate many of these incidents.
This discriminatory backlash not only threatens the millions of Muslims in the United States who peacefully practice their religion. It threatens all of us, because Muslims – like all Americans – work in our local businesses, teach in our schools, compete on our sports teams and risk their lives in defense of our country. America derives its prosperity, strength and security from the diversity of its people.
Hate-motivated violence and discrimination deserve no place in civilized society. They also violate our federal civil rights laws. During his first year in office, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, providing the Justice Department with additional tools to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, including existing categories of hate crimes based on a person’s actual or perceived religion.
It signaled to the world an enduring commitment to the most fundamental of American values. And it voiced an unwavering belief in the strength of our diversity. Working in close partnership with our U.S. Attorney colleagues, the Civil Rights Division remains committed to vigorously enforcing this law to combat hate-motivated violence. In the aftermath of 9/11, and in response to community member concerns, the Civil Rights Division launched a new initiative to combat discriminatory backlash against Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South-Asian Americans – as well as those individuals perceived to be members of these groups.
As part of this initiative, we focus on ensuring efficient and accessible processes for reporting hate crimes. We strive to implement proactive measures to identify cases involving bias crimes and discrimination that may merit federal action. We lead robust outreach to affected communities. And we work with other components in the Justice Department to ensure accurate referral, effective outreach and comprehensive provision of services to victims of civil rights violations.
And since the unspeakable events of 9/11, the Justice Department has investigated more than 1,000 incidents involving acts of violence, threats, assaults, vandalism and arson targeting against Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South-Asian Americans, as well as individuals perceived to be members of these groups, prosecuting dozens of these cases to the fullest extent of the law. In recent years, we’ve charged and convicted defendants for beating a Sikh cab driver in Washington State, for vandalizing churches in California, for firing a gun at a synagogue in Salt Lake City, and for setting fire to an Islamic Center in Ohio.
In addition to our criminal prosecutions, we continue to engage directly with local communities. With the support of advocates, U.S. Attorneys, the Civil Rights Division and the FBI organized a series of regional trainings earlier this year – in Mississippi, California, Oregon, Kansas and Florida. These sessions helped to train local and federal law enforcement in how to recognize, investigate and prove hate crimes; to educate communities and engage them in the process of ensuring public safety; and to encourage better hate crime reporting and data collection.
While hate-motivated violence often reveals discrimination in its most severe form, the Civil Rights Division continues to combat religious discrimination on all fronts. Because of meaningful settlements we negotiated, today Jewish employees can serve the Birmingham, Alabama, Police Department without being forced to work on Shabbat. Students in DeKalb County, Georgia, can learn in school free from religious discrimination and harassment. And communities across the country can build and operate houses of worship free from unjust and unlawful interference.
As recent events have revealed, however, urgent and pressing work remains for public officials and private citizens alike. From non-profits to religious organizations, community leaders of various faiths have joined together to launch an innovative public awareness campaign called Know Your Neighbor. And I want to applaud the spirit of mutual respect and collaboration that they bring to this vital work of community engagement.
Earlier, you also heard from my colleagues across the administration about the efforts we’ve led to combat religious discrimination. And today, we’re going to build on those strides of progress. I’m delighted to stand with all of you to announce a new administration-wide community engagement initiative to ensure we fulfill our nation’s promise of religious freedom.
In the coming months, the Civil Rights Division will partner with other federal agencies – including the Departments of Education, Homeland Security and Labor; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and within the Justice Department – the FBI and Community Relations Service – to host a series of community roundtables and discussions.
As part of this initiative, we’ll engage with individuals from across the country so that we can better understand how the scourge of religious discrimination continues to undermine opportunity. And we believe these discussions will provide valuable guidance to help inform our efforts in the Civil Rights Division as we continue to combat religious discrimination in the weeks and months ahead.
Combating discrimination based on one’s religion remains fundamental not only to protecting our values but also to defending our freedom. We cannot – and we must not – allow our enemies to define how we live or to dictate how we treat one another. To people in this country of every faith and nationality who feel afraid, threatened or unsafe, please know that with this administration, this President and this Department of Justice – you will never stand alone.
As Americans, today we face challenging times. And as our nation confronts these issues, each of us as its citizens must renew our efforts to fight discrimination that violates our laws and contradicts our most fundamental values. If we stand united in these efforts – defending diversity over discrimination – there exists no challenge Americans cannot overcome.
When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law – a landmark statute that we continue to enforce each day at the Civil Rights Division – he reminded the American people about the ongoing and ever-changing quest to bring our nation closer to its founding values. “Those who founded our country,” he said, “knew that freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning.”
As we confront the civil rights challenges of our time and our generation, let us together renew our nation’s meaning of religious freedom in the 21st century. Let us rededicate our collective action to always respect the dignity and value of every person without question. And let us bring America ever closer to the founding vision of a land protected by justice, anchored in fairness and filled with opportunity for all its people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWuUsjeW0ns [as I make this post, the video is there, just click on it as for any other and it starts; proceedings commence at the c. 29:15 mark, and Gupta's remarks at the c. 3:13;10 mark; comments disabled]
--
The President Speaks at the National Counterterrorism Center
Published on Dec 17, 2015 by The White House
President Obama delivers remarks at the National Counterterrorism Center in Virginia on his top priority: Keeping the American people safe. December 17, 2015.
*
Statement by the President after Briefing at the National Counterterrorism Center
McLean, Virginia December 17, 2015
12:58 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: As President and Commander in Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. And on a regular basis, I convene members of my national security team for an in-depth review of our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks against our citizens -- around the world and here at home. We examine any known and emerging threats. We review our security posture and we make sure that we’re taking every necessary measure to protect our people.
Today, I wanted to hold our meeting here -- rather than in the Situation Room at the White House, I wanted to hold it at the National Counterterrorism Center because this is the hub of where so many of our experts and efforts come together. And I want to thank our Director of National Intelligence Clapper, Jim Clapper, as well as NCTC Director Nick Rasmussen, and everybody at NCTC -- all of you -- for welcoming us here today.
Now, Nick, along with CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, provided a threat briefing. And Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch updated us on the investigation into the San Bernardino attacks. I reiterated that the investigation will continue to have the full support of the federal government and that we should leave no stone unturned in determining why and how these terrorists carried out that tragedy. Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson updated us on the measures we’re taking here at home to increase awareness, stay vigilant, and enhance the safety of the traveling public, especially with so many Americans traveling during the holidays.
After the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, I know that a lot of Americans were anxious. And that’s understandable. It’s natural. What matters most to all of us are our friends and our families and our communities and their safety. That's true of folks inside of government as well as outside of government. But here’s what I want every American to know. Since 9/11, we’ve taken extraordinary steps to strengthen our homeland security -- our borders, our ports, our airports, our aviation security, including enhanced watch lists and screening. And we’ve gotten much better -- thanks in part to the people in this room -- of preventing large, complex attacks like 9/11.
Moreover -- and I think everybody here will agree -- we have the very best intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security and law enforcement professionals in the world. Our folks are the best. Across our government, these dedicated professionals, including here at NCTC, are relentless, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. At the operations center here, people from across our government work, literally shoulder-to-shoulder, pouring over the latest information, analyzing it, integrating it, connecting the dots. They’re sharing information -- pushing it out across the federal government and, just as importantly, to our state and local partners. In other words, what you see here today is one, strong, united team.
So our professionals have a remarkable record of success. Of course, when terrorists pull off a despicable act like what happened in San Bernardino it tears at our hearts. But it also stiffens our resolve to learn whatever lessons we can and to make any improvements that are needed. In the meantime, what the world doesn’t always see are the successes -- those terrorist plots that have been prevented. And that’s how it should be. This work oftentimes demands secrecy. But as Americans, we should not forget how good these patriots are. Over the years, they have taken countless terrorists off the battlefield. They have disrupted plots. They’ve thwarted attacks. They have saved American lives.
And so, for everybody who is involved in our counterterrorism efforts, I want to say thank you, and the American people thank you.
I want to repeat what my team just told me. At this moment, our intelligence and counterterrorism professionals do not have any specific and credible information about an attack on the homeland. That said, we have to be vigilant. As I indicated in my address to the nation last week, we are in a new phase of terrorism, including lone actors and small groups of terrorists, like those in San Bernardino. Because they are smaller, often self-initiating, self-motivating, they’re harder to detect, and that makes it harder to prevent.
But just as the threat evolves, so do we. We’re constantly adapting, constantly improving, upping our game, getting better. And today, the mission to protect our homeland goes on, on three main fronts.
First, we’re going after terrorists over there, where they plot and plan and spew their propaganda. As I described at the Pentagon, we’re hitting ISIL harder than ever in Syria and Iraq. We are taking out their leaders. Our partners on the ground are fighting to push ISIL back, and ISIL has been losing territory.
Our Special Operations Forces are hard at work. We took out the ISIL leader in Libya. We’ve taken out terrorists in Yemen and Somalia. So we're sending a message: If you target Americans, you will have no safe haven. We will find you, and we will defend our nation.
Meanwhile, as always, we're working to protect Americans overseas -- including our military bases and servicemembers. And Secretary John Kerry updated us on security at our embassies and our diplomatic posts.
Second, we continue to do everything in our power to prevent terrorists from getting into the United States. We're doing more with countries around the world, including our European partners, to prevent the flow of foreign terrorist fighters -- both to places like Syria and Iraq, and back into our countries.
We're implementing additional layers of security for visitors who come here under the Visa Waiver Program and we're working with Congress to make further improvements. Any refugee coming to the United States -- some of them victims of terrorism themselves -- will continue to get the most intensive scrutiny of any arrival. They go through up to two years of vetting, including biometric screening. And the review that I ordered into the fiancé visa program, under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino came here, is ongoing.
Third, we're stepping up our efforts to prevent attacks here at home. As I said, the NCTC is constantly sharing information with our state and local partners. Across the country more than 100 joint terrorism task forces are the action arm of this fight -- federal, state, and local experts all working together to disrupt threats. At the state level, fusion cells are receiving tips and pushing information out to local law enforcement. Just yesterday the Department of Homeland Security updated its alert system to make sure Americans are getting the most timely and useful information.
And with groups like ISIL trying to radicalize people to violence, especially online, part of our meeting today focused on how we can continue to strengthen our partnership between law enforcement, high-tech leaders, communities, faith leaders, and citizens. We’ve got to keep on building up trust and cooperation that helps communities inoculate themselves from the kind of propaganda that ISIL is spewing out, preventing their loved ones -- especially young people -- from succumbing to terrorist ideologies in the first place.
And finally, one of our greatest weapons against terrorism is our own strength and resilience as a people. That means staying vigilant -- if you see something suspicious, say something to law enforcement. It also means staying united as one American family -- remembering that our greatest allies in this fight are each other, Americans of all faiths and all backgrounds. And when Americans stand together, nothing can beat us.
Most of all, we cannot give in to fear, or change how we live our lives, because that's what terrorists want. That's the only leverage that they have. They can't defeat us on a battlefield, but they can lead us to change in ways that would undermine what this country is all about. And that's what we have to guard against. We have to remind ourselves that when we stay true to our values, nothing can beat us.
So anyone trying to harm Americans need to know -- they need to know that we're strong and that we're resilient, that we will not be terrorized. We’ve prevailed over much greater threats than this. We will prevail again.
So I want to once again thank all of you at NCTC and every one of your home agencies across our entire government for your extraordinary service. I want every American to know -- as you go about the holidays, as you travel and gather with family, and the kids open their presents, and as you ring in the New Year -- that you've got dedicated patriots working around the clock all across the country to protect us all. Oftentimes they're doing so by sacrificing their own holidays and their own time with families. But they care about this deeply. And they're the best in the world. And for that, we're very grateful.
Trump cozies with conspiracy truther too fringey for decency
The Rachel Maddow Show 12/17/15
Rachel Maddow reports on efforts by Florida Atlantic University to fire a Sandy Hook truther who denies the reality of the Newtown massacre and other U.S. tragedies, and notes that the most popular Republican candidate, Donald Trump, recently had a fawning, mutually admiring interview with the media ringleader of conspiracy fringe, Alex Jones. Duration: 3:38
Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants Remarks Delivered at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center
December 18, 2015
I thank Shaykh Yasir Fahmy and Executive Director Yusufi Vali for their generous introduction. It is my pleasure and privilege to join you here today, and I promise I will not delay you too long from your afternoon prayers.
This may surprise you but this is not where I usually spend my Friday afternoons. So it is appropriate to ask why I am here today.
I asked to speak with you today because I know that this is a difficult time for persons who practice the Islamic faith in this country. And I am here to assure you that you do not stand alone: you have a Constitution and laws to protect your right to practice your religion, to protect you from discrimination and the denial of your equal rights, and to protect you from acts of violence that might be committed because of your religion or your nation of origin. And as the Chief Justice of the highest court in Massachusetts, as one who has sworn to uphold that Constitution, and whose job it is to interpret its meaning, and, where appropriate, to enforce it, it is only fitting that I be the one to bring you that message.
In fact, you have two Constitutions: the United States Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, and our Massachusetts Constitution, with its Declaration of Rights, drafted by John Adams in 1780, which is older than the United States Constitution and we think, at times, wiser, at least as we have interpreted it. Because we have at times interpreted our Declaration of Rights more broadly than the Bill of Rights, which is why residents of Massachusetts enjoy more rights than residents of many other states.
The purpose of a Declaration of Rights is to protect the rights of the minority, of those who are unpopular, even perhaps despised because of who they are, or where they came from, or what they believe, or what they have done. The popular majority does not much need a Declaration of Rights; they have the Legislature to protect them. We in our judiciary recognize our obligation to enforce those rights where they are abridged, regardless of whether it is popular to do so, sometimes knowing it will not be popular to do so. And, based on what I know about our Attorney General, Maura Healey, and our District Attorney, Dan Conley, I am confident that they will stand with you to prosecute cases where your civil rights have been violated. And, based on what I know about our bar associations -- the Boston Bar Association and the Massachusetts Bar Association, there are attorneys who will help you to protect your civil rights, even for those who are too poor to afford to pay them. In short, you have a Constitution (two Constitutions) and, if the need were to arise, you should not be afraid to use them.
I also bring you a second message, not so much in my role as Chief Justice, but as someone who is very old and a Jew. The Old Testament many times reminds us, "Once we were strangers in the land of Egypt," and that line is the centerpiece of the Jewish holiday of Passover. I think of that phrase often, because I know that once my forefathers were strangers in the land of the United States, as were the forefathers of nearly all of us, and many of us were not so welcome here.
In the 1840's and early 1850's, this country was not so welcoming to the influx of Irish Catholics escaping the potato famine in Ireland, and the anger towards those immigrants gave birth to a party, appropriately named, the "Know Nothing" party. Massachusetts was among those states that passed anti-Catholic laws, including a two year residency requirement after naturalization to delay a new citizen's ability to vote, and a law requiring public school students to read from the Protestant King James Bible.
For nearly a century, until 1965, our immigration laws were designed to prevent Chinese and Japanese from entering this country.
During the Great Depression, Mexican-Americans were scapegoated for the economic deprivation they did not cause, and more than two million were deported to Mexico. By some estimates, more than half were born in the United States and therefore U.S. citizens.
The prosecution of Sacco-Vanzetti, who were both Italians and anarchists, triggered fear and dislike of our Italian-American community.
The loyalty of German-Americans was unfairly questioned in both World Wars, as was the loyalty of Japanese-Americans, but it was only the Japanese who faced internment in World War II.
The forefathers of African-Americans came to this country in chains and we are still challenged by the legacy of slavery and of Jim Crow. But African-Americans were not the only ones who faced lynching in the American South. Leo Frank, a Southern Jew falsely accused of murder, also died from lynching, and his death in 1915 gave birth to the Anti-Defamation League.
If you add up all those who are Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, all those who once were strangers in this land of Egypt, you end up with the vast majority of this nation.
So I hold firm to the hope that, if we remember who we are and where we came from and what we once endured, if we remember that we, too, once were strangers in the land of Egypt, the vast majority of Americans will stand arm-in-arm with Muslim-Americans and, together, we will get past these troubling times. And until that happens, we still have our Constitution and our rule of law to protect us, and lawyers, prosecutors, and judges prepared to apply those laws to ensure our rights.
WHERE, many have asked these last weeks, do the rhetorical fireballs — the raging suspicion and rabid xenophobia — come from? Barring people from our shores, Paul Ryan reminds us, is “not what this country stands for.” Emma Lazarus would have agreed. But while the demonizing may sound un-American, it happens also to be ur-American.
Well before Japanese internment camps, before the Know-Nothing Party, before the Alien and Sedition Acts, New England drew its identity from threats to public safety. We manned the nation’s watchtowers before we were even a nation.
From that earlier set of founding fathers — the men who settled 17th century Massachusetts — came the first dark words about dark powers. No matter that they sailed to these shores in search of religious freedom. Once established, they pulled up the gangplank behind them. The city on a hill was an exclusively Puritan sanctuary. The sense of exceptionalism — “we are surely the Lord’s firstborn in this wilderness,” the Massachusetts minister William Stoughton observed in an influential 1668 address — bound itself up from the start with prejudice. If you are the pure, someone else needs to be impure.
Quakers fared badly. In Boston, Cotton Mather compared them not only to dogs, but to serpents, dragons and vipers. The great young hope of the New England ministry, he sounds as if he would have started a Quaker database if he could have. Banned, exiled, imprisoned, whipped, Quakers were a “leprous” people, their teachings as wholesome as the “juice of toads.”
Baptists and Anglicans fared little better. In 1689, Boston’s Anglicans discovered the windows of their church smashed, “the doors and walls daubed and defiled with dung, and other filth, in the rudest and basest manner imaginable.” The most moderate of Massachusetts men believed in Papist cabals; priests qualified as the radical Muslim clerics of the day. From the pulpit came regular warnings that boatloads of nefarious Irishmen were set to disembark in Boston harbor, to establish Roman Catholicism in New England.
The alerts naturally served an evangelical purpose. The common enemy encouraged cohesion, appealing to a tribal instinct. In the words of Owen Stanwood, a Boston College historian, the trumped-up fears neatly packaged the Massachusetts settlers’ “desire for security, their Protestant heritage, and their nascent sense of racial privilege.” Those anxieties multiplied at a time of real violence, of political and economic dislocation, of an emboldened Native American population. And in 1690, Mather warned, New England was in a state of “such distress and danger as it never saw before.” He forecast the imminent descent of “whole armies of Indians and Gallic bloodhounds.”
The muddled fears produced a snarl of blame. When fire broke out in 1679 Boston, it was said to be the work of Baptists. Who killed the sheep grazing on Cambridge Common? It had been wolves, but it made sense to harass Frenchmen anyway. The enemies did not need actually to be in New England’s midst. As an Anglican official snorted from a Boston prison in 1689: “There were not two Roman Catholics betwixt this and New York.” New England was nonetheless sacrificed over and over to its heathen adversaries, according to the ministry, that era’s Department of Homeland Security.
In the blur of rampaging predators it became increasingly difficult to distinguish Indians from Frenchmen from devils. One village minister lumped together Louis XIV, his Catholic confederates and Satan, at least two of whom were nowhere in the neighborhood. Conspiratorial fantasies came easily to a Puritan, who found them enthusiastically confirmed from the pulpit, the sole means of mass communication in a province still without newspapers.
Nor, when it came to subversive forces, was it necessary to conjure up real ones. In 1692, New Englanders began to look among themselves for things they could not see. To the “bloody and barbarous heathens,” as Stoughton would term the French, New England added invisible demons, producing the panic we now know as the Salem witch trials.
So great was the terror that year that grown men watched neighbors fly through the streets; they kicked at gleaming balls of fire in their beds. They saw hundreds celebrate a satanic Sabbath as clearly as some of us saw thousands of Muslims dancing in the Jersey City streets after 9/11. Stoughton would preside over the witchcraft trials, securing a 100 percent conviction rate. A Baptist minister who objected that the court risked executing innocents found himself charged with sedition. He was offered the choice between a jail sentence and a crushing fine. He was not heard from again. One problem with decency: It can be maddeningly quiet, at least until it explodes and asks if anyone has noticed it has been sitting, squirming, in the room all along.
The toxic brush fires flare up with regularity. “Shall our sons become the disciples of Voltaire, and the dragoons of Marat; or our daughters the concubines of the Illuminati?” asked Yale’s president on July 4, 1798. In the 1830s it was the Mormons’ turn to subvert America. The language remains remarkably consistent: A 1799 pro-Federalist sermon warned of a plot to “subvert and overturn our holy religion and our free and excellent government.” In 1951 the judge sentencing the Rosenbergs for espionage termed theirs a “diabolical conspiracy to destroy a God-fearing nation.” Throughout, we brandish our enemies’ hatred as our badge of honor. The churning suspicions invigorate; we become superheroes when we bulk up our opponents. To rage against the powers of darkness is to assure ourselves that we stand in the light.
The homegrown history in no way justifies the incendiary language. But it reminds us that the demonic plots are unlikely to vanish anytime soon. Anxiety produces specters; sensing ourselves lost, disenfranchised, dwarfed, we take reckless aim. “We have to be much smarter, or it’s never, ever going to end,” Donald J. Trump has warned of the war on terror. Amen. At least we can savor the irony that today’s zealots share a playbook with the Puritans, a people who — finding the holiday too pagan — waged the original war on Christmas.
Stacy Schiff [ http://www.stacyschiff.com/ ] is the author of, among other books, “Cleopatra” and “The Witches: Salem, 1692.”
A [not so] brief history of Islam in America A Yemeni-American girl with her friends at the 19th annual Muslim Parade on Madison Avenue, New York on October 12, 2008. December 22, 2015 http://www.vox.com/2015/12/22/10645956/islam-in-america
*
Thousands of U.S. soldiers tell fearful Muslim girl in Plano: ‘I will protect you’
Sofia Yassini, 8, poses for a photo outsider a mosque in Richardson, Texas, Friday, Dec. 11, 2015. After seeing presidential candidate Donald Trump call on television for barring Muslims from entering the country, the 8-year-old started packing her favorite things and checking the locks on the doors because, in her mind, Donald Trump’s push to ban Muslims entering the country meant the Army would come and rip her family from their home. Trumps remarks in the wake of the Dec. 2 shooting attack in San Bernardino, Calif., have stoked similar fears in Muslim children across the U.S. Their young minds, parents say, are confused about who the screaming man on TV is, what he’s saying about their faith and why thousands of their fellow Americans are cheering him on. (AP Photo/LM Otero) [ http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a27f6b61b1fc42449c2e5c20e5e7aebe/schools-streets-and-tv-children-feel-muslim-backlash (with comments)]
The Associated Press Published: 23 December 2015 04:57 PM Updated: 23 December 2015 05:07 PM
Melissa Yassini and her 8-year-old daughter, Sofia, spend some time every evening reading messages from the thousands of people who have told Sofia not to be afraid just because she’s Muslim.
“A lot of them, they call her out by name,” Melissa Yassini said on Wednesday. “That’s very important to her.”
Melissa Yassini originally shared her daughter’s response to Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's call for a ban on all Muslim immigration into the United States.
Melissa Chance Yassini December 9, 2015 at 8:00am Sad day in America when I have to comfort my 8 year old child who heard that someone with yellow hair named Trump wanted to kick all Muslims out of America. She had began collecting all her favorite things in a bag in case the army came to remove us from our homes. She checked the locks on the door 3-4 times. This is terrorism. No child in America deserves to feel that way. [ https://www.facebook.com/melissa.yassini/posts/10154182269004769 (with comments)]
Sofia heard about Trump’s proposal while the family [all U.S. citizens ( http://www.upworthy.com/when-donald-trumps-words-scared-this-muslim-girl-these-army-vets-responded-perfectly )] was watching the evening news. While Trump has said he isn’t targeting American Muslims, her mother said Sofia didn’t make that distinction. She packed a bag with Barbie dolls, a tub of peanut butter and a toothbrush. And she checked the locks of her family’s home, her mother says, because she thought soldiers were coming to take her away.
One reader, Kerri Peek, wrote about Sofia and called on soldiers to reassure her. Thousands did. Many posted messages of support with selfies of themselves in combat uniforms. The hashtag was trending in several cities this week.
“#Iwillprotectyou with my last breath Sofia!” wrote Brandon Sterne, a 22-year Navy veteran who served in Iraq.
Sterne told the AP Wednesday that he had seen in Iraq the importance of supporting people of all faiths and races.
He said he was particularly heartened by all of the posts from “my brothers and sisters in arms.”
“I would just tell her that hatred’s not going to win, that it’s OK,” Sterne said. “There are good people in the world, and the good people will always protect her from the evil people.”
Yassini said her daughter is less afraid but still nervous. She blamed Trump’s comments about Muslims — which also include suggestions that he would require Muslims to register with the federal government or carry identification cards — for driving anti-Islamic sentiment.
“Trump’s words don’t just end at what he says on that podium,” she said. “It’s far more reaching than that. When he goes on and says these things, it almost legitimizes or empowers the general public that they can say what they feel with Muslims.”
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The President Holds his 2015 End-of-Year Press Conference
Published on Dec 18, 2015 by The White House
President Obama took questions from the White House press corps at his final press conference of 2015. December 18, 2015.
*
Press Conference by the President, 12/18/15
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room December 18, 2015
2:06 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Clearly, this is not the most important event that's taking place in the White House today. There is a screening of Star Wars for Gold Star families and children coming up. So I'll try to be relatively succinct. Let me say a few words about the year behind us and the year ahead, and then I’ll take a few questions.
As I look back on this year, one thing I see is that so much of our steady, persistent work over the years is paying off for the American people in big, tangible ways. Our early actions to rescue the economy set the stage for the longest streak of private sector job growth on record, with 13.7 million new jobs in that time. The unemployment rate has been cut in half -- down to 5 percent. And most importantly, wages grew faster than at any time since the recovery began. So, over the course of this year, a lot of the decisions that we made early on have paid off.
Years of steady implementation of the Affordable Care Act helped to drive the rate of the uninsured in America below 10 percent for the first time since records were kept on that. Health care prices have grown at their lowest levels in five decades; 17 million more Americans have gained coverage, and we now know that six million people have signed up through HealthCare.gov for coverage beginning on January 1st -- 600,000 on Tuesday alone. New customers are up one-third over last year. And the more who sign up, the stronger the system becomes. And that's good news for every American who no longer has to worry about being just one illness or accident away from financial hardship.
On climate, our early investment in clean energy ignited a clean energy industry boom. Our actions to help reduce our carbon emissions brought China to the table. And last week, in Paris, nearly 200 nations forged an historic agreement that was only possible because of American leadership.
Around the world -- from reaching the deal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, to reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, to concluding a landmark trade agreement that will make sure that American workers and American businesses are operating on a level playing field and that we, rather than China or other countries, are setting the rules for global trade -- we have shown what is possible when America leads.
And, after decades of dedicated advocacy, marriage equality became a reality in all 50 states.
So, I just want to point out -- I said at the beginning of this year that interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter -- and we are only halfway through.
I do want to thank Congress for ending the year on a high note. I got to sign an education bill that is going to fix some of the challenges that we had with No Child Left Behind, and promises to invest more in high-quality early childhood education. We signed a transportation bill that, although not as robust as I think we need, still allows states and local governments to plan and actually get moving, putting people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges. We got Ex-Im Bank back to work supporting American exports.
And today they passed a bipartisan budget deal. I’m not wild about everything in it -- I’m sure that’s true for everybody -- but it is a budget that, as I insisted, invests in our military and our middle class, without ideological provisions that would have weakened Wall Street reform or rules on big polluters.
It’s part of an agreement that will permanently extend tax credits to 24 million working families. It includes some long-sought wins like strengthening America’s leadership at the IMF. And because it eliminates the possibility of a shutdown for the first time -- or for the first nine months of next year, Congress and I have a long runway to get some important things done on behalf of the American people.
Now, there’s still a lot of work to do. For example, there’s still a lot more that Congress can do to promote job growth and increase wages in this country. I still want to work with Congress -- both Democrats and Republicans -- to reform our criminal justice system. And earlier today I commuted the sentences of 95 men and women who had served their debt to society, another step forward in upholding our fundamental ideals of justice and fairness.
And, of course, our most important job is to keep Americans safe. I've had a lot to say about that this week, but let me reiterate, the United States continues to lead a global coalition in our mission to destroy ISIL. ISIL has already lost about 40 percent of the populated areas it once controlled in Iraq, and it’s losing territory in Syria. As we keep up the pressure, our air campaign will continue to hit ISIL harder than ever -- taking out their leaders, their commanders and their forces. We’re stepping up our support for partners on the ground as they push ISIL back. Our men and women in uniform are carrying out their mission with trademark professionalism and courage. And this holiday season, all of us are united in our gratitude for their service, and we are thankful to their families, as well, because they serve alongside those who are actually deployed.
Squeezing ISIL’s heart -- its core in Syria and Iraq -- will make it harder for them to pump their terror and propaganda to the rest of the world. At the same time, as we know from San Bernardino, where I’ll visit with families later today, we have to remain vigilant here at home. Our counterterrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement communities are working 24/7 to protect our homeland. And all of us can do our part by staying vigilant, by saying something if we see something that is suspicious, by refusing to be terrorized, and by staying united as one American family.
In short, for all the very real progress America has made over the past seven years, we still have some unfinished business. And I plan on doing everything I can with every minute of every day that I have left as President to deliver on behalf of the American people. Since taking this office, I’ve never been more optimistic about a year ahead than I am right now. And in 2016, I’m going to leave it out all on the field.
So with that, let me take some questions. I'll start with Roberta Rampton of Reuters.
Q Mr. President, you're going to California today. And as you said earlier this week, you told the nation that there’s no specific or credible threat of a similar attack. But how is it really possible to know? I mean, aren’t similar plots going to be just as hard to detect beforehand? And some lawmakers are saying that your government should review the social media of all people applying for visas to come to this country. What do you think of that idea? Should that be mandatory?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Roberta, you’re absolutely right that it is very difficult for us to detect lone wolf plots -- or plots involving a husband and wife, in this case -- because despite the incredible vigilance and professionalism of all our law enforcement, homeland security, et cetera, it’s not that different from us trying to detect the next mass shooter. You don’t always see it. They’re not always communicating publicly, and if you’re not catching what they say publicly, then it becomes a challenge.
We are continuing to work at every level to make sure that there’s no slip between information-sharing among agencies. We’re continuing to strengthen our information-sharing with foreign countries. And because, in part, of the tragedy in Paris, I think you’re seeing much greater cooperation from our European partners on these issues.
But this is a different kind of challenge than the sort that we had with an organization like al Qaeda that involved highly trained operatives who are working as cells or as a network. Here, essentially, you have ISIL trying to encourage or induce somebody who may be prey to this kind of propaganda. And it becomes more difficult to see. It does mean that they’re less likely to be able to carry out large, complex attacks. But as we saw in San Bernardino, obviously, you can still do enormous damage.
The issue of reviewing social media for those who are obtaining visas I think may have gotten garbled a little bit, because there may be -- it’s important to distinguish between posts that are public -- social media on a Facebook page -- versus private communications through various social media or apps. And our law enforcement and intelligence professionals are constantly monitoring public posts, and that is part of the visa review process, that people are investigating what individuals have said publicly and questioned about any statements that they maybe made.
But if you have a private communication between two individuals, that’s harder to discern, by definition. And one of the things we’ll be doing is engaging with the high-tech community to find out how we can, in an appropriate way, do a better job if we have a lead to be able to track a suspected terrorist. But we’re going to have to recognize that no government is going to have the capacity to read every single person’s text or emails or social media. If it’s not posted publicly, then there are going to be feasibility issues that are probably insurmountable at some level, and it raises questions about our values.
I mean, keep in mind it was only a couple of years ago where we were having a major debate about whether the government was becoming too much like Big Brother. And overall, I think we’ve struck the right balance in protecting civil liberties and making sure that U.S. citizens’ privacy is preserved, that we are making sure that there’s oversight to what our intelligence agencies do. But we’re going to have to continue to balance our needs for security with people’s legitimate concerns about privacy.
And because the Internet is global and communication systems are global, the values that we apply here oftentimes are ones that folks who are trying to come into the country are also benefitting from because they’re using the same technologies. But this is precisely why we’re working very hard to bring law enforcement, intelligence, and high-tech companies together. Because we’re going to have to really review what we can do both technically as well as consistent with our laws and our values in order to try to discern more rapidly some of the potential threats that may be out there.
David Jackson.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. A Gitmo question. Congress has made it pretty clear that they’re just not going to let you transfer prisoners to the United States for trial. But some people think you already have the executive authority to transfer those prisoners and close Gitmo itself next year. My question is, do you believe you have that authority and are you willing to exercise it to close that place?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we’ve been working systematically -- another example of persistence -- in reducing the population. We have a review process. Those who are eligible for transfer we locate in countries that have accepted some of these detainees. They monitor them, and it’s been determined that they can be transferred. And my expectation is by early next year, we should have reduced that population below 100. And we will continue to steadily chip away at the numbers in Guantanamo.
There’s going to come to a point where we have an irreducible population -- people who pose a significant threat, but for various reasons, it’s difficult for us to try them in an Article III court. Some of those folks are going through a military commission process. But there’s going to be a challenge there.
Now, at that stage, I’m presenting a plan to Congress about how we can close Guantanamo. I’m not going to automatically assume that Congress says no. I’m not being coy, David. I think it’s fair to say that there’s going to be significant resistance from some quarters to that. But I think we can make a very strong argument that it doesn’t make sense for us to be spending an extra $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $500 million, a billion dollars, to have a secure setting for 50, 60, 70 people. And we will wait until Congress has definitively said no to a well-thought-out plan with numbers attached to it before we say anything definitive about my executive authority here. I think it’s far preferable if I can get stuff done with Congress.
Q So actually you could -- right -- on your own?
THE PRESIDENT: David, as I said -- and I think you’ve seen me on a whole bunch of issues like immigration -- I’m not going to be forward-leaning on what I can do without Congress before I’ve tested what I can do with Congress. And every once in a while, they’ll surprise you, and this may be one of those places -- because I think we can make a really strong argument. Guantanamo continues to be one of the key magnets for jihadi recruitment.
To Roberta’s question earlier about how do they propagandize and convince somebody here in the United States who may not have a criminal record or a history of terrorist activity to start shooting -- this is part of what they feed, this notion of a gross injustice, that America is not living up to its professed ideals. We know that. We see the Internet traffic. We see how Guantanamo has been used to create this mythology that America is at war with Islam. And for us to close it is part of our counterterrorism strategy that is supported by our military, our diplomatic, and our intelligence teams.
So when you combine that with the fact that it’s really expensive that we are essentially at this point detaining a handful of people and each person is costing several million dollars to detain, when there are more efficient ways of doing it, I think we can make a strong argument.
But I’ll take your point that it will be an uphill battle. Now, every battle I’ve had with Congress over the last five years has been uphill. But we keep on surprising you by actually getting some stuff done. Sometimes that may prove necessary, but we try not to get out ahead of ourselves on that.
Julie Pace.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask you about some of the broader challenges in the Middle East. Some of the Republicans who are running for President have argued that the Mideast and the United States would be safer if we hadn’t had regime change in places like Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. And having gone through the experience of the Arab Spring and the aftermath, I wonder what you now see the U.S. role in the Middle East in terms of trying to push dictators out of power. Would you advise future presidents to call for authoritarian leaders to step down as you did? And just specifically on Syria, at this point, is it your expectation that Bashar Assad’s presidency will outlast yours?
THE PRESIDENT: There’s been a lot of revisionist history, sometimes by the same people making different arguments depending on the situation. So maybe it’s useful just for us to go back over some of these issues.
We did not depose Hosni Mubarak. Millions of Egyptians did, because of their dissatisfaction with the corruption and authoritarianism of the regime. We had a working relationship with Mubarak. We didn't trigger the Arab Spring. And the notion that somehow the U.S. was in a position to pull the strings on a country that is the largest in the Arab world I think is mistaken.
What is true is that at the point at which the choice becomes mowing down millions of people, or trying to find some transition -- we believed, and I would still argue that it was more sensible for us to find a peaceful transition to the Egyptian situation.
With respect to Libya, Libya is sort of a alternative version of Syria in some ways, because by the time the international coalition interceded in Syria, chaos had already broken out. You already had the makings of a civil war. You had a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people. And we worked under U.N. mandate with a coalition of folks in order to try to avert a big humanitarian catastrophe that would not have been good for us.
Those who now argue, in retrospect, we should have left Qaddafi in there seem to forget that he had already lost legitimacy and control of his country, and we could have -- instead of what we have in Libya now, we could have had another Syria in Libya now. The problem with Libya was the fact that there was a failure on the part of the entire international community -- and I think that the United States has some accountability for not moving swiftly enough and underestimating the need to rebuild government there quickly -- and as a consequence, you now have a very bad situation.
And as far as Syria goes, I think it is entirely right and proper for the United States of America to speak out on behalf of its values. And when you have an authoritarian leader that is killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, the notion that we would just stand by and say nothing is contrary to who we are. And that does not serve our interests -- because, at that point, us being in collusion with that kind of governance would make us even more of a target for terrorist activity, would --
Q Do you think that government can cope -- try to stop extremists from --
THE PRESIDENT: The reason that Assad has been a problem in Syria is because that is a majority-Sunni country and he had lost the space that he had early on to execute an inclusive transition -- peaceful transition. He chose instead to slaughter people. And once that happened, the idea that a minority population there could somehow crush tens of millions of people who oppose him is not feasible. It’s not plausible. Even if you were being cold-eyed and hard-hearted about the human toll there, it just wouldn’t happen. And as a consequence, our view has been that you cannot bring peace to Syria, you cannot get an end to the civil war unless you have a government that is recognized as legitimate by a majority of that country. It will not happen.
And this is the argument that I’ve had repeatedly with Mr. Putin, dating five years ago, at which time his suggestion -- as I gather some Republicans are now suggesting -- was Assad is not so bad, let him just be as brutal and repressive as he can, but at least he’ll keep order. I said, look, the problem is that the history of trying to keep order when a large majority of the country has turned against you is not good. And five years later, I was right.
So we now have an opportunity -- and John Kerry is meeting as we speak with Syria and Turkey and Iran and the Gulf countries and other parties who are interested -- we now have an opportunity not to turn back the clock -- it’s going to be very difficult to completely overcome the devastation that’s happened in Syria already -- but to find a political transition that maintains the Syrian state, that recognizes there are a bunch of a stakeholders inside of Syria, and hopefully, to initiate a ceasefire that won’t be perfect but allows all the parties to turn on what should be our number-one focus, and that is destroying Daesh and its allies in the region.
And that is going to be a difficult process. It’s going to be a painstaking process. But there is no shortcut to that. And that’s not based on some idealism on my part; that’s a hard-headed calculation about what’s going to be required to get the job done.
Q Do you think that Assad, though, potentially could remain in power a year from now?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that Assad is going to have to leave in order for the country to stop the bloodletting and for all the parties involved to be able to move forward in a non-sectarian way. He has lost legitimacy in the eyes of a large majority of the country.
Now, is there a way of us constructing a bridge creating a political transition that allows those who are allied with Assad right now -- allows the Russians, allows the Iranians to ensure that their equities are respected, that minorities like the Alawites are not crushed or retribution is not the order of the day -- I think that’s going to be very important as well.
And that’s what makes this so difficult. Sadly, had Assad made a decision earlier that he was not more important personally than his entire country, that kind of political transition would have been much easier. It’s a lot harder now. But John Kerry has been doing some excellent work in moving that process forward. And I do think that you’ve seen from the Russians a recognition that, after a couple of months, they’re not really moving the needle that much, despite a sizeable deployment inside of Syria. And of course, that’s what I suggested would happen -- because there’s only so much bombing you can do when an entire country is outraged and believes that its ruler doesn’t represent them.
Cheryl Bolen.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to ask you about the surprising Congress. Specifically, what are your top legislative priorities for next year? And how has the new Speaker, Paul Ryan, changed the dynamic with you and Capitol Hill? And can you be more ambitious next year, doing things like maybe completing the Transatlantic Trade Partnership, or even getting tax reform?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, it’s important to give some credit where credit is due. John Boehner did a favor to all of us, including now Speaker Ryan, by working with us to agree on a topline budget framework. That was the basis for subsequent negotiations. He was able to do that because he was going out the door, and was then given, I think, a little more room to maneuver than he previously had.
Having said that, I also want to give Speaker Ryan credit. I called both him and Mitch McConnell, as well as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, for the orderly way in which they actually negotiated a budget -- the way Congress is historically and typically supposed to work. I mean, we’ve gotten kind of used to last-minute crises and shutdown threats, and so forth. And this is a messy process that doesn’t satisfy everybody completely, but it’s more typical of American democracy. And I think that Speaker Ryan deserves a role in that.
I will say that in his interactions with me, he has been professional, he has reached out to tell me what he can do and what he cannot do. I think it’s a good working relationship. We recognize that we disagree on a whole bunch of other stuff and have fundamentally different visions for where we want to move the country. But perhaps because even before he was elected he had worked on Capitol Hill, I think he is respectful of the process and respectful of how legislation works. So kudos to him, as well as all the leaders and appropriators who were involved in this process.
Now, I just want to repeat -- because sometimes we take for granted what’s happened -- I said early on in this process that I wasn’t going to sign a budget that did not relieve sequester, this artificial austerity that was making it difficult for us to invest in things like education and our military. And I said I would not accept a lot of ideological riders that were attached to a big budget deal. And we met our goals.
And because of some terrific negotiations by the Democrats up on Capitol Hill and I think some pretty good work by our legislative staff here, we’re going to be able to fund environmental protection. We’re going to be able to make sure that we’re investing in things like early childhood education and making college more affordable. We’re going to be able to implement the Clean Power Plan rule. We’re going to be able to continue to invest in clean energy that spurs on innovation. We’re going to be able to make sure that our military gets the equipment and the training that it needs in order to be effective in fighting ISIL and other threats around the world.
So it was a good win. And there are some things in there that I don't like, but that's the nature of legislation and compromise. And I think the system worked.
That gives me some optimism that next year, on a narrow set of issues, we can get some more work done. Now, as David said, it’s an election year. And obviously a lot of the legislative process is going to be skewed by people looking over their shoulders, worrying about primaries, trying to position themselves relative to the presidential candidates. So that makes it harder. But I think there are going to be a handful of areas where we can make real progress.
One of them you already mentioned -- Trans-Pacific Partnership, which now has been out, Congress has had a chance to review. And it meets the bar that I set. It is consistent with what I promised, which is the most pro-labor, pro-environment, progressive trade deal in history, that eliminates just about every tariff on American manufacturing goods in countries that up until this point have charged a tax, essentially, on anything that American workers and American businesses sell in these areas. It brings those taxes down to zero on basically all American-manufactured products -- a huge win for agriculture, because now the people of Japan are going to be in a better position to enjoy American beef and American pork, which up until this point, even though we're much more efficient producers, has been tagged with a tax that makes our products uncompetitive in Japanese markets.
So this is a big deal. And I think Speaker Ryan would like to try to get it done. And there are both proponents and opponents of this in both Democratic and Republican parties, and so it’s going to be an interesting situation where we're going to have to stitch together the same kind of bipartisan effort in order for us to get it done.
A second area that I think is possible is criminal justice reform. There has been sincere, serious negotiations and efforts by Democrats and Republicans to create a criminal justice system that is more fair, more evenhanded, more proportionate, and is smarter about how we reduce crime. And I’ve really been impressed by the dedication of a core group of Democrats and Republicans -- some of them, the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans -- coming together saying this is the right thing to do.
We’ve got a good bill in the Senate that passed with bipartisan support out of committee. My hope is, is that gets to the floor, and that we can pair it up with a good bill out of the House. And this is an area where you potentially can see us save money, reduce recidivism, make sure that people who make a mistake on nonviolent crimes have to pay the price, have to serve time, but are released in a reasonable fashion, that they have more support so that they're less likely to go back into the criminal system subsequently. And that's an area where I think we may be able to make a big difference.
So those are just two examples. We’ll keep on looking for a number of examples like that. And wherever there’s an opportunity, I’m going to take it.
Philip Crowther.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned climate change already. And at the time of the signing of the deal in Paris, you said it was potentially a turning point for the world. But this was a deal that is not a legally binding document. And you bypassed Congress pretty much completely. Are you worried at this point that a Republican president who might take over from you in the White House could stop the deal in its tracks entirely? And considering that possibility, are you more interested in campaigning for a Democratic nominee, considering that danger?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s fair to say I was going to be campaigning for a Democratic nominee even without that danger. (Laughter.) And I am very confident that we're going to have a terrific Democratic nominee and -- (cellphone rings) -- whose phone is that, guys? Come on, now. (Laughter.) Somebody -- you recognize your ring. Don’t be embarrassed. Just turn it off. (Laughter.) There you go. Okay. Can I still hear it? I think it’s off now.
I think we will have a strong Democratic nominee. I think that Democratic nominee will win. I think I will have a Democratic successor. And I will campaign very hard to make that happen -- for a whole variety of reasons -- because they're far more likely to share my fundamental vision about where America should go.
But having said that, what I think people should also feel good about is that the agreement struck in Paris, although not legally binding when it comes to the targets that had been set, does create this architecture in which all around the world, countries are saying, this is where we’re going. We’re going to be chasing after this clean energy future. This is how we’re going to meet our goals. We’re going to double down on solar power. We’re going to double down on wind power. We’re going to invest more heavily in biofuels. We’re going to figure out battery technologies.
And what you saw in this budget, which I think was really significant, was an extension of the solar tax credits and wind tax credits that we had helped to really boost early on in my administration and that resulted in wind power increasing threefold, solar power increasing by twentyfold.
Those tax credits are now going to be extended for five to seven years. And as a consequence, that combination of market signals means that the private sector is going to start investing much more heavily. They know this is coming. And it’s not just coming here -- it’s coming around the world. So you now have a global marketplace for clean energy that is stable and accelerating over the course of the next decade.
That then creates a different dynamic that is independent of what Congress does, but also helps to shape what Congress does. Because the more people that are now getting jobs in solar installation and production, the more that you have companies who are seeing how American innovation can sell products in clean energy all across the Asia Pacific and in Europe and in Africa, suddenly there’s a big monetary incentive to getting this right.
And that’s been the history of environmental progress in this country, and now we’ve exported it around the world. Every time we’ve made a decision, “you know what, we’re going to have clean air,” the predictions were everything would fall apart. And lo and behold, it turns out that American innovation makes getting clean air a lot less expensive than people expected and it happens a lot faster than expected.
When we made a decision that we were going to double fuel-efficiency standards on cars, everybody said, oh, this is going to ruin the American auto industry. The American auto industry has been booming over the last couple years. Acid rain -- when George H.W. Bush instituted a system to charge for the emissions that were causing acid rain, everybody said, well, you can’t do that, that’s going to ruin business. And it turned out it was smoother, faster, quicker, better. And acid rain folks who were born -- I don’t know -- some of you reporters are getting younger, or I’m getting older -- may not remember it, but that was a big deal. Now most folks don’t even remember it anymore, because it got solved. And there’s no reason why the same won’t happen here.
Now, do I think that there’s going to be a lot of noise and campaigning next year about how we’re going to stop Paris in its tracks? There will probably be a lot of noise like that. Do I actually think that, two years from now, three years from now, even Republican members of Congress are going to look at it and say, that’s a smart thing to do? I don’t think they will.
Keep in mind that, right now, the American Republican Party is the only major party that I can think of in the advanced world that effectively denies climate change. I mean, it’s an outlier. Many of the key signatories to this deal, the architects of this deal come from center-right governments. Even the far-right parties in many of these countries -- they may not like immigrants, for example, but they admit, yes, the science tells us we’ve got to do something about climate change.
So my sense is, is that this is something that may be an advantage in terms of short-term politics and a Republican primary. It’s not something that is going to be a winner for Republicans long term.
Q You mentioned American leadership. Is it embarrassing to you that the other party denies climate change?
THE PRESIDENT: No -- because, first of all, I’m not a member of that party. (Laughter.) Second of all, it didn’t stop us from being the key leader in getting this done.
I mean, this is something I’ve been working on now for five, six years. When I went to Copenhagen, I essentially engaged in 24 hours of diplomacy to salvage from a pretty chaotic process the basic principle that all countries had to participate, that we couldn’t have a rigid division between developed countries and developing countries when it came to solving this problem. That was the initial foundation for us then working with other countries, culminating in the joint announcement with China, bringing in India, bringing in Brazil and the other big, emerging countries, working with the Europeans and getting this done.
This would not have happened without American leadership. And, by the way, the same is true for the Iran nuclear deal. The same is true for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The same is true for stamping out Ebola -- something, you guys may recall from last year, which was the potential end of the world.
At each juncture, what we’ve said is, is that American strength and American exceptionalism is not just a matter of us bombing somebody. More often, it’s a matter of us convening, setting the agenda, pointing other nations in a direction that’s good for everybody and good for U.S. interests, engaging in painstaking diplomacy, leading by example. And sometimes the results don’t come overnight, they don’t come the following day, but they come.
And this year, what you really saw was that steady, persistent leadership on many initiatives that I began when I first came into office.
All right. I’ve got April Ryan.
Q Mr. President, I want to ask you something on criminal justice, or that something you said also -- something from Julie Pace. Your administration contends the United States is 5 percent of the world population, but 25 percent of the global jailed population. What legislation are you supporting that significantly cuts mass incarceration in this country? And going back to the Assad issue, does Assad have to go to defeat ISIS?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to defeat ISIS, and we’re going to do so by systematically squeezing them, cutting off their supply lines, cutting off their financing, taking out their leadership, taking out their forces, taking out their infrastructure. We’re going to do so in partnership with forces on the ground -- that sometimes are spotty, sometimes need capacity-building, need our assistance, need our training -- but we’re seeing, steadily, progress in many of these areas. And so they’re going to be on the run.
Now, they are going to continue to be dangerous. So let me just be very clear -- because whenever I say that we have made progress in squeezing the territory that they control, or made real inroads against them, what people will say is, well, if something happens around the world, then obviously that must not be true. But in any battle, in any fight, even as you make progress, there are still dangers involved. And ISIL’s capacity both to infiltrate Western countries with people who’ve traveled to Syria or traveled to Iraq, and the savviness of their social media, their ability to recruit disaffected individuals who may be French or British or even U.S. citizens, will continue to make them dangerous for quite some time. But we will systematically go after them.
Now, in order for us to stamp them out thoroughly, we have to eliminate lawless areas in which they cannot still roam. So we can disable them, we can dismantle much of their infrastructure, greatly reduce the threat that they pose to the United States, our allies and our neighbors. But, in the same way that al Qaeda is pinned down and has much more difficulty carrying out any significant attacks because of how we’ve systematically dismantled them, they still pose a threat. There are still operatives who are interested in carrying out terrorist attacks because they still operate in areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or more prominently right now, in Yemen, that are hard to reach.
Our long-term goal has to be able to stabilize these areas so that they don’t have any safe haven. And in order for us to do that in Syria, there has to be an end to the civil war, and there has to be an actual government that has a police capacity and a structure in these areas that currently aren’t governed. And it is my firm belief and the belief of the experts in this administration, that so long as Assad is there, we cannot achieve that kind of stability inside of Syria. And I think the history over the last several years indicates as much.
So that’s going to continue to be a top priority for us, moving aggressively on the military track and not letting ISIL take a breath, and pounding away at them with our Special Forces and our airstrikes, and the training and advising of partners who can go after them. But we also have to keep very aggressive on this diplomatic track in order for us to bring countries together.
All right? Everybody --
Q On criminal justice --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on criminal justice reform, I answered the question. I’m hopeful --
Q On the legislation -- are you supporting the -- mass incarceration?
THE PRESIDENT: And, April, what I said was, is that I strongly support the Senate legislation that’s already been put forward. I’m hopeful that the House can come up with legislation that follows the same principles, which is to make sure that we’re doing sentencing reform, but we’re also doing a better job in terms of reducing recidivism and providing support for ex-offenders. And if we can get those two bills together in a conference, then I’m somewhat optimistic that we’re going to be able to make a difference.
Now, keep in mind, April, when you use the term “mass incarceration,” statistically, the overwhelming majority of people who are incarcerated are in state prisons and state facilities for state crimes. We can only focus on federal law and federal crimes. And so there’s still going to be a large population of individuals who are incarcerated even for non-violent drug crimes, because this is a trend that started in the late ‘80s and ‘90s, and accelerated at the state levels.
But if we can show at the federal level that we can be smart on crime, more cost-effective, more just, more proportionate, then we can set a trend for other states to follow, as well. And that’s our hope. This is not going to be something that’s reversed overnight.
So just to go back to my general principle, April, it took 20 years for us to get to the point we are now. And it will be 20 years, probably, before we reverse some of these major trends.
Okay, everybody, I got to get to Star Wars. Thank you. Thank you guys. Appreciate you. Merry Christmas, everybody.
Obama Has Hit The DGAF Portion Of His Presidency, And This Video Is Proof President Barack Obama has officially hit the stage of his presidency where he does not give one f**k. 04/25/2015 Updated: 04/26/2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/25/whcd-2015_n_7112376.html [with embedded video, and comments]
*
9 Things Obama Has Done Lately To Prove He Actually Seriously DGAF Ladies and gentlemen, fourth quarter Obama is in, and he's loaded for bear. Jul 14, 2015 http://www.xojane.com/issues/fourth-quarter-obama-dgaf [with comments]
Weekly Address: Top 10 Things that Happened in 2015
Published on Dec 19, 2015 by The White House
In this week's address, the President celebrated the end of the year tradition of list-making with a year-in-review list of his own.
*
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address: Top 10 Things that Happened in 2015
The White House December 19, 2015
Hi, everybody. It’s the most wonderful time of the year. Not just for spreading holiday cheer – but also for list makers. You’ve got wish lists; Santa’s list; and of course, a blizzard of year-in-review lists. So I decided to get in on the action.
As a nation, we face big challenges. But in the spirit of 2015 retiree David Letterman, here – in no particular order – are my top 10 things that happened in 2015 that should make every American optimistic about 2016.
Number ten: The economy. Over the past 12 months, our businesses have created 2.5 million new jobs. In all, they’ve added 13.7 million new jobs over a 69-month streak of job growth. And the unemployment rate has fallen to 5 percent – the lowest it’s been in almost eight years.
Number nine: More Americans are getting health coverage. The rate of the uninsured in America dropped below 10 percent for the first time ever. In all, 17.6 million people and climbing have gained coverage as the Affordable Care Act has taken effect. And don’t forget, you can still sign up through January 31st at HealthCare.gov.
Number eight: America’s global leadership on climate change. Last week, in Paris, nearly 200 countries came together to set the course for a low-carbon future. And it was only possible because America led with clean energy here at home and strong diplomacy around the world.
Number seven: Progress in the Americas. We turned the page on an outdated, half-century old policy by re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and reopening embassies in both our countries, allowing us to build greater ties between Americans and Cubans.
Number six: Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We succeeded in forging a strong deal to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In fact, Iran has already dismantled thousands of centrifuges that enrich uranium.
Number five: Standing strong against terrorism. Even as we continue to grieve over the attack in San Bernardino, we’re leading a global coalition and hitting ISIL harder than ever. In Syria and Iraq, ISIL is losing territory, and we’re not going to stop until we destroy this terrorist organization.
Number four: A 21st century trade deal that makes sure our businesses can sell goods “Made in America” across the Asia-Pacific. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the strongest, most pro-worker, pro-environment trade agreement in our history. And it means that America – not China, not anyone else – will write the rules of the global economy for the century ahead.
Number three: A pair of Christmas miracles in Washington! This week, Congress passed a bipartisan budget that invests in middle-class priorities, keeps our military the strongest in the world, and takes the threat of shutdowns and manufactured crises off the table for 2016. Plus, I signed a bipartisan education bill into law to help our students graduate prepared for college and their future careers.
Number two: Love won. No matter who you are, here in America, you’re free to marry the person you love, because the freedom to marry is now the law in all fifty states.
And the number one reason I’m optimistic going into 2016: It's you—the American people. All of this progress is because of you—because of workers rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done, and entrepreneurs starting new businesses. Because of teachers and health workers and parents—all of us taking care of each other. Because of our incredible men and women in uniform, serving to protect us all. Because, when we’re united as Americans, there’s nothing that we cannot do.
That’s why it’s has been a good year. And it’s why I’m confident we’ll keep achieving big things in the New Year. So happy holidays, everybody.
3rd Democratic debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant [annotations viewable at the source, linked at the end of this transcript]
December 19, 2015
Three Democratic candidates participated in tonight's ABC presidential primary debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley.
The complete transcript:
The debate began after ABC's Martha Raddatz and David Muir introduced the candidates.
Raddatz: Good evening to you all. The rules for tonight are very basic and have been agreed to by all three campaigns in advance. Candidates can take up to a minute-and-a-half to respond directly to a question. For a rebuttal, for a follow-up, 45 seconds will be allowed. There are green, yellow, and red lights that each candidate will see to signal when time is running out and when they're supposed to be finished with their answers.
MUIR: We will be tackling many critical issues right here tonight, and we begin with opening statements, in alphabetical order, and Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, thank you. And I'm delighted to be here in New Hampshire for this debate.
You know, the American president has to both keep our families safe and make the economy grow in a way that helps everyone, not just those at the top. That's the job. I have a strategy to combat and defeat ISIS without getting us involved in another ground war, and I have plans to raise incomes and deal with a lot of the problems that keep families up at night.
I'm very clear that we have a distinct difference between those of us on this stage tonight and all of our Republican counterparts. From my perspective, we have to prevent the Republicans from rolling back the progress that we've made. They would repeal the Affordable Care Act, not improve it. They would give more tax breaks to the super-wealthy and corporations, not to the middle class. And they would, despite all their tough talk about terrorism, continue to let people who are on the no-fly list buy guns.
So we have a lot of work to do in this campaign to make it clear where we stand in the Democratic Party, what we will do for our country, and I look forward to this evening's discussion of real issues that face the American people.
Thank you.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
Governor O'Malley?
O'MALLEY: Martha, thank you. Tonight we have a different debate than the debates that we have been allowed to have so far, because tonight is different because of this reason, that in the course of this presidential campaign America has again been attacked by jihadi terrorists, American lives taken from us. So, yes, we must talk about our ideas to move our economy forward, but the first job of the president of the United States is to protect the people of the United States.
I visited with a number of our neighbors in Northern Virginia at a mosque last Friday. And as I looked out there at the eyes of our neighbors, I also looked in the eyes of veterans. I looked into the eyes of Boy Scouts. I looked into the eyes of moms and dads who would do anything in their power to protect our country's values and our freedoms.
What our nation needs right now is to realize that, while we face a terrible danger, we also face a different sort of political danger. And that is the danger that democracies find themselves susceptible to when unscrupulous leaders try to turn us upon each other. What our country needs right now is new leadership that will bring us together around the values that unite us and the freedoms that we share as Americans.
We will rise to challenge of ISIL and we will rise together to the challenges that we face in our economy. But we will only do so if we hold true to the values and the freedoms that unite us, which means we must never surrender them to terrorists, must never surrender our Americans values to racist, must never surrender to the fascist pleas of billionaires with big mouths.
We are a better country than this. Our enduring symbol is not the barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty. And America's best days are in front of us if we move forward together.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: Good evening.
I am running for president of the United States because it is too late for establishment politics and establishment economics. I'm running for president because our economy is rigged because working people are working longer hours for lower wages and almost all of new wealth and income being created is going to the top one percent. I'm running for president because I'm going to create an economy that works for working families not just billionaires.
I'm running for president because we have a campaign finance system which is corrupt, where billionaires are spending hundreds of millionaires of dollars to buy candidates who will represent their interests rather than the middle class and working families. I'm running because we need to address the planetary crisis of climate change and take on the fossil fuel industry and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
I'm running for president because I want a new foreign policy; one that takes on Isis, one that destroys ISIS, but one that does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East but rather works around a major coalition of wealthy and powerful nations supporting Muslim troops on the ground. That's the kind of coalition we need and that's the kind of coalition I will put together.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Senator Sanders thank you and thank you all.
We do have a lot of important issues to get here tonight and we want to address the controversy of the last 24 hours right off the top because we heard some of the most heated rhetoric of the campaign so far between two of the campaigns on this stage tonight.
Senator Sanders, you fired a campaign staffer you have sued the Democratic National Committee; all of this after your campaign acknowledge that some of your staffers quote, "irresponsibly accessed data from another campaign." The Clinton campaign called this a very egregious breech of data of ethics and said, quote, "our data was stolen."
Did they overstate this or were your staffers essentially stealing part of the Clinton playbook?
SANDERS: David, let me give you a little bit of background here.
The DNC has hired vendors. On two occasions, there were breeches in information two months ago. Our staff found information on our computers from the Clinton campaign. And when our staffers said, "whoa, what's going here?" They went to the DNC quietly.
They went to the vendor and said, "hey, something is wrong," and that was quietly dealt with. None of that information was looked at. Our staffer at that point did exactly the right thing.
A few days ago a similar incident happened. There was a breach because the DNC vendor screwed up, information came to our campaign. In this case, our staff did the wrong thing -- they looked a that information. As soon as we learned that they looked at that information - we fired that person. We are now doing an independent internal investigation to see who else was involved.
Thirdly, what I have a really problem, and as you mentioned - this is a problem, I recognize it as a problem. But what the DNC did arbitrarily without discussing it with us is shut off our access to our information crippling our campaign. That is an egregious act. I'm glad that late last night, that was resolved.
SANDERS: Fourthly, I work -- look forward to working with Secretary Clinton for an investigation, an independent investigation, about all of the breaches that have occurred from day one in this campaign, because I am not convinced that information from our campaign may not have ended up in her campaign. Don't know that.
But we need an independent investigation, and I hope Secretary Clinton will agree with me for the need of that.
Last point. When we saw the breach two months, we didn't go running to the media and make a big deal about it. And it bothers me very much that, rather than working on this issue to resolve it, it has become many press releases from the Clinton campaign later.
MUIR: But Senator, you do mention the DNC -- the vender. But you said of your staff that they did the wrong thing.
SANDERS: Absolutely.
MUIR: So, does Secretary Clinton deserve an apology tonight?
SANDERS: Yes, I apologize.
MUIR: Secretary Clinton...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Not only -- not only do I apologize to Secretary Clinton -- and I hope we can work together on an independent investigation from day one -- I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the type of campaign that we run.
And if I find anybody else involved in this, they will also be fired.
MUIR: Secretary Clinton, he has apologized. How do your react?
CLINTON: I very much appreciate that comment, Bernie. It really is important that we go forward on this.
I know that you now have your data back, and that there has been an agreement for an independent inquiry into what did happen.
Obviously, we were distressed when we learned of it, because we have worked very hard -- I said in the beginning of this campaign, we want to reach as many voters as possible, and we have tens of thousands of volunteers doing that, and entering data all the time to keep up with what people are telling us.
And so, now that, I think, you know, we have resolved your data, we have agreed on an independent inquiry, we should move on. Because I don't think the American people are all that interested in this.
(APPLAUSE)
I think they're more interested in what we have to say about all the big issues facing us.
O'MALLEY: Yeah, David, look, for crying out loud, our country has been attacked, we have pressing issues involving how we're going to adapt to this changing era of warfare.
Our economy -- people are working harder and being left behind. You want to know why things don't get done in Washington? Because for the last 24 hours, with those issues being so urgent to people as they tune in tonight, wondering how they're even be able to buy presents for their kids.
Instead, we're listening to the bickering back and forth. Maybe that is normal politics in Washington, but that is not the politics of higher purpose that people expect from our party.
We need to address our security issues, we need to address the economic issues around the kitchen table. And if people want a more high-minded politics and want to move our country forward, go on to martinomalley.com and help my campaign move our country forward.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR (?): All three candidates are weighing in.
SANDERS: Let me agree with Governor O'Malley and let me agree with Secretary Clinton. You know, we had this incident before, Secretary, with your famous e-mails. Right?
And what I said and I think what Governor O'Malley is saying, and I hope you say, is when the middle class of this country is disappearing, when we have massive income and wealth inequality, when we're the only major country on earth not guaranteeing health care to all people, all the issues that the governor talked about, the secretary talked about, those are the issues. Media notwithstanding.
Those are the issues that the American people want discussed. I hope those are the issues we'll discuss.
MUIR: Good let's move on -- Senator Sanders, let's move on right to some of those issues.
(APPLAUSE)
It is just six days before Christmas, as we all know in this country. It's typically a joyful time, as it is this year, as well. But it's also an anxious time. President Obama has acknowledged that what we saw in San Bernardino was an act of terrorism. But we remember the president said, right before Thanksgiving, there is no known specific and credible intelligence indicating a plot on the homeland.
We now know that this couple had assembled an arsenal. They were not on law enforcement's radar. They were completely undetected. So as we approach another holiday, with the president again saying, late this week, no credible threat, Secretary Clinton, how confident should the American people be, that there aren't others like that couple right now in the U.S. going undetected?
And what would you do as president to find them?
CLINTON: Well, first, the most important job of being president is obviously to keep our country safe and to keep the families of America safe.
I have a plan that I've put forward to go after ISIS. Not to contain them, but to defeat them. And it has three parts. First, to go after them and deprive them of the territory they occupy now in both Syria and Iraq.
CLINTON: Secondly, to go after and dismantle their global network of terrorism. And thirdly, to do more to keep us safe. Under each of those three parts of my plan, I have very specific recommendations about what to do.
Obviously, in the first, we do have to have a -- an American-led air campaign, we have to have Arab and Kurdish troops on the ground. Secondly, we've got to go after everything from North Africa to South Asia and beyond.
And then, most importantly, here at home, I think there are three things that we have to get right. We have to do the best possible job of sharing intelligence and information. That now includes the internet, because we have seen that ISIS is a very effective recruiter, propagandist and inciter and celebrator of violence.
That means we have to work more closely with our great tech companies. They can't see the government as an adversary, we can't see them as obstructionists. We've got to figure out how we can do more to understand who is saying what and what they're planning.
And we must work more closely with Muslim-American communities. Just like Martin, I met with a group of Muslim-Americans this past week to hear from them about what they're doing to try to stop radicalization. They will be our early warning signal. That's why we need to work with them, not demonize them, as the Republicans have been doing.
O'MALLEY: David, I am the very first...
MUIR: (inaudible) thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
I am the very first post-9/11 mayor and the very first post-9/11 governor. I understand, from the ground up, that when attacks like San Bernardino happen, when attacks like the attacks of 9/11 happen, that when people call 911, the first people to show up are the local first responders.
Many of the things Secretary Clinton said are absolutely true, but they underscore a lack of investment that we have, as a nation, failed to make over these last 15 years in intelligence gathering, intelligence analysis, intelligence sharing. Not only in theater, in Syria and Iraq and other places where we embalk (ph) ourselves in toppling dictators without having any idea what comes next, but here in the homeland, as we protect people from this threat of the lone wolves and these changing tactics and strategies.
I believe that what's happened here is that the president had us on the right course, but it's a lack of battle tempo. We have to increase the battle tempo, we have to bring a modern way of getting things done and forcing the sharing of information and do a much better job of acting on it in order to prevent these sorts of attacks in the future.
MUIR: And we're going to break down these issues tonight, but I do want to go to Senator Sanders because the concern going into Christmas is significant, as you know. A new ABC News poll shows 77 percent of Americans have little or no confidence in the government's ability to prevent a lone wolf attack. How would you specifically find would-be terrorist who are going undetected?
SANDERS: I'm one of the 77 percent. I think this is a very difficult issue. Let me agree with much of what the secretary and the governor have said. Let me tell you what I think we have got to do. I think it's a two-pronged issue.
Number one, our goal is to crush and destroy ISIS. What is the best way to do it? Well, I think there are some differences of opinion here, perhaps between the secretary and myself. I voted against the war in Iraq because I thought unilateral military action would not produce the results that were necessary and would lead to the kind of unraveling and instability that we saw in the Middle East.
I do not believe in unilateral American action. I believe in action in which we put together a strong coalition of forces, major powers and the Muslim nations. I think one of the heroes in a real quagmire out there, in a dangerous and difficult world, one of the heroes who we should recognize in the Middle East is King Abdullah II of Jordan. This small country has welcomed in many refugees.
And Abdullah said something recently, very important. He said, "Yes, international terrorism is by definition an international issue, but it is primarily an issue of the Muslim nations who are fighting for the soul of Islam. We the Muslims should lead the effort on the ground." And I believe he is absolutely right.
MUIR: Senator, thank you.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, you all emphasized gun control. But our latest poll shows that more Americans believe arming people, not stricter gun laws, is the best defense against terrorism. Are they wrong?
CLINTON: Well, I think you have to look at both the terrorism challenge that we face abroad and certainly at home and the role that guns play in delivering the violence that stalks us. Clearly, we have to have a very specific set of actions to take. You know, when Senator Sanders talks about a coalition, I agree with him about that. We've got to build a coalition abroad. We also have to build a coalition at home. Abroad, we need a coalition that is going to take on ISIS. I know how hard that is. I know it isn't something you just hope people will do and I've worked on that...
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, can we stick to gun control?
CLINTON: Yes, I'm getting...
RADDATZ: Are they wrong?
CLINTON: ... I'm getting to that. Because I think if you only think about the coalition abroad you're missing the main point, which is we need a coalition here at home. Guns, in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. We lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence, arming more people to do what I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism.
I think what is...
(APPLAUSE)
Is creating much deeper, closer relations and, yes, coalitions within our own country. The first line of defense against radicalization is in Muslim-American community. People who we should be welcoming and working with.
I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from the Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, is sending a message to Muslims here in the United States and literally around the world that there is a "clash of civilizations," that there is some kind of Western plot or even "war against Islam," which then I believe fans the flames of radicalization.
So guns have to be looked at as its own problem, but we also have to figure out how we're going to deal with the radicalization here in the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: Senator Sanders -- wait just a moment, please, Governor O'Malley.
Senator Sanders, we've seen those long lines of people buying guns in record numbers after the Paris attacks. Would you discourage people from buying a gun?
SANDERS: It's a country in which people choose to buy guns. I think half of the -- more than half of the people in my own state of Vermont, my guess here in New Hampshire, are gun owners. That's the right of people.
But this is what I do believe. I believe that when we have some 300 million guns in this country, I believe that when we have seen these horrific mass killings, not only in San Bernardino, but in Colorado and movie theaters in Colorado, I think we have got to bring together the vast majority of the people who do in fact believe in sensible gun safety regulations.
For example, talking about polls, a poll recently came out, overwhelming majority of the American people say we should strengthen the instant background check. Who denies that it is crazy...
(APPLAUSE)
Who denies that it is crazy to allow people to own guns who are criminals or are mentally unstable? We've got to eliminate the gun show loophole. In my view, we have got to see that weapons designed by the military to kill people are not in the hands of civilians.
I think there is a consensus.
(APPLAUSE)
I think -- I'm not going to say that everybody is in agreement. It's a divided country on guns. But there is a broad consensus on sensible gun safety regulations that I, coming from a state that has virtually no gun control, will do my best to bring together.
O'MALLEY: Martha, if I may...
RADDATZ: Thank you, Senator Sanders.
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: I think we're going to go on...
O'MALLEY: Excuse me, no.
MUIR: Governor, we have to abide the rules here, we'll call on you here shortly, but...
O'MALLEY: I am the only person on this stage who has actually...
MUIR: But I do want pick up on something...
O'MALLEY: ... passed comprehensive gun safety legislation with a ban on combat assault weapons, David.
And, look, there are profound differences...
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: Senator Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. Senator Sanders voted to give immunity to gun dealers. And Senator Sanders voted against even research dollars to look into this public health issue.
Secretary Clinton changes her position on this every election year, it seems, having one position in 2000 and then campaigning against President Obama and saying we don't need federal standards.
Look, what we need on this issue is not more polls. We need more principle. When ISIL does training videos that say the easiest way to get a combat assault weapon in the United States of America is at a gun show, then we should all be waking up. We need comprehensive gun safety legislation and a ban on assault weapons.
RADDATZ: Governor, now -- and let me stay with gun control for a minute, then. You talk about assault weapons. Even if you were able to ban the purchase of assault weapons tomorrow, Americans already own an estimated 7 to 10 million semi-automatic rifles.
Would you make it illegal to own those weapons, force people to turn them in? And if not, how would banning the sales really make a difference?
O'MALLEY: Because, Martha, it would prevent people like the guy that just got charged yesterday perhaps from being able to buy combat assault weapons. You know, we are the only nation, only developed nation on the planet...
RADDATZ: But, again, I'm not talking about buying. Would you have them confiscated? The ones that are already here?
O'MALLEY: No, Martha, I would not. And that's not what we did in Maryland. But you know what we did in Maryland? We overcame the NRA's objections. We overcame all of the crowds that were coming down there.
We did our own rallies. And at least if we enact these laws in a prospective way, we can address a major vulnerability in our country. ISIL videos, ISIL training videos are telling lone wolves the easiest way to buy a combat assault weapon in America is at a gun show.
And it's because of the flip-flopping, political approach of Washington that both of my two colleagues on this stage have represented there for the last forty years.
SANDERS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's calm down a little bit, Martin.
CLINTON: Yes, let's tell the truth, Martin.
O'MALLEY: I am telling the truth.
SANDERS: First of all, let's have some rules here, commentators.
MUIR: We will.
(LAUGHTER)
SANDERS: All right.
MUIR: But let me just establish that for you, senator. Really quickly governor, we are going to call on you tonight and it's very clear you have a lot to say but please wait until you're called upon. And senator, he invoked your record and I'll let you respond.
SANDERS: He sure did.
MUIR: I'll let you respond.
CLINTON: He invoked mine as well.
MUIR: And you will get some to as well.
SANDERS: Sure did. All right. First off, we can do all the great speeches we want but you're not going to succeed unless there is a consensus. In 1988, just to set the record straight governor, I ran for the U.S. House. We have one House member from Vermont, three candidates in the race. One candidate said, you know what, I don't think it's a great idea that we sell automatic weapons in this country that are used by the military to kill people very rapidly.
Gun people said, there were three candidates in the race, you vote for one of the others, but not Bernie Sanders. I lost that election by three percentage points. Quite likely, for that reason. So please, do not explain to me, coming from a state where democratic governors and republican governors have supported virtually no gun control.
(CROSSTALK)
Excuse me. Do not tell me that I have not shown courage in standing up to the gun people, in voting to ban assault weapons, voting for instant background checks, voting to end the gun show loop hole and now we're in a position to create a consensus in America on gun safety.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Senator, thank you. I want to move on here. Secretary Clinton, you brought up Donald Trump a short time ago.
CLINTON: I do and this is an important issue and I know we'll get to a lot of other critical ones as well. I actually agree with Governor O'Malley about the need for common sense gun safety measures. And I applaud his record in Maryland. I just wish he wouldn't misrepresent mine. I have been for the Brady bill, I have been against assault weapons.
I have voted not to give gun makers and sellers immunity. And I also know that -- and I'm glad to see this -- Senator Sanders has really moved in face of the facts about what we're confronting in our country. I know that he has said in the two previous that he wants to take on this immunity issue because we need to send a strong message to the gun manufacturers, to the sellers, to the gun lobby.
And I would hope, Senator Sanders, that you would join the Democrats who are trying to close the Charleston loophole, that you would sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to remove the absolute immunity. We need to move on this consensus that exists in the country. It's no longer enough just to say the vast majority of Americans want common sense gun safety measures including gun owners.
We need, and only the three of us will do this, nobody on the Republican side will even admit there's a problem. And in whatever way the three of us can we need to move this agenda forward and begin to deal with the gun lobby and the intimidation that they present.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Secretary Clinton, thank you. We're going to move on from guns here and go back to something you mentioned a short time ago. You brought up Donald Trump first here this evening. We've now seen the polling done well after his proposed ban on Muslims coming to America. Thirty-six percent of Americans, more than a third, agree with him.
You have weighed in already on Donald Trump. You've weighed in on the proposed ban. But what would you say to the millions of Americans watching tonight who agree with him? Are they wrong?
CLINTON: Well I think a lot of people are understandably reacting out of fear and anxiety about what they're seeing. First what they saw in Paris, now what they have seen in San Bernardino. And Mr. Trump has a great capacity to use bluster and bigotry to inflame people and to make think there are easy answers to very complex questions.
So what I would say is, number one, we need to be united against the threats that we face. We need to have everybody in our country focused on watching what happens and reporting it if it's suspicious, reporting what you hear. Making sure that Muslim Americans don't feel left out or marginalized at the very moment when we need their help.
CLINTON: You know, I was a senator from New York after 9/11, and we spent countless hours trying to figure out how to protect the city and the state from perhaps additional attacks. One of the best things that was done, and George W. Bush did this and I give him credit, was to reach out to Muslim Americans and say, we're in this together. You are not our adversary, you are our partner.
And we also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don't fall on receptive ears. He is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists. So I want to explain why this is not in America's interest to react with this kind of fear and respond to this sort of bigotry.
MUIR: Secretary, thank you.
Senator Sanders, I did want to ask you about a neighbor in San Bernardino who reportedly witnessed packages being delivered to that couple's home, that it set off red flags, but they didn't report it because they were afraid to profile. What would you say to Americans afraid to profile? Is it ever acceptable?
SANDERS: Well, the answer is, obviously, if you see suspicious activity, you report it. That's kind of a no-brainer. You know, somebody is loading guns and ammunition into a house, I think it's a good idea to call 911. Do it.
(LAUGHTER)
MUIR: But I'm asking about -- I'm asking about profiling. Because a lot of people are afraid of that.
SANDERS: But I want to talk -- I want to talk about something else, because Secretary Clinton I think made some interesting and good points. What you have now is a very dangerous moment in American history.
The secretary is right: Our people are fearful. They are anxious on a number of levels. They are anxious about international terrorism and the possibility of another attack on America. We all understand that.
But you know what else they're anxious about? They're anxious about the fact that they are working incredibly long hours, they're worried about their kids, and they're seeing all the new income and wealth -- virtually all of it -- going to the top 1 percent. And they're looking around them, and they're looking at Washington, and they're saying the rich are getting much richer, I'm getting poorer, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do for my kids?
And somebody like a Trump comes along and says, "I know the answers. The answer is that all of the Mexicans, they're criminals and rapists, we've got to hate the Mexicans. Those are your enemies. We hate all the Muslims, because all of the Muslims are terrorists. We've got to hate the Muslims." Meanwhile, the rich get richer.
So what I say to those people who go to Donald Trump's rallies, understand: He thinks a low minimum wage in America is a good idea. He thinks low wages are a good idea.
I believe we stand together to address the real issues facing this country, not allow them to divide us by race or where we come from. Let's create an America that works for all of us, not the handful on top.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Senator, thank you.
RADDATZ: I want to move to another...
O'MALLEY: Martha, may I -- Martha, may I...
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: No, no, not yet, Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Can I share this quick story?
RADDATZ: No, not yet, Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Oh. All right.
RADDATZ: I'll come to you when we call on you. Thank you very much.
O'MALLEY: When you come back to me, I'll share that story.
RADDATZ: You'll be happy. I'll let -- I'll let you talk then.
Secretary Clinton, I want to talk about a new terrorist tool used in the Paris attacks, encryption. FBI Director James Comey says terrorists can hold secret communications which law enforcement cannot get to, even with a court order.
You've talked a lot about bringing tech leaders and government officials together, but Apple CEO Tim Cook said removing encryption tools from our products altogether would only hurt law-abiding citizens who rely on us to protect their data. So would you force him to give law enforcement a key to encrypted technology by making it law?
CLINTON: I would not want to go to that point. I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners.
It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology, Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts.
And maybe the back door is the wrong door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that. But I also understand, when a law enforcement official charged with the responsibility of preventing attacks -- to go back to our early questions, how do we prevent attacks -- well, if we can't know what someone is planning, we are going to have to rely on the neighbor or, you know, the member of the mosque or the teacher, somebody to see something.
CLINTON: I just think there's got to be a way, and I would hope that our tech companies would work with government to figure that out. Otherwise, law enforcement is blind -- blind before, blind during, and, unfortunately, in many instances, blind after.
So we always have to balance liberty and security, privacy and safety, but I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe. And that's what i hope, there can be some understanding and cooperation to achieve.
RADDATZ: And Governor O'Malley, where do you draw the line between national security and personal security?
O'MALLEY: I believe that we should never give up our privacy; never should give up our freedoms in exchange for a promise of security. We need to figure this out together. We need a collaborative approach. We need new leadership.
The way that things work in the modern era is actually to gather people around the table and figure these things out. The federal government should have to get warrants. That's not some sort of passe you know, antique sort of principle that safeguards our freedoms.
But at the same time with new technologies I believe that the people creating these projects -- I mean these products also have an obligation to come together with law enforcement to figure these things out; true to our American principles and values.
My friend Kashif, who is a doctor in Maryland; back to this issue of our danger as a democracy of turning against ourselves. He was putting his 10 and 12-year-old boys to bed the other night. And he is a proud American Muslim. And one of his little boys said to him, "Dad, what happens if Donald Trump wins and we have to move out of our homes?" These are very, very real issues. this is a clear and present danger in our politics within.
We need to speak to what unites us as a people; freedom of worship, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. And we should never be convinced to give up those freedoms in exchange for a promise of greater security; especially from someone as untried and as incompetent as Donald Trump.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Governor O'Malley.
MUIR: Martha, we're going to turn now to refugees coming to America. And on the subject of refugees, more than half of all Americans now say they oppose taking in refugees from Syria and across the Middle East.
Secretary Clinton, you have said that it would undermine who we are as Americans, shutting our doors. But New Hampshire's governor, where we are right here tonight, a democrat and a supporter of yours, is among more than 30 governors who are now concerned. Governor Maggie Hassan says, "we should halt acceptance of Syrian refugees until U.S. authorities can assure the vetting process, halt Syrian refugees." Is she wrong?
CLINTON: Well, I agree that we have to have the toughest screening and vetting...
MUIR: But a halt?
CLINTON: I don't think a halt is necessary. What we have to do is put all of our resources through the Department of Homeland Security, through the State Department, through our intelligence agencies, and we have to have an increased vetting and screening. Now, this takes, David, 18 months to 24 months, two years.
So I know it's not going to happen overnight and everything that can be done should be done. But the process should move forward while we are also taking on ISIS, putting together the kind of strategy that I've advocated for, and making sure that the vetting and the screening is as tough as possible. Because I do believe that we have a history and a tradition, that is part of our values system and we don't want to sacrifice our values.
We don't want to make it seem as though we are turning into a nation of fear instead of a nation of resolve. So I want us to have a very tough screening process but I want that process to go forward. And if at the end of 18 months, 24 months there are people who have been cleared, and I would prioritize widows, and orphans, and the elderly, people who may have relatives, families, or have nowhere else to go. I would prioritize them.
And that would I think give the American public a bit more of a sense of security about who is being processed and who might end up coming as refugees.
MUIR: Governor O'Malley, obviously you were governor yourself at one time. What would you say to New Hampshire's governor tonight? Is she wrong on this?
O'MALLEY: No, what I would say is this is look, I was the first of the three of us to call for America to accept the 65,000 refugees we were asked to accept. And if this humanitarian crisis increases, we should accept more.
MUIR: So the idea of a halt or a pause?
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: David, there are wider vulnerabilities than when it comes to refugees. I met recently with some members of the Chaldean Christian communities and the wait times are a year, 18 months, 24 months. There is a pretty excruciating process that refugees go through. We need to invest more in terms of the other sort of visas and the other sort of waivers.
O'MALLEY: What these Chaldean families told me was that their families in Syria, when ISIS moves into their town, they actually paint a red cross across the door and mark their homes for demolition, and that tells the family you'd better get out now. The sort of genocide and brutality that the victims are suffering, these are not the perpetrators.
We need to be the nation whose enduring symbol is the Statue of Liberty, and we need to act like the great country we are, according to our values.
MUIR: Governor, thank you.
RADDATZ: Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, we're going to move on. We're going to move on.
SANDERS: Excuse me. May I have a chance to respond to this issue?
RADDATZ: We're going to move on to the fight against ISIS. You're the one who told us we have to follow the rules and break it off.
(LAUGHTER)
SANDERS: Yeah, but the rule includes equal -- got it. All right.
(LAUGHTER)
RADDATZ: OK. Let's keep going. Thank you.
SANDERS: All right. Let's keep going. OK.
RADDATZ: Thank you. I do want to move to the fight against ISIS.
SANDERS: Yeah.
RADDATZ: For the people of New Hampshire, the brutality of ISIS is personal. James Foley grew up here. The first hostage, a journalist, brutally executed last year. You've all said ISIS is a ruthless enemy and must be stopped. Al Qaida as well.
Senator Sanders, you voted to send U.S. ground forces to fight in the coalition to help destroy Al Qaida in Afghanistan. Can you then explain you why don't support sending U.S. combat troops to join a coalition to fight ISIS?
SANDERS: And I also voted and helped lead the effort against the war in Iraq, which will go down in history as one of the worst foreign blunders -- foreign policy blunders in the history of our country.
I voted against the first Gulf War, which set the stage, I believe, for the second Iraq war. And what I believe right now, and I believe this is terribly important, is the United States of America cannot succeed, or be thought of as the policeman of the world, that when there's an international crisis all over the world, in France and in the U.K. Or -- hey, just call up the American military and the American taxpayers, they're going to send the troops.
And if they have to be in the Middle East for 20 or 30 years no problem.
RADDATZ: But why Al Qaida, why not ISIS?
SANDERS: I have a problem with that, Martha. What I believe has got to happen is there must be an international coalition, including Russia, a well-coordinated effort.
But I agree, as I mentioned a moment ago, with King Abdullah. This is a war for the soul of Islam. The troops on the ground should not be American troops. They should be Muslim troops. I believe that countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have got to step up to the plate, have got to contribute the money that we need, and the troops that we need, to destroy ISIS with American support.
RADDATZ: The administration has tried that over and over again. If it doesn't work and this threat is so great, what's your plan B?
SANDERS: My plan is to make it work, to tell Saudi Arabia that instead of going to war in Yemen, they, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, are going to have to go to war against ISIS.
To tell Qatar, that instead of spending $200 billion on the World Cup, maybe they should pay attention to ISIS, which is at their doorstep.
(APPLAUSE)
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, you too have ruled out a large U.S. combat force, yet you support sending in special operations forces to Syria, and sending those 100 to 200 troops to Iraq to do exploitation kill raids.
We've already lost one Delta Force member in a raid. It has looked very much to me like we're already in ground combat on frequent trips I've made there.
So, are you fooling Americans when you say, we're not putting American combat troops back into Syria or Iraq?
CLINTON: No. Not at all. I think that what we're facing with ISIS is especially complicated. It was a different situation in Afghanistan. We were attacked from Afghanistan. Al Qaida was based in Afghanistan. We went after those who had attacked us.
What's happening in Syria and Iraq is that, because of the failures in the region, including the failure of the prior government in Baghdad, led by Maliki, there has been a resurgence of Sunni activities, as exemplified by ISIS. And we have to support Sunni-Arab and Kurdish forces against ISIS, because I believe it would be not only a strategic mistake for the United States to put ground combat troops in, as opposed to special operators, as opposed to trainers, because that is exactly what ISIS wants.
They've advertised that. They want American troops back in the Middle East. They want American soldiers on the ground fighting them, giving them many more targets, and giving them a great recruiting opportunity.
CLINTON: So, I think it's absolutely wrong policy for us to be even imagining we're going end up putting tens of thousands of American troops into Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS.
And we do have to form a coalition. I know how hard that is. I have formed them. I put together a coalition, including Arabs, with respect to Libya and a coalition to put sanctions onto Iran. And you have to really work hard at it.
And the final thing I would say, bringing Donald Trump back into it, if you're going to put together a coalition in the region to take on the threat of ISIS you don't want to alienate the very countries and people you need to be part of the coalition. And so that is part of the reason why this is so difficult.
(APPLAUSE)
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want -- I want to follow up on that. You do support sending special operations forces there. You support what the president has done already. One of the lessons people draw from Vietnam and war since is that a little force can turn into a little more and a little more. President Obama certainly didn't expect to be sending 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan the first year of his presidency.
Are you prepared to run the risk of a bigger war to achieve your goals to destroy ISIS, or are you prepared to give up on those goals if it requires a larger force?
CLINTON: Well, I just think you're asking a question with a false choice. I believe if we lead an air coalition, which we are now in the position of doing and intensify it, if we continue to build back up the Iraqi army, which has had some recent success in Ramadi, as you know, if we get back talking to the tribal sheiks in Anbar to try to rebuild those relationships, which were very successful, in going after Al Qaida in Iraq, if we get the Turks to pay more attention to ISIS than they're paying to the Kurds, if we do put together the kind of coalition with the specific tasks that I am outlining, I think we can be successful in destroying ISIS.
So that's what I'm focused on, that's what I've outlined and that's what I would do as president.
RADDATZ: Governor O'Malley.
(APPLAUSE) You've emphasized the need for more human intelligence on the ground. What is it our intelligence community is not doing now that needs to be done?
O'MALLEY: Well, we have invested nowhere near what we should be investing in human intelligence on the ground. And what I'm talking about is not only the covert CIA intelligence, I'm also talking about diplomatic intelligence. I mean, we've seen time and time again, especially in this very troubled region of nation-state failures, and then we have no idea who the next generation of leaders are that are coming forward.
So what I would say is not only do we need to be thinking in military terms, but we do our military a disservice when we don't greatly dial up the investment that we are making in diplomacy and human intelligence and when we fail to dial up properly, the role of sustainable development in all of this. As president, I would make the administrator of USAID an actual cabinet member. We have to act in a much more whole of government approach, as General Dempsey said.
And I do believe, and I would disagree somewhat with one of my colleagues, this is a genocidal threat. They have now created a safe haven in the vacuum that we allowed to be partly and because of our blunders, to be created to be created in the areas of Syria and Iraq. We cannot allow safe havens, and as a leader of moral nations around this Earth, we need to come up with new alliances and new ways to prepare for these new sorts of threats, because Martha, this will not be the last region where nation-states fail.
And you've seen a little bit of this emerging in the -- in the African Union and the things that they have done to better stabilize Somalia. We need to pay attention here in Central America as well. So this is the new type of threats that we're facing and we need to lead as a nation in confronting it and putting together new alliances and new coalitions.
CLINTON: Well, I just want to quickly add...
RADDATZ: Thank you.
CLINTON: Martha, that -- you know, one of the reasons why I have advocated for a no-fly zone is in order to create those safe refuges within Syria, to try to protect people on the ground both from Assad's forces, who are continuing to drop barrel bombs, and from ISIS. And of course, it has to be de-conflicted with the Russians, who are also flying in that space.
I'm hoping that because of the very recent announcement of the agreement at the Security Council, which embodies actually an agreement that I negotiated back in Geneva in June of 2012, we're going to get a diplomatic effort in Syria to begin to try to make a transition. A no-fly zone would prevent the outflow of refugees and give us a chance to have some safe spaces.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I'd like to go back to that if I could. ISIS doesn't have aircraft, Al Qaida doesn't have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?
CLINTON: I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting air space. We know...
RADDATZ: But isn't that a decision you should make now, whether...
CLINTON: No, I don't think so. I am advocating...
RADDATZ: ... if you're advocating this?
CLINTON: I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I'm also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.
Now that Russia has joined us in the Security Council, has adopted an agreement that we hashed out a long day in Geneva three years ago, now I think we can have those conversations. The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.
(CROSSTALK)
MUIR: I want to take this to Senator -- I'm going to take this to Senator Sanders next, because I think there...
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: I have a difference of opinion with Secretary Clinton on this. Our differences are fairly deep on this issue. We disagreed on the war in Iraq. We both listened to the information from Bush and Cheney. I voted against the war.
But I think -- and I say this with due respect -- that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.
Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after. And in my view, what we need to do is put together broad coalitions to understand that we're not going to have a political vacuum filled by terrorists, that, in fact, we are going to move steadily -- and maybe slowly -- toward democratic societies, in terms of Assad, a terrible dictator. But I think in Syria the primary focus now must be on destroying ISIS and working over the years to get rid of Assad. That's the secondary issue.
CLINTON: That is exactly...
MUIR: Senator, thank you.
CLINTON: That is exactly what I just said and what I just described.
MUIR: Yeah, but, Secretary Clinton -- Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: And that is important, because now we have a U.N. Security Council that will enable us to do that. And, you know, with all due respect, Senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gadhafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution.
All of these are very difficult issues. I know that; I've been dealing with them for a long time. And, of course, we have to continue to do what is necessary when someone like Gadhafi, a despot with American blood on his hands, is overturned. But I'll tell you what would have happened, if we had not joined with our European partners and our Arab partners to assist the people in Libya, you would be looking at Syria. Now the Libyans are turning their attention to try to dislodge ISIS from its foothold and begin to try to move together to have a unified nation.
SANDERS: I was not the secretary of state...
MUIR: Senator Sanders, Senator Sanders, hold on. One moment, please. I'm going to ask the secretary here, because there does appear to be some daylight here between the policies, at least in respect to when you take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Right now or do you wait? Do you tackle ISIS first?
You have said, Secretary Clinton, that you come to the conclusion that we have to proceed on both fronts at once. We heard from the senator just this week that we must put aside the issue of how quickly we get rid of Assad and come together with countries, including Russia and Iran, to destroy ISIS first. Is he wrong?
CLINTON: I think we're missing the point here. We are doing both at the same time.
MUIR: But that's what he's saying, we should put that aside for now and go after ISIS.
CLINTON: Well, I don't agree with that, because we will not get the support on the ground in Syria to dislodge ISIS if the fighters there who are not associated with ISIS, but whose principal goal is getting rid of Assad, don't believe there is a political, diplomatic channel that is ongoing. We now have that. We have the U.N. Security Council adopting a resolution that lays out a transition path. It's very important we operate on both at the same time.
And let me just say a word about coalition-building, because I've heard Senator Sanders say this. I know how hard it is to build coalitions. I think it would be a grave mistake to ask for any more Iranian troops inside Syria. That is like asking the arsonist to come and pour more gas on the fire.
The Iranians getting more of a presence in Syria, linking with Hezbollah, their proxy in Lebanon, would threaten Israel and would make it more difficult for us to move on a path to have a transition that at some point would deal with Assad's future.
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: I happen to think...
O'MALLEY: I'd like to offer a...
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: She says we have to proceed on both fronts at once.
SANDERS: Secretary Clinton is right. This is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.
But this is what I do believe. Yes, of course Assad is a terrible dictator. But I think we have got to get our foreign policies and priorities right. The immediate -- it is not Assad who is attacking the United States. It is ISIS. And ISIS is attacking France and attacking Russian airliners.
The major priority, right now, in terms of our foreign and military policy should be the destruction of ISIS.
(APPLAUSE)
And I think -- and I think we bring together that broad coalition, including Russia, to help us destroy ISIS. And work on a timetable to get rid of Assad, hopefully through Democratic elections. First priority, destroy ISIS.
MUIR: Senator sanders, thank you.
O'MALLEY: May I offer a different generation's perspective on this?
MUIR: Governor O'Malley?
O'MALLEY: During the Cold War -- during the Cold War, we got into a bad habit of always looking to see who was wearing the jersey of the communists, and who was wearing the U.S. jersey. We got into a bad habit of creating big bureaucracies, old methodologies, to undermine regimes that were not friendly to the United States. Look what we did in Iran with Mosaddegh. And look at the results that we're still dealing with because of that. I would suggest to you that we need to leave the Cold War behind us, and we need to put together new alliances and new approaches to dealing with this, and we need to restrain ourselves.
I mean, I know Secretary Clinton was gleeful when Gadhafi was torn apart. And the world, no doubt is a better place without him. But look, we didn't know what was happening next. And we fell into the same trap with Assad, saying -- as if it's our job to say, Assad must go.
We have a role to play in this world. But we need to leave the Cold War and that sort of antiquated thinking behind.
MUIR: But -- you criticized -- you criticized Secretary Clinton for what came next. What's your proposal for what comes after Assad?
O'MALLEY: I believe that we need to focus on destroying ISIL. That is the clear and present danger. And I believe that we can springboard off of this new U.N. resolution, and we should create, as Secretary Clinton indicated, and I agree with that, that there should be a political process.
But we shouldn't be the ones declaring that Assad must go. Where did it ever say in the Constitution, where is it written that it's the job of the United States of America or its secretary of State to determine when dictators have to go?
We have a role to play in this world. But it is not the world -- the role of traveling the world looking for new monsters to destroy.
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: David...
CLINTON: Since he has been making all kinds of comments.
(LAUGHTER)
I think it's fair to say, Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000 Syrians. The reason we are in the mess we're in, that ISIS has the territory it has, is because of Assad.
I advocated arming the moderate opposition back in the day when I was still secretary of State, because I worried we would end up exactly where we are now.
And so, when we look at these complex problems, I wish it could be either/or. I wish we could say yes, let's go destroy ISIS and let's let Assad continue to destroy Syria, which creates more terrorists, more extremists by the minute.
No. We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us as well as the region... SANDERS (?): Secretary...
CLINTON: And we finally have a U.N. Security Council Resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.
SANDERS: Could I just say -- just say this...
CLINTON: If the United States does not lead, there is not another leader. There is a vacuum.
SANDERS: Can I just say this...
CLINTON: And we have to lead, if we're going to be successful.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Senator Sanders, please. Go ahead.
Senator Sanders, a last word on this.
SANDERS: Of course the United States must lead. But the United States is not the policeman of the world. The United States must not be involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. The United States, at the same time, cannot successfully fight Assad and ISIS.
ISIS, now, is the major priority. Let's get rid of Assad later. Let's have a Democratic Syria. But the first task is to bring countries together to destroy ISIS.
MUIR: Senator Sanders, thank you. When we come back here tonight, the other major issues of this election: jobs, the economy, health care.
Which candidates will make the best case for the middle class, as our coverage of the Democratic debate, here in New Hampshire, continues right after this on ABC.
ANNOUNCER: ABC News coverage of the New Hampshire Democratic debate will continue in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MUIR: Welcome back tonight. As you can see, we have a packed audience here in New Hampshire and we're going to continue. We've already had a spirited conversation here at the top of the broadcast about ISIS, about the concerns of terror here on the homefront and as we await Secretary Clinton backstage, we're going to begin on the economy.
We want to turn to the American jobs, wages and raises in this country. And we believe Secretary Clinton will be coming around the corner any minute. But in the mean time we want to start with this eye-opening number. And Senator Sanders, this question goes to you first, anyway.
In 1995, the median American household income was $52,600 in today's money. This year, it's $53,600. That's 20 more years on the job with just a 2 percent raise. In a similar time-frame, raises for CEOs went up more than 200 percent.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Sorry.
MUIR: We're going to continue here, and Secretary, you'll get a chance on this too.
But as I pointed out the CEO pay, 200 percent of their time -- for that family of just 2 percent. You've all said, "you would raise the minimum wage." But Senator Sanders what else - speak to that household tonight. 20 years, just a 2 percent raise, how as president would you get them a raise right away?
SANDERS: First of all, we recognize that we have a rigged economy, as you've indicated. Middle class in this country for the last 40 years has been disappearing; are we better of today then we were when Bush left office? Absolutely. But as you've indicated for millions of American workers, people in New Hampshire -- all over America, they're working longer hours for lower wages deeply worried about their kids. So what do we do?
First statement is, we tell the billionaire class, "they cannot have it all." For a start, they're going to start to pay their fair share of taxes. Second of all what we do, is you raise the minimum wage to living wage, 15 bucks an hour over the next several years. Next thing we do, pay equity for women workers. Women should not be making 79 cents on the dollar compared to that.
Next thing that we do, real unemployment -- official unemployment, 5 percent, real employment 10 percent, youth unemployment, off the charts. We rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, our roads our bridges, our rail systems, we create 13 million jobs with a trillion-dollar investment.
Furthermore, in a competitive global economy, it is imperative that we have the best educated workforce in the world. That is why I'm going to have a tax on Wall Street speculation to make certain that public colleges and universities in America are tuition free.
MUIR: Senator Sanders, thank you.
Governor O'Malley, what would propose that would be different, how would you get the middle class a raise and without waiting another 20 years for another 2 percent.
O'MALLEY: Look these are the things that we did in own state through the recession. We actually passed a living wage. We raised the minimum wage. We actually raised it to the highest goals of any state in the nation also in minority and women participant goals because we understood that the way you reinvigorate and make fair market American capitalism work, is to make the choices and the investments that include more people more full in the economic success of your state.
All through the recession, we defended the highest median income in America and the second highest median income for African American families. How? By actually doing more for education. We increased education funding by 37 percent.
We were the only state in American that went four years in a row without a penny increase in college tuition. We invested more in our infrastructure and we squared our shoulders to the great business opportunity of this era and that is moving our economy to a 100 percent clean electric energy future. We created 2,000 new jobs in the solar industry and we fought every single day to adopt more inclusive economic practices.
O'MALLEY: So David, the conclusion of all of those things is this; they weren't hopes, they weren't dreams, they weren't amorphous goals out there. We actually took action to do these things and as president, I have put forward 15 strategic goals that will make wages go up again for all American families. Universal national service is an option for every kid in America to cut youth employment.
And I'm the only candidate on this stage to put forward a new agenda for America's cities so we can employ more people in the heart of great American cities and get them back to work.
MUIR: Governor, thank you. Secretary Clinton...
(APPLAUSE)
As you were walking in, I was talking about the median American household getting a two percent raise over the last 20 years, that CEO pay in that same time frame has gone up 200 percent. So for those families watching tonight, how do you get them a raise if you're president?
CLINTON: Well, I've been talking to a lot of these families, and this is such an outrage, both because it's bad for our economy, we're a 70 percent consumption economy, people need to feel optimistic and confident, they need to believe their hard work is going to be rewarded, and it's bad for our democracy. It's absolutely the case that if people feel that the game is rigged, that has consequences.
I think it's great standing up here with the senator and the governor talking about these issues, because you're not going to hear anything like this from any of the Republicans who are running for president.
(APPLAUSE)
They don't want to raise the minimum wage, they don't want to do anything to increase incomes. At the center of my economic policy is raising incomes, because people haven't been able to get ahead, and the cost of everything, from college tuition to prescription drugs, has gone up.
Of course we have to raise the minimum wage. Of course we have to do more to incentivize profit sharing, like we see with Market Basket right here in New Hampshire and New England, where all of the employees get a chance to share in the profits.
(APPLAUSE)
And we've got to do more on equal pay for equal work. That means pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so we have transparency about how much people are making. That's the way to get women's wages up, and that's good for them and good for their families and good for our communities.
(APPLAUSE)
And there is a lot we can do in college affordability. I have debt-free tuition plans, free community college plans, getting student debt down. I also am very committed to getting the price of drugs down. And there's a lot. You can go to my website...
MUIR: Secretary...
CLINTON: ... hillaryclinton.com, and read about it. But I guess the final thing that -- that I would say is this is the kind of debate we need to take to the Republicans in the fall.
MUIR: Secretary, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: This is the election...
MUIR: We're going to -- we're going to...
CLINTON: ... issues they have to respond to.
MUIR: And we're going to talk about college education in a moment. But Secretary Clinton, I did want to ask you, the last time you ran for president, Fortune Magazine put you on its cover with the headline Business Loves Hillary, pointing out your support for many CEOs in corporate America. I'm curious, eight years later, should corporate America love Hillary Clinton?
CLINTON: Everybody should.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Look, I have said I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful. I want to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share, which they have not been doing. I want the Buffett Rule to be in effect, where millionaires have to pay 30 percent tax rates instead of 10 percent to nothing in some cases. I want to make sure we rein in the excessive use of political power to feather the nest and support the super wealthy.
But I also want to create jobs and I want to be a partner with the private sector. I'm particularly keen on creating jobs in small business. My dad was a small businessman, a really small business. I want to do more to help incentivize and create more small businesses. So if -- if people who are in the private sector know what I stand for, it's what I fought for as a senator, it's what I will do as president, and they want to be part of once again building our economy so it works for everybody, more power to them, because they are the kind of business leaders who understand that if we don't get the American economy moving and growing, we're not going to recognize our country and we're not going to give our kids the same opportunities that we had.
MUIR: Secretary, thank you. Senator Sanders...
(APPLAUSE)
I want to stay on this and ask you how big a role does corporate America play in a healthy economy and will corporate America love a President Sanders?
SANDERS: No, I think they won't.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
So Hillary and I have a difference. The CEOs of large multinationals may like Hillary. They ain't going to like me and Wall Street is going to like me even less.
(APPLAUSE)
And the reason for that is we've got to deal with the elephant in the room, which is the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. When you have six financial institutions in this country that issue two-thirds of the credit cards and one-third of the mortgages, when three out of four of them are larger today than when we bailed them out because they are too big to fail, we've got to re- establish Glass-Steagall, we have got to break the large financial institutions up.
SANDERS: So I don't think...
(APPLAUSE)
... having said that, I don't think I'm going to get a whole lot of campaign contributions from Wall Street. I don't have a super PAC. I don't want campaign contributions from corporate America.
And let me be clear: While there are some great corporations creating jobs and trying to do the right thing, in my view -- and I say this very seriously -- the greed of the billionaire class, the greed of Wall Street is destroying this economy and is destroying the lives of millions of Americans. We need an economy that works for the middle class, not just a handful of billionaires, and I will fight and lead to make that happen.
MUIR: Senator, thank you. I want to...
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
MUIR: Governor, let me just ask you, though, because it is an important question, how important a role do you think corporate America plays in a healthy economy here in the U.S.?
O'MALLEY: Look, I look at our economy as an ecosystem. And the fact of the matter is that the more fully people participate, the more our workers earn, the more they will spend, the more our economy will grow. And most heads of businesses -- large, medium and small -- understand that.
But there is a better way forward than either of those offered by my two opponents here on this stage. We're not going to fix what ails our economy, we're not going to make wages go up for everyone by either trying to replace American capitalism with socialism -- which, by the way, the rest of the world is moving away from -- nor will we fix it by submitting to sort of Wall Street-directed crony capitalism.
And for my part, I have demonstrated the ability to have the backbone to take on Wall Street in ways that Secretary Clinton never, ever has. In fact, in the last debate, very shamefully, she tried to hide her cozy relationship with Wall Street big banks by invoking the attacks of 9/11.
I believe that the way forward for our country is to actually reinvigorate our antitrust department with the directive to promote fair competition. There's mergers that are happening in every aspect of our country that is bad for competition and it's bad for -- for upward mobility of wages.
And the worst type of concentration, Secretary Clinton, is the concentration of the big banks, the big six banks that you went to and spoke to and told them, oh, you weren't responsible for the crash, not by a long shot.
And that's why today you still cannot support, as I do, breaking up the big banks and making sure that we pass a modern-day Glass- Steagall, like we had in late 1999, before it was repealed and led to the crash, where so many millions of families lost their jobs and their homes. And I was on the front lines of that, looking into the eyes of my neighbors...
CLINTON: OK...
MUIR: Governor O'Malley, thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
MUIR: I do want to ask you, Secretary Clinton. Let me just ask you...
CLINTON: Let me respond...
MUIR: We did -- we did -- Secretary Clinton, let me just ask you...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Under the rules, I have been -- I have been invoked, David, so let me respond very quickly. Number one...
MUIR: And in particular...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Number one, there are currently two hedge fund billionaires running ads against me here in New Hampshire. They started in Iowa. Now, you'd have to ask yourself, why are they running ads against me? And the answer is: Because they know I will go right after them, that I will not let their agenda be America's agenda.
Secondly, I think it's important to point out that about 3 percent of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world. You can go to opensecrets.org and check that. I have more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, number three -- and let me say this -- when Governor O'Malley was heading the Democratic Governors Association, he had no trouble at all going to Wall Street to raise money to run campaigns for Democratic governors. And he also had no trouble appointing an investment banker to be in charge of his consumer protection bureau when he was governor.
So, you know, again, the difference between us and the Republicans is night and day. And there is only one person on this stage who voted to take away authority from the SEC and the Commodities Future Trading Commission that they could no longer regulate what are called swaps and derivatives, which actually contributed to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and that was Senator Sanders.
So if we're going to be talking like this, we can -- and maybe we can score some political points -- but the fact is: Every one of us stands for the kind of economy that will work better for every American. And if that means taking on Wall Street, I have a plan that is tough and comprehensive and praised by a lot of folks who say it goes further than what both Senator Sanders and Governor O'Malley are proposing.
SANDERS: Let me just -- let me just...
MUIR: Secretary Clinton, thank you.
SANDERS: Let me just jump in. My name was invoked.
MUIR: Senator?
SANDERS: So with that invocation, let me say a few words.
(LAUGHTER)
Secretary Clinton, I don't have a super PAC. I don't get any money from Wall Street. You have gotten a whole lot of money over the years from Wall Street. But most importantly, when you look at what happened in the 1990s, go to berniesanders.com. I'll advertise my Web site as well.
(LAUGHTER)
And what you'll find is that I led -- helped lead the effort as a member of the House financial committee against Alan Greenspan, against a guy named Bill Clinton, maybe you know him, maybe you don't.
(LAUGHTER)
Against the Republican leadership, who all thought it would be a great idea to merge investor banks and commercial banks and large insurance companies. What a brilliant idea that would be.
Go to YouTube. Find out what I said to Greenspan. At the end of the day, if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, and the governor makes a good point about trade, anti-trade, anti-monopoly activities.
Wall Street today has too much political power. It has too much economic power. To get deregulated -- listen to this, they spent $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions over a 10-year period.
MUIR: Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: Wall Street is a threat to the economy. They've got to be broken up.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Thank you, Senator. RADDATZ: And we're going to move on to health care.
Secretary Clinton, the Department of Health and Human Services says more than 17 million Americans who are not insured now have health coverage because of Obamacare. But for Americans who already had health insurance the cost has gone up 27 percent in the last five years while deductibles are up 67 percent, health care costs are rising faster than many Americans can manage.
What's broken in Obamacare that needs to be fixed right now? And what would you do to fix it?
CLINTON: Well, I would certainly build on the successes of the Affordable Care Act and work to fix some of the glitches that you just referenced.
Number one, we do have more people who have access to health care. We have ended the terrible situation that people with pre- existing conditions were faced with where they couldn't find at any affordable price health care.
Women are not charged more than men any longer for our health insurance. And we keep young people on our policies until they turn 26.
(APPLAUSE)
Those are all really positive developments. But out-of-pocket costs have gone up too much and prescription drug costs have gone through the roof. And so what I have proposed, number one, is a $5,000 tax credit to help people who have very large out-of-pocket costs be able to afford those.
Number two, I want Medicare to be able to negotiate for lower drug prices just like they negotiate with other countries' health systems.
(APPLAUSE)
We end up paying the highest prices in the world. And I want us to be absolutely clear about making sure the insurance companies in the private employer policy arena as well as in the Affordable Care exchanges are properly regulated so that we are not being gamed.
And I think that's an important point to make because I'm going through and analyzing the points you were making, Martha. We don't have enough competition and we don't have enough oversight of what the insurance companies are charging everybody right now.
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: But you did say those were glitches.
CLINTON: Yes.
RADDATZ: Just glitches?
CLINTON: Well, they're glitches because...
RADDATZ: Twenty-seven percent in the last five years, deductibles up 67 percent?
CLINTON: It is. Because part of this is the startup challenges that this system is facing. We have fought, as Democrats, for decades to get a health care plan. I know. I've got the scars to show from the effort back in the early '90s.
We want to build on it and fix it. And I'm confident we can do that. And it will have effects in the private market. And one of the reasons in some states why the percentage cost has gone up so much is because governors there would not extend Medicaid.
And so people are still going to get health care, thankfully, in emergency rooms, in hospitals. Those costs are then added to the overall cost, which does increase the insurance premiums for people in the private system.
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: Senator Sanders, I want you to respond to what she was saying, but you're instead calling for single-payer health care.
SANDERS: Yes, exactly, exactly.
RADDATZ: You note people won't have to pay deductibles or premiums but they will have to pay new taxes. Can you tell us specifically how much people will be expected to pay?
SANDERS: Yes, well, roughly. Let me say this. As a member of the Health Education Committee that helped write the Affordable Care Act, much of what Secretary Clinton said about what we have done, among other things, ending the obscenity of this pre-existing situation is a step forward.
Seventeen more million more people have health care. It is a step forward. A step forward.
But this is what we also have to say. Not only are deductibles rising, 29 million Americans still have no health insurance and millions of people can't afford to go to the doctor. Major crisis and primary health care. Here is the bottom line. Why is it that the United States of America today is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right?
Why is it...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Why is it that we are -- why is it that we spend almost three times per capita as to what they spend in the U.K., 50 percent more than what they pay in France, countries that guarantee health care to all of their people and in many cases, have better health care outcomes. Bottom line.
This ties into campaign finance reform. The insurance companies, the drug companies are bribing the United States Congress. We need to pass a Medicare for all single payer system. It will lower the cost of health care for a middle-class family by thousands of dollars a year.
RADDATZ: Senator Sanders, you didn't really tell us specifically how much people will be expected to pay...
SANDERS: But they will not be paying, Martha, any private insurance. So it's unfair to say in total...
RADDATZ: But you can't tell us this specifically, even if you were...
SANDERS: I can tell you that adding up the fact you're not paying any private insurance, businesses are not paying any private insurance. The average middle-class family will be saving thousands of dollars a year. RADDATZ: OK. Let's go to talk about the high cost of college education and for that we turn to the executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, right here at Saint Anselm college, Neil Levesque.
Neil?
LEVESQUE: Here to New Hampshire again. As you know, this auditorium is filled with many Saint Anselm college students. They know the outstanding student debt right now in America is $1.3 trillion. That private education costs have gone up in the last decade 26 percent, and 40 percent for public education.
So knowing that, we know you want to make public education more affordable but how do you really lower the cost? Senator Sanders, you mentioned a few minutes ago that you want free tuition for public colleges.
SANDERS: And universities.
LEVESQUE: How does that really lower the cost other than just shifting the cost to taxpayers?
SANDERS: Well, Neil, I think we've got to work on a two-pronged approach. And your point is absolutely well taken. The cost of college education is escalating a lot faster than the cost of inflation. There are a lot of factors involved in that.
And that is that we have some colleges and universities that are spending a huge amount of money on fancy dormitories and on giant football stadiums. Maybe we should focus on quality education with well-paid faculty members. But...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: And I understand in many universities a heck of a lot of vice presidents who earn a big salary. But, bottom line is this is the year 2015. If we are going to be competitive in the global economy we need the best educated workforce.
It is insane to my mind, hundreds of thousands of young people today, bright qualified people, cannot go to college because they cannot afford -- their families cannot afford to send them. Millions coming out of school as you indicated, deeply in debt. What do we do?
My proposal is to put a speculation tax on wall street, raise very substantial sums of money, not only make public colleges and universities tuition-free, but also substantially lower interest rates on student debt. You have families out there paying 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent on student debt, refinance their homes at 3 percent.
What sense is that? So I think we need radical changes in the funding of higher education. We should look at college today the way high school was looked at 60 years ago. All young people who have the ability should be able to get a college education. (APPLAUSE)
LEVESQUE: Governor O'Malley, how do you propose -- Governor O'Malley, how do you propose lowering some of these costs associated with higher education?
O'MALLEY: Yes, this one falls under the category of, I have actually done this. As a governor we actually made the greater investments so that we could go four years in a row without a penny's increase to college tuition.
My plan actually goes further than Senator Sanders because a big chunk of the cost is actually room and board and books and fees. So as a nation we need to increase what we invest in Pell grants. Yes, we need to make it easier for parents to refinance.
O'MALLEY: But states need to do more as well. And I propose a block grant program that will keep the states in the game as well. I believe that all of our kids should go into an income-based repayment plan.
I'm joined tonight by two daughters, Tara and Grace. My oldest daughter's a teacher. Man (ph), their mother's here as well. We were proud of them on graduation day, weren't we, Katie? And we're going to be proud every month for the rest of our lives.
I mean, we had to borrow so much money to send them to college and were not the only ones. There're families all across America who aren't able to contribute to our economy because of this crushing student loan. I also propose that we can pay for this with a tax on high volume trades and we need to because my dad came to college after World War II on a G.I. Bill.
But today, we're the only nation on the planet that's saddling our kids with a lifetime of bills. That's a drag on the economy. It's one of the key investments we need to make. I was flattered that Secretary Clinton two months later borrowed so many of my proposals to incorporate into hers. And in our party, unlike the Republican party, we actually believe that the more our people learn, the more they will earn and higher education should be a right for every kid.
MUIR: Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Right.
MCELVEEN: Secretary Clinton, how does your plan differentiate from your opponents?
CLINTON: Well, I have what I call the new college compact. Because I think everybody has to have some skin in this game, you know.
Number one, States have been dis-investing in higher education. In fact, I think New Hampshire, in state tuition for public colleges and universities, is among the highest if not the highest in the country. So states over a period of decades have put their money elsewhere; into prisons, into highways, into things other than higher education. So under my compact, the federal government will match money that the states begin to put back in to the higher education system.
Secondly, I don't believe in free tuition for everybody. I believe we should focus on middle-class families, working families, and poor kids who have the ambition and the talent to go to college and get ahead. So I have proposed debt free tuition, which I think is affordable and I would move a lot of the Pell Grant and other aid into the arena where it could be used for living expense. So I put all of this together, again, on my website and I've gotten such a good response.
But I want to quickly say, one of the areas that Senator Sanders touched on in talking about education and certainly talking about health care is his commitment to really changing the systems. Free college, a single payer system for health, and it's been estimated were looking at 18 to $20 trillion, about a 40 percent in the federal budget.
And I have looked at his proposed plans for health care for example, and it really does transfer every bit of our health care system including private health care, to the states to have the states run. And I think we've got to be really thoughtful about how we're going to afford what we proposed, which is why everything that I have proposed I will tell you exactly how I'm going to pay for it; including college.
MCELVEEN: Thank you Secretary Clinton, thank you.
SANDERS: May I respond to the critique on the ...
MCELVEEN: Back to you David.
MUIR: We're going to get right into this Senator but I want to ask about taxes next. This is included.
SANDERS: I would just...
MUIR: She was asking about that...
SANDERS: But Secretary Clinton is wrong.
As you know, because I know you know a lot about health care. You know that the United States per capita pays far and away more than other country. And it is unfair simply to say how much more the program will cost without making sure that people know that, we are doing away with cost of private insurance and that the middle class will be paying substantially less for health care on the single payer than on the Secretary's Clinton proposal.
CLINTON: Well, the only thing - the only thing I can go on Senator Sanders...
MUIR: Are we back on health care - Secretary Clinton hold one moment. Senator Sanders...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Your proposal is to go and send the health care system to the state.
MUIR: Secretary Clinton, please.
CLINTON: And my analysis is, that you are going to get more taxes out of middle class families. I'm the only person...
MUIR: So let's ask about it.
Secretary Clinton, let's turn to the taxes.
CLINTON: ... saying, no middle class tax raises. That's off the table...
MUIR: This is where we are going next, we are going next to taxes here...
SANDERS: Now, this is getting to be fun.
MUIR: This is fun.
(APPLAUSE)
This is democracy at work.
Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about your tax plan because from the crushing cost of college education, the next question most families have; is will my taxes go up under the next president? You have said it's your goal not to raise taxes on families making under $200,000 a year a goal. But can you say that's a promise as you stand here tonight?
CLINTON: That is a pledge that I'm making. I made it when I ran in 2008.
MUIR: A promise?
CLINTON: Yes, and it was the same one that President Obama made. Because I don't think we should be imposing new big programs that are going to raise middle class families' taxes.
We just heard that most families haven't had a wage increase since 2001. Since, you know, the end of the last Clinton administration when incomes did go up for everybody. And we've got to get back to where people can save money again, where they can invest in their families, and I don't think a middle-class tax should be part of anybody's plan right now.
SANDERS: Let me respond to...
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Secretary Clinton...
SANDERS: Let me respond to...
MUIR: Please.
SANDERS: Number one, most important economic reality of today is that over the last 30 years, there has been a transfer of trillions of dollars from the middle class to the top one-tenth of one percent who are seeing a doubling of the percentage of wealth that they own.
Now, when Secretary Clinton says, "I'm not going raise taxes on the middle class," let me tell you what she is saying. She is disagreeing with FDR on Social Security, LBJ on Medicare and with the vast majority of progressive Democrats in the House and the Senate, who today are fighting to end the disgrace of the United States being the only major country on Earth that doesn't provide paid family and medical leave.
What the legislation is is $1.61 a week. Now, you can say that's a tax on the middle class. It will provide three months paid family and medical leave for the working families of this country. I think, Secretary Clinton, $1.61 a week is a pretty good invest.
MUIR: Senator, thank you. Let me bring in Governor O'Malley...
CLINTON: Senator, I have been -- I have been fighting for paid...
MUIR: You've heard...
CLINTON: ... family leave for a very long time...
MUIR: Secretary Clinton.
SANDERS: David, thank you.
CLINTON: I have a way to pay for it that actually makes the wealthiest pay for it...
SANDERS: Then (inaudible)...
CLINTON: ... not everybody else.
SANDERS: Every (inaudible) Democrat and senator in support of this proposal introduced by your good friend and my good friend, Kirsten Gillibrand, Rosa DeLauro, got ears (ph) to legislation out there that will finally provide family and medical leave.
MUIR: Thank you. I want to bring in Governor O'Malley on this. We heard the promise from Secretary Clinton because people want to know about their taxes, will they go up. She has now promised here tonight not to raise them on families making $250,000 or less. Can you make that same promise if you're elected?
O'MALLEY: No, I've never made a promise like that. But unlike either of these two fine people, I've actually balanced a budget every single year. I was one -- I was the only -- one of only seven states that had a AAA bond rating. By the time I left, the average tax burden on Maryland families was the same as when I started.
But I did pass a more progressive income tax and asked the highest-earning people to pay another 14 percent. David, look, this is the big -- I agree, by the way, that we should have paid family leave. And I agree with Senator Sanders on that. And just like Social Security and unlike the Republicans, I think we should actually expand Social Security and increase average monthly benefits.
But look, there's one big entitlement we can no longer afford as a country, and that is the entitlement that the super wealthy among us, those earning more than a million dollars, feel that they're entitled to pay lower income tax rates and a far lower preferred income tax rate when it comes to capital gains.
If we were to raise the marginal rate to 45 percent for people earning more than a million dollars and if we tax capital gains essentially the same we do earnings from hard work and sweat and toil, you could generate $800 billion over the next ten years and that would do so much good for affordable college, debt-free college, cutting youth unemployment in half, investing in our cities again.
So the things I have done in office are the things that actually invest in growing our economy and making wages go up. That's the issue that we need to tackle as Americans, and we can do it and we know how.
MUIR: Governor O'Malley, thank you. A spirited debate on taxes. And there will be more with the Democratic debate in New Hampshire, when we come back right here on ABC. More in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MUIR: Welcome back tonight to New Hampshire. The Democratic debate continues here on ABC.
And Secretary Clinton, we want to turn to race, now, in America. There is a real concern in this country from Black Lives Matter and from other community groups that we're just now seeing, with smartphones and cell phones, what many have been dealing with for years when they come in contact with police.
But you also have many in law enforcement who now say there has been a so-called Ferguson effect, police holding back because they're afraid of backlash.
MUIR: In fact, the FBI director is calling it a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement. So, if elected president, how would you bridge the divide between the two?
CLINTON: Well, David, I think this is one of the most important challenges facing not just our next president but our country. We have systemic racism and injustice and inequities in our country and in particular, in our justice system that must be addressed and must be ended.
I feel very strongly that we have to reform our criminal justice system and we have to find ways to try to bring law enforcement together again with the communities that they are sworn to protect. Trust has been totally lost in a lot of places.
At the same time, we know that in many parts of our country police officers are bridging those divides and they're acting heroically. The young officer who was killed responding to the Planned Parenthood murders. The officer who told the victims of the San Bernardino killings that he would take a bullet before them.
So I think that we need to build on the work of the policing commissioner that President Obama impaneled. We need to get a bipartisan commitment to work together on this.
And we need to hear the voices of those men and women and boys and girls who feel like strangers in their own country and do whatever is necessary to not only deal with the immediate problems within the criminal justice system, but more opportunities, more jobs, better education so that we can begin to rebuild that very valuable asset known as trust.
MUIR: Secretary, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Governor O'Malley, how would you bridge the divide?
O'MALLEY: There is no issue in American public policy that I have worked on more day in and day out than this painful issue of policing, of law enforcement, criminal justice and race in America.
When I ran in 1999, David, for mayor of Baltimore, our city by that year had become the most addicted, violent, and abandoned in America. But we came together. I brought people together over some very deep racial divides. And we were able to put our city on the path for the biggest reduction in crime of any major city in America over the next ten years.
As governor, we continued to work together. We reduced violent crime to 30-year lows. But get this. We also reduced incarceration rates to 20-year lows. So it is possible actually, to find the things that actually work, that we did, increasing drug treatment, using big data to better protect the lives of young people, cut juvenile crime in half, and it's also possible to improve how we police our police.
But there wasn't a single day as mayor of Baltimore that I wasn't asked whether I was delivering on the promise I made to police the police. We reported excessive force, discourtesy, use of lethal force. In fact, drove down to three of the four lowest years on record police use of lethal force.
As a nation, we have to embrace this moment and make our departments more open, more transparent, and more accountable. Just as we require every major department, every county to report its major crimes, we should require police departments to report their discourtesy, brutality, excessive force.
There's so much work that can be done, so much we've learned to do better. We need to do it now as a nation. This is our time and our opportunity to do that.
MUIR: Governor, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: And Senator Sanders, when you hear the FBI director calling it a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement, does that concern you as well when you --
SANDERS: Well, this whole issue concerns me. And I agree with much of what the secretary and the governor have said. But let's be clear. Today in America we have more people in jail than any other country on earth, 2.2 million people. Predominantly African-American and Hispanic.
We are spending $80 billion a year locking up our fellow Americans. I think, and this is not easy, but I think we need to make wage a major effort, to come together as a country and end institutional racism. We need major, major reforms of a very broken criminal justice system. Now, what does that mean?
Well, for a start it means that police officers should not be shooting unarmed people, predominantly African-Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: It means that we have to rethink the so-called war on drugs which has destroyed the lives of millions of people, which is why I have taken marijuana out of the Controlled Substance Act. So that it will not be a federal crime.
SANDERS: That is why we need to make...
(APPLAUSE)
That is why we need to make police -- and I speak as a former mayor. I was a mayor for eight years, worked very closely with a great police department. And what we did is try to move that department toward community policing, so that the police officers become part of the community and not, as we see, in some cities an oppressive force.
We need to make police departments look like the communities they serve in terms of diversity. We need to end minimal sentencing. We need, basically, to pledge that we're going to invest in this country, in jobs and education, not more jails and incarceration.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Senator, thank you. We want to turn now to an issue.
This next issue has destroyed so many families across the country, and in particular right here in New Hampshire, heroin. And there's a stunning new figure out. A recent poll -- 48 percent here, in this state alone, say they know someone who has abused heroin.
We're going to turn tonight to Dan Tuohy of the New Hampshire Union Leader who has this question.
QUESTION: New Hampshire has been hard hit by the heroin epidemic, and we're on track to have twice as many overdose deaths this year as in 2013.
What specifically would you do to address this crisis?
MUIR: Senator Sanders, I'm going to take this to you first because you've seen what's happened with heroin right on the border in your own state.
SANDERS: Yes. Look, this is a tragedy for New Hampshire. It is a tragedy for my state of Vermont. It is a tragedy all over this country. The number of heroin deaths are growing very, very significantly.
What do we do? Well, for a start, this may seem like a radical idea, but I think we have got to tell the medical profession and doctors who are prescribing opiates and the pharmaceutical industry that they have got to start getting their act together, we cannot have this huge number of opiates out there throughout this country, where young people are taking them, getting hooked, and then going to heroin.
Second of all, and the reason I believe in a health care for all program, we need to understand that addiction is a disease, not a criminal activity.
(APPLAUSE)
And that means -- and that means radically changing the way we deal with mental health and addiction issues. When somebody is addicted and seeking help, they should not have to wait three, four months in order to get that help. They should be able to walk in the door tomorrow and get a variety of treatments that work for them.
So those are some of the areas that I think we've got to move on.
MUIR: Senator, thank you. Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: You know, on my very first visit to New Hampshire in this campaign, I was in Keene, and I was asked what are you going to do about the heroin epidemic? And all over New Hampshire, I met grandmothers who are raising children because they lost the father or the mother to an overdose. I met young people who are desperately trying to get clean and have nowhere to go, because there are not enough facilities.
So this is a major epidemic, and it has hit New Hampshire and Vermont particularly hard. I've had had two town halls, one in Keene, one in Laconia, dedicated exclusively to talking about what we can do. And I've heard some great ideas about how law enforcement is changing its behavior, how the recovery community is reaching out.
And I was proud to get the endorsement of Mayor Walsh of Boston, who has made his struggle with alcoholism a real clarion call for action in this arena.
So, I've laid out a five-point plan about what we can do together. I would like the federal government to offer $10 billion over ten years to work with states, and I really applaud Governor Hassan for taking up this challenge and working with the legislature here to come up with a plan.
We need to do more on the prescribing end of it. There are too many opioids being prescribed, and that leads directly now to heroin addiction. And we need to change the way we do law enforcement, and of course, we need more programs and facilities, so when somebody is ready to get help, there's a place for them to go.
And every law enforcement should carry the antidote to overdose, Naloxone, so that they can save lives that are on the brink of expiring.
MUIR: Secretary, thank you. O'MALLEY: And you know, I actually know a great deal about this issue. And I have a dear friend, played music with him for years, remember when his -- when he came home with his baby girl, and now she's no longer with us, because of addiction and overdose.
The last time in New Hampshire, I had to take a break shortly after landing and call home and comfort a friend whose mother had died of an overdose.
O'MALLEY: Drugs have taken far too many of our citizens. It's a huge public health challenge. In our own city, I mentioned before, we had become the most addicted city in America.
But together, every single year, I expanded drug treatment funding within our city and then I expanded it in our state, and we were saving lives every single year doing the things that work, intervening earlier, understanding the continuum of care that's required until we got hit like every other state in the state -- in the United States, especially in New Hampshire and in the northeast with this opioid addiction, the over-prescribing.
I agree, we need better -- we need to rein in the over- prescribing, but I have put forward on my -- in my plan a $12 billion federal investment. We have to invest in the local partnerships, and the best place to intervene, the best indicator of when a person is actually on the verge of killing themselves because of an addiction, is at the hospital. That very first time they show up with a near miss, we should be intervening there. That's what I said to my own public health people. What would we do if this were ebola? How would we act?
So many more Americans have been killed by the combination of heroin and these highly addictive pain pills, and yet, we refuse to act. There are thing that can be done. Go on to my website. My plan is there. It's one of 15 strategic goals I've set out to make our country a better place by cutting these sort of deaths in half in the next five years.
MUIR: Governor O'Malley, thank you.
Martha?
(APPLAUSE)
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to circle back to something that your opponents here have brought up. Libya is falling apart. The country is a haven for ISIS and jihadists with an estimated 2,000 ISIS fighters there today. You advocated for that 2011 intervention and called it smart power at its best. And yet, even President Obama said the U.S. should have done more to fill the leadership vacuum left behind. How much responsibility do you bear for the chaos that followed elections?
CLINTON: Well, first, let's remember why we became part of a coalition to stop Gadhafi from committing massacres against his people. The United States was asked to support the Europeans and the Arab partners that we had and we did a lot of due diligence about whether we should or not, and eventually, yes, I recommended and the president decided that we would support the action to protect civilians on the ground and that led to the overthrow of Gadhafi.
I think that what Libya then did by having a full free election, which elected moderates, was an indication of their crying need and desire to get on the right path. Now, the whole region has been rendered unstable, in part because of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, in part because of the very effective outreach and propagandizing that ISIS and other terrorist groups do.
But what we're seeing happening in Libya right now is that there has been a fragile agreement to put aside the differences that exist among Libyans themselves to try to dislodge ISIS from Sirte, the home town of Gadhafi, and to begin to try to create a national government.
You know, this is not easy work. We did a lot to help. We did as much as we could because the Libyans themselves had very strong feelings about what they wished to accept. But we're always looking for ways about what more we can do to try to give people a chance to be successful.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to go back. That -- government lacked institutions and experience. It had been a family business for 40 years. On the security side, we offered only a modest training effort and a very limited arms buy-back program. Let me ask you the question again. How much responsibility do you bear for the chaos that followed those elections?
CLINTON: Martha, we offered a lot more than they were willing to take. We offered a lot more. We also got rid of their chemical weapons, which was a big help, and we also went after a lot of the shoulder-fired missiles to round them up. You know, we can't -- if we're not going to send American troops, which there was never any idea of doing that, then to try to send trainers, to try to send experts, is something we offered, Europeans offered, the U.N. offered, and there wasn't a lot of responsiveness at first.
I think a lot of the Libyans who had been forced out of their country by Gadhafi who came back to try to be part of a new government, believed they knew what to do and it turned out that they were no match for some of the militaristic forces inside that country. But I'm not giving up on Libya and I don't think anybody should. We've been at this a couple of years.
RADDATZ: But were mistakes made?
CLINTON: Well, there's always a retrospective to say what mistakes were made. But I know that we offered a lot of help and I know it was difficult for the Libyans to accept help. What we could have done if they had said yes would have been a lot more than what we were able to have done.
SANDERS: But what...
RADDATZ: Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: Look, the secretary is right. This is a terribly complicated issue. There are no simple solutions. But where we have a disagreement is that I think if you look at the history of regime changes, you go back to Mossaddegh (ph) in Iran, you go back to Salvador Allende who we overthrew in Chile, you go back to overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, you go back to where we are today in Syria with a dictator named Assad.
The truth is it is relatively easy for a powerful nation like America to overthrow a dictator but it is very hard to predict the unintended consequences and the turmoil and the instability that follows after you overthrow that dictator.
So I think secretary Clinton and I have a fundamental disagreement. I'm not quite the fan of regime change that I believe she is.
O'MALLEY: Martha -- I would just repeat that --
CLINTON: Well, I would just repeat that.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Wait a minute. I think it's only fair to put on the record, Senator Sanders voted in the Senate for a resolution calling for ending the Gadhafi regime and asking that the U.N. be brought in, either a congressional vote or a U.N. Security Council vote. We got a U.N. Security council vote.
Now, I understand that this is very difficult. And I'm not standing here today and saying that Libya is as far along as Tunisia. We saw what happened in Egypt. I cautioned about a quick overthrow of Mubarak, and we now are back with basically an army dictatorship.
This is a part of the world where the United States has tried to play two different approaches. One, work with the tough men, the dictators, for our own benefit and promote democracy. That's a hard road to walk. But I think it's the right road for us to try to travel.
O'MALLEY: And Martha...
RADDATZ: Quick Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: ... and in this case, we probably let our lust for regime toppling get ahead of the practical considerations for stability in that region. And I believe that one of the big failings in that region is a lack of human intelligence. We have not made the investments that we need to make to understand and to have relationships with future leaders that are coming up.
That's what Chris Stevens was trying to do. But without the tools, without the support that was needed to that. And now what we have is a whole stretch now, of the coast of Libya, 100 miles, 150 miles, that has now become potentially the next safe haven for ISIL. They go back and forth between Syria and this region. We have to stop contributing to the creation of vacuums that allow safe havens to develop.
RADDATZ: Thank you very much. Thank you. We're going to move on here. Governor O'Malley, thank you very much for that. And we're going to make a very sharp turn as we wrap things up here.
Secretary Clinton, first ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse. But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. I know you think you know where I'm going here.
You have said that Bill Clinton is a great host and loves giving tours but may opt out of picking flower arrangements if you're elected. Bill Clinton aside, is it time to change the role of a president's spouse?
CLINTON: Well, the role has been defined by each person who's held it. And I am very grateful for all my predecessors and my successors because each of them not only did what she could to support her husband and our country but often chose to work on important issues that were of particular concern.
Obviously, Mrs. Obama has been a terrific leader when it comes to young people's health, particularly nutrition and exercise. And I think has had a big impact. So whoever is part of the family of a president has an extraordinary privilege of not only having a front row seat on history but making her or maybe his contribution.
And with respect to my own husband, I am probably still going to pick the flowers and the china for state dinners and stuff like that. But I will certainly turn to him as prior presidents have for special missions, for advice, and in particular, how we're going to get the economy working again for everybody, which he knows a little bit about.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: I do want to follow up here for each of you. And a similar line of questioning. Senator Sanders, your wife Jane shares an office at your campaign headquarters in Burlington. We've seen the pictures, the desks right next to each other. Would she have a desk close by in the west wing?
SANDERS: Given the fact that she's a lot smarter than me, yes, she would.
(LAUGHTER)
And let me, by the way, take this moment to congratulate Hillary Clinton, who I thought not only did an outstanding job as our first lady, but redefined what that role could be.
So, I thank you very much for that.
(LAUGHTER)
My wife, Jane, has been -- way back when before I knew her, a foster parent. Many, many kids came into her home and received the kind of love that they desperately needed. And she turned around many lives.
She is the best parent and grandmother that I know. She has devoted her life, when I was mayor of the city of Burlington, actually when I first met her, we started a youth office, which started a after-school programs for kids, started a child care center, started a youth newspaper. We got the kids involved in a whole lot of issues.
She led that effort. So I think, at a time when so many of our kids are desperately looking for constructive activity, where too many of our kids are hanging around on street corners, potentially getting into trouble, I think we need a forceful advocate for the children, for teenagers, for the little children, to deal with the dysfunctional child care system, and I think my wife would do a great job in helping me accomplish those goals.
MUIR: Senator, thank you.
Governor O'Malley -- Governor O'Malley, you have talked about your wife, Katie, here tonight. She's a district court judge. And the question for you is, would she have to give that up as first lady, or will she share an office in the west wing as well? O'MALLEY: Well, that would be totally up to her. I mean, Katie has never been a person who let her husband's professional choices get in the way of following her dreams.
And I think she got that from her mother, actually.
(APPLAUSE)
The -- and I readily admit that she is a far more accomplished lawyer than I was ever able to become, before I took my detour. She is a district court judge in Maryland. She puts in a full day there. We've raised four terrific kids. And yet, when she was first lady of the state, not only would she go to work every day and sit there through a lot of sad and gut-wrenching cases, but then she'd put in additional time being an advocate against domestic violence.
Maryland made great strides on that because of her advocacy, and her understanding of how the court process works. She was an advocate against bullying and implementing anti-bullying things. So Katie O'Malley will do whatever Katie O'Malley wants to do, regardless of her husband's success in getting elected president.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Governor O'Malley, thank you, (inaudible).
O'MALLEY: Thank you.
MUIR: Governor, thank you. We'll be back with much more from New Hampshire. The Democratic debate continues right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MUIR: Welcome back tonight. It's been an evening of lively discussion among the candidates and it's time for closing statements. We began in alphabetical order, so we'll reverse the order at the end and begin with you, Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: Well, thank you very much for hosting this debate, and let me applaud my colleagues up here. Because I think frankly, maybe I'm wrong, but on our worst day, I think we have a lot more to offer the American people than the right wing's extremists.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: My father came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket, which sparked my interest in the need for immigration reform because I know what it's like to be the son of an immigrant.
We grew up in a three-and-a-half-room, rent controlled apartment in Brooklyn, New York. My mother's dream -- and she died very young, but my mother's dream for her whole life was to be able to get out of that rent-controlled apartment and own a home of her own. She never lived to see that.
SANDERS: But what my parents did accomplish is they were able to send both of their sons to college. We were the first in the family. So I know something about economic anxiety and living in a family does not have sufficient income.
And that is why I am pledged, if elected president of the United States, to bring about a political revolution where millions of people begin to stand up and finally say enough is enough, this great country and our government belong to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
RADDATZ: Governor O'Malley?
Martha, thank you. I want to thank all of the people who have tuned in tonight. I want to thank the great people of New Hampshire, where despite all of the cynicism about big money and big banks taking over our politics, here in New Hampshire, the individual matters.
You know, my wife Katie and I have four terrific kids, and like you, there's probably nothing we wouldn't do to give them a future that's safer, that's healthier, where they have more opportunity than our parents and grandparents gave to us. Tonight, what you listened to was a healthy exchange of ideas about how we'd do that, that which we have always proven, the capacity to do better than any nation in the world, to take actions that include more of our people more fully in the economic, social and political life of our country.
When you listened to the Republican debate the other night, you heard a lot of anger and you had a lot of fear. Well, they can have their anger and they can have their fear, but anger and fear never built America. We build our country by adopting wage and labor policies, including comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway of citizenship for all. We do it by investing in our country, by investing in infrastructure, by investing in the skills and the talents of our people with debt-free college, and we can do it again.
And we also create a better future for our kids when we square our shoulders to the great challenges of our times, whether it's terror trying to undermine our values or Republican presidential candidates trying to get us to surrender our freedoms and our values in the face of this threat.
The other big challenge we have is climate change. The greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years. We need to embrace this. I have put forward a plan that does this, that moves us to 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050. Join this campaign for the future. New leadership is what our country needs to move us out of these divided and polarized times. Thank you.
MUIR: Governor, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: On January 20th, 2017, the next president of the United States will walk into the White House. If, heaven forbid, that next president is a Republican, I think it's pretty clear we know what will happen. A lot of the rights that have been won over years, from women's rights to voter rights to gay rights to worker rights, will be at risk.
Social Security, which Republicans call a Ponzi scheme, may face privatization. Our vets may see the V.A. hospital that needs to be improved and made better for them turned over to privatization. Planned Parenthood will be defunded. The list goes on because the differences are so stark.
You know, everybody says every election's important, and there's truth to that. This is a watershed election. I know how important it is that we have a Democrat succeed President Obama in the White House. And I will do all that I can in this campaign to reach out and explain what I stand for and what I will do as president.
You know, I became a grandmother 15 months ago, and so I spent a lot of time thinking about my granddaughter's future. But as president, I will spend even more time thinking about the futures of all the kids and the grandchildren in this country because I want to make sure every single child has a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. If you will join me in this campaign, we will make that a mission. Thank you, good night and may the force be with you.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Thank you to the candidates tonight. Thank you to the audience here in New Hampshire here at St. Anselm. And thank you to the audience at home. We wish all of you at home a happy and safe holiday week ahead and we wish all the candidates a happy and safe holiday with your families.
President Obama on Meeting with Families of the California Shooting
Published on Dec 21, 2015 by The White House
The President gives remarks after meeting with families of the victims of the shooting in San Bernadino, California, December 18, 2015.
*
Remarks by the President After Meeting the Families of the Victims of the San Bernardino Shooting
Indian Springs High School San Bernardino, California
December 19, 2015
10:53 P.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Just had a chance to meet with the families of the majority of the victims of the San Bernardino tragedy. It was so moving for Michelle and myself in part because it was so representative of the country. You had people from every background, every faith. Some described their loved ones who had come to this country as immigrants; others who had lived in the area all their lives -- all of them extraordinarily proud of the work they were doing to keep people healthy and safe here in this community.
And as difficult as this time is for them and for this entire community, they’re also representative of the strength and the unity and the love that exists in this community and in this country. And as we go into the holiday season, even as we are vigilant about preventing terrorist attacks from happening, even as we insist that we can’t accept the notion of mass shootings in public places and places of work and worship, we have to remind ourselves of the overwhelming good that exists out there.
And we met some of these folks. Despite the pain and the heartache that they’re feeling, they could not have been more inspiring, and more proud of their loved ones, and more insistent that something good comes out of this tragedy. And many of them are already taking initiatives to reach out, to speak out on behalf of community and tolerance and treating people with respect. Many were interested in how we can prevent shootings like this from happening in the future.
It was a reminder of what’s good in this country. And I hope that’s something that gives all Americans a sense of pride and a sense of hope as we go into our celebrations of our faith and our families and our country.
He dominates our annual review of political falsehoods.
By FactCheck.org Posted on December 21, 2015 | Updated on December 21, 2015
Summary
It’s been a banner year for political whoppers — and for one teller of tall tales in particular: Donald Trump.
In the 12 years of FactCheck.org’s existence, we’ve never seen his match.
He stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong.
He is by no means the only one telling whoppers, of course. Once again this year there are plenty of politicians, in both parties, who hope voters will swallow their deceptive claims. Hillary Clinton, for one, said she was “transparent” about her use of a private email server, when in fact she wasn’t. That was one of the bogus claims she made about her unusual email arrangement while secretary of state.
But Trump topped them all when he claimed to have seen nonexistent television coverage of “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 — and then topped himself by demanding that fact-checkers apologize for exposing his claim as fantasy. And that’s only one example.
Here we’ve assembled, as we do every year at this time, a generous sampling of the most far-fetched, distorted or downright fallacious claims made during 2015.
In past years, we’ve not singled out a single claim or a single person, and have left it to readers to judge which whoppers they consider most egregious.
But this year the evidence is overwhelming and, in our judgment, conclusive. So, for the first time, we confer the title “King of Whoppers.”
We won’t get into Trump’s controversial policy positions; it’s not a fact-checker’s role to offer opinions on whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea for the federal government to bar Muslims from entering the United States or to kill the families of terrorists, for example. What we focus on here are some of the many cases where he’s just wrong on the facts.
We start with his Nov. 21 claim to have watched on television as “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey were “cheering [ http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-carson-on-911-celebrations/ ]” the fall of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Multiple news organizations and the New Jersey attorney general’s office searched for evidence of public celebrations at the time of 9/11 and found none.
In a tweet [ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/668867262456156160 ], Trump demanded an apology, citing as evidence one news story about an alleged incident that was unattributed, unverified and not televised. One of the reporters on that story said he visited the “Jersey City building and neighborhood where the celebrations were purported to have happened,” but he could “never verify that report.”
And Trump’s false claim about “thousands and thousands” of Muslims is just part of a pattern of inflammatory claims with little or no basis in fact. Here are some more — and it’s not an exhaustive list.
• Trump “heard” that Obama is “thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away.” If so, he misheard [ http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/trump-hears-obama-wants-to-take-guns/ ]. What Obama reportedly considered was requiring large-volume private gun dealers to conduct background checks, not confiscating firearms from those who own them.
• Trump told the story of a 2-year old who got autism a week after the child got a vaccine. But there’s no evidence [ http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/factchecking-the-cnn-republican-debate/ ] of such a link. The study that claimed to have found a link between vaccines and autism has been exposed as an “elaborate fraud.” It was retracted five years ago by the journal that published it, and the author was stripped of his license to practice medicine in Britain.
• Trump claimed credit for getting Ford Motor Co. to move a plant from Mexico to Ohio. Ford says that’s baloney [ http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/trumps-bogus-boast-on-ford/ ]; it made the decision years before Trump even announced his run for president.
• Trump denied that he ever called female adversaries some of these things: “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” He used all of those terms [ http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/trumps-amnesia/ ].
• Trump claimed economic growth in the U.S. has “never” been below zero — until the third quarter of 2015. “Who ever heard of this?” he asked. Except it’s not unheard of [ http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/trump-tramples-facts/ ]. Economic growth has been below zero 42 times since 1946.
This is just a sampling of the falsehoods and exaggerations that lead us to award our “King of Whoppers” title to Trump. See our full and up-to-the-minute file on him [ http://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/ ] for more.
Media members finally listened to Donald Trump at a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan on December 21, 2015. More than 9,000 supporters came out to the rally.
Trump played a clever trick when he called Clinton’s bathroom visit ‘disgusting’
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reacts to supporters at the start of a Trump for President campaign rally in Raleigh, N.C., on Dec. 4, 2015. (Jonathan Drake/Reuters)
Trump was surely talking off-the-cuff in his usual style — and the comments were criticized as offensive and sexist — but it was another example of his mastery in exploiting the psychological biases of conservatives who see much to dislike in today’s society and express support for Trump in the polls.
In fact, a growing mass [ http://www.psych.nyu.edu/vanbavel/lab/documents/Jost.etal.2014.BBS.pdf ] of academic research has shown that conservatives have a particular revulsion to “disgusting” images. In this line of thinking, Trump’s decision to describe Clinton, one of the most disliked people by conservatives, as a “disgusting” figure would have been an especially powerful way to rile up his supporters.
Some of the recent research has been most pronounced evaluating the differing responses of conservatives and liberals to “disgusting” or “negative” images. Several studies have shown that conservatives are far more likely to have strong reactions to these images or situations than moderates or liberals are. Researchers have also suggested that conservatives are more likely to respond negatively to threats or be prone to believe conspiracies [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/08/why-smart-people-believe-all-the-crazy-things-trump-says/ ], perhaps helping explain why Trump’s calls to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States or build a wall at the southern border have resonated with many voters.
In a 2008 study [ http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.3359&rep=rep1&type=pdf ] in the journal “Cognition and Emotion,” researchers at Cornell and Yale asked 181 adults from across the political spectrum about their views on a range of matters. Participants were asked to rate their agreement to statements like “I try to avoid letting any part of my body touch the toilet seat in a public restroom, even when it appears clean” and to indicate how disgusting they found situations like “You take a sip of soda and then realize that you picked up the wrong can, which a stranger had been drinking out of.”
Across most metrics — including partisan affiliation — there were no noticeable differences among demographic groups in their response to these statements and questions.
But this wasn’t true of all groups. Conservatives showed a statistically significant likelihood of reacting negatively to “disgusting” situations. (So did religious groups, but the researchers determined the finding about conservatives remained true even when controlling for religiousity.)
Another, more recent study showed that the response to disgust may be hard-wired into our brains — even when we don’t consciously perceive it.
In a paper published [ http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(14)01213-5 ] in 2014 in Current Biology, researchers at the Human Neuroimaging Laboratory and the Computational Psychiatry Unit at Virginia Tech showed 83 subjects “disgusting” pictures of dead animal bodies, dirty toilets, as well as pleasant images such as pretty landscapes and babies playing together. The participants took a standard test to evaluate their political leanings.
Consciously, liberal, moderate and conservative participants showed no significant differences in rating these pictures, although conservatives “had marginally higher disgust sensitivity than the liberal group.” But things changed when the subject had their brains scanned using fMRI machines as they saw the images.
With a more than 90 percent success rate, the researchers were able to predict whether the participants were conservative or liberals based on how regions of their brains lit up while viewing the images. And it turned out that conservatives had a much stronger reaction to disgusting images than liberals. Reactions to other types of images were not predicted by political views.
“Disgusting images … generate neural responses that are highly predictive of political orientation,” the authors write. “Remarkably, brain responses to a single disgusting stimulus were sufficient to make accurate predictions about an individual subject’s political ideology.”
Others have suggested that disgusting images can even alter people’s political leanings.
The study found that “participants who reported their political attitudes in the presence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser reported a less liberal political orientation … than did participants in the control condition.” The researchers then ran a second, similar study and found the same response.
“It is worth noting that the cleanliness reminder used in these studies was quite subtle — in one case, through simple exposure to a public hand-sanitizer station and in another case via a sign on the laboratory wall reminding experimenters to wash their hands,” the researchers write. “It is notable that simply reminding participants of physical cleanliness rather than involving them in direct physical cleansing was sufficient for the effect to emerge.”
Rachel Maddow reports on the latest comments from Republican front-runner Donald Trump to further coarsen political discourse in the United States, wondering about his intended meaning, and placing them in the broader context of his campaign. Duration: 17:40
Donald Trump is defending his offensive rhetoric against Hillary Clinton, claiming the vulgar term he used means 'badly beaten.' But experts - and candidates on both sides of the aisle - disagree. David Frum, David Corn, and Wendy Davis join MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. Duration: 11:57
Donald Trump again defended his crass comments against Hillary Clinton, saying "quality people" have used the term over the years. But one person isn't buying any of his explanations: a FOX News host. Lawrence discusses with Howard Dean, Jonathan Allen, and Christina Bellantoni. Duration: 13:33
After Hillary Clinton said she deplored the tone of Donald Trump's campaign, the GOP candidate took to Twitter denouncing her ‘stupidity’ and blaming her for 'death and destruction.' MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell talks with Howard Dean. Duration: 1:31
Donald Trump bemoans the +$18 trillion national debt, but a new study shows his tax plan would dramatically increase it. Lawrence talks with Howard Dean and Christina Bellantoni. Duration: 5:06
I 'schlonged' first, and I'm sorry My previous use of this word has apparently provided Donald Trump a veneer of respectability for yet another in a disturbingly long series of nasty, hateful diatribes. By Neal Conan December 23, 2015 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1223-conan-schlonged-20151223-story.html [with comments]
*
The Donald Trump Days of Christmas
By Gail Collins DEC. 24, 2015
Happy holidays! I say this with some trepidation, because Donald Trump has vowed that when he is president, “We’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.” That was a while ago, during his war on the Starbucks coffee cup design. So very much water has run under the Trumpian bridge since then.
But I’m still trying to figure out exactly how a universal “Merry Christmas” mission would be accomplished. Would there be a “holiday” gag order? Seasonal salutation checks at the border?
This is supposed to be a down period for presidential campaigning, since most of the population is focused on celebrating you-know-what with friends and families. But Trump has given us such a not-normal year that people will be drinking eggnog by the fire and discussing the proper use of the word “schlonged.”
The happiest holiday parties should be with Team Clinton, which clearly believes that going to war with Trump is good for her cause, and that having Trump as the Republican nominee would be even better.
Their current fight began when Hillary, in the last Democratic debate, said ISIS was “going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.” There is actually no specific evidence this is happening, although it certainly seems probable.
For the sake of perfect accuracy, Clinton should have said that ISIS “is bound to start going.” We would dwell on imperfect verb choice longer if PolitiFact hadn’t just announced that out of 77 Trump statements it looked into, 76 percent were rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
The Trump campaign is a new phenomenon. He mainly flies around on his planes, speaks at big rallies and calls into radio and TV news talk shows. Trump brags about his lack of interest in fund-raising, but he doesn’t seem to be spending much of his own money, either. This is a guy whose great keys to fortune were inheriting real estate and putting his name on things that other people often paid for. Maybe he figures he can become president just by branding it.
After the Hillary diatribes, Trump told a howling audience this week that he hates journalists, and he appeared to be mulling the idea of killing some of them. To be fair, he did conclude by announcing he wouldn’t do that.
For which I presume we’re supposed to be grateful.
Once, long ago, I was the subject of Trumpian ire — I had referred to him as a “thousandaire” — and his response was to send me a copy of the column with a couple of insults written over my picture and a note in which he misspelled the word “too.” So really, he’s not all that threatening. As long as he remains a private citizen, the worst he can do is to throw up an ugly apartment building or hotel in your neighborhood.
But the president thing is no longer a joke. You may have noticed that the competition is starting to fall away. This week Senator Lindsey Graham threw in the towel, or, in polite political-speak, “suspended his candidacy.” Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul and John Kasich seem likely to be consigned to the loser’s section when the Republicans have their next debate.
That brings us down to six people, one of whom is Ben Carson, who’s fading fast. Also Jeb Bush, who was last seen wandering around New Hampshire, reminding people how many times he’s been there. At this point in the political cycle, if you’re a desperate candidate you go somewhere cold and try to get the population to fall in love with you just because they’ve had so many opportunities to shake your trembling, frostbitten hand.
Ted Cruz is doing something along that line in Iowa, where he’s ahead. But he’s also moved into a clear second place in the polls, terrifying the party establishment and many Republican billionaire donors, who regard Cruz as an obnoxious self-promoting egomaniac. There is nothing the oligarch class hates more than egomaniacs.
The big donors appear to be particularly fond of Senator Marco Rubio, the attractive, 44-year-old Floridian who has done very well in the debates. The other candidates find Rubio’s popularity irritating, particularly since he hasn’t been campaigning all that hard. Or doing anything else, it appears. Trump called Rubio a sweaty underachiever “with no money, zero.” This is, if nothing else, a campaign where the insults are meeting a new norm. Thanks almost entirely to the front-runner.
On the seventh day of Christmas, he gave to you and me …
By Jerome Karabel Posted: 12/27/2015 6:26 pm EST Updated: 12/27/2015 8:59 pm EST
At an emergency meeting in Borough Park, Brooklyn, the prestigious Yiddish Academy, a body of distinguished scholars in Yiddish language and literature, issued a formal reprimand to Donald J. Trump for gross abuse of the Yiddish language.
During a recent rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mr. Trump said that Hillary Clinton "got schlonged" by Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
But the Academy noted that "schlong" (a vulgar term for a penis of unusual size; literal origin, a snake or serpent), is a noun, and may never properly be used as a verb.
Noting that this was not Mr. Trump's first offense against the Yiddish language and that Mr. Trump has repeatedly shown flagrant disrespect for the other religious and linguistic groups that make up America's cultural mosaic, the Academy issued a rare second formal reprimand.
According to Academy Chair Reb Yankel Rabinowitz, the Academy concluded, after a spirited debate lasting seven hours, 37 minutes, that Mr. Trump is best described not as a "putz" (a fool or idiot; literally a penis), but rather as a "schmuck" (an odious or contemptible person, a prick; literally a penis).
After much shouting and gesticulation, the meeting was adjourned at 4:37 p.m., with a recommendation that its conclusions be communicated to the public as expeditiously as possible.
ADDENDUM: Sometimes satire and real life meet in strange ways. My piece on Trump and his misuse of Yiddish was drafted on December 23; the next day, I later learned from a friend, an event called Yiddish New York took place in Lower Manhattan. Trump's recent remarks were much discussed and those in attendance did not shy away from voicing their disapproval [ http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/25/politics/donald-trump-yiddish-festival-schlonged/ ]. Expressing the views of many at the gathering, Aaron Blacksberg, a Klezmer musician, responded to Trump's comments with a classic Yiddish expression: "Gai kakhen afen yam" (go defecate in the ocean).
Statement by the President on Persecuted Christians at Christmas
The White House December 23, 2015
During this season of Advent, Christians in the United States and around the world are preparing to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. At this time, those of us fortunate enough to live in countries that honor the birthright of all people to practice their faith freely give thanks for that blessing. Michelle and I are also ever-mindful that many of our fellow Christians do not enjoy that right, and hold especially close to our hearts and minds those who have been driven from their ancient homelands by unspeakable violence and persecution.
In some areas of the Middle East where church bells have rung for centuries on Christmas Day, this year they will be silent; this silence bears tragic witness to the brutal atrocities committed against these communities by ISIL.
We join with people around the world in praying for God’s protection for persecuted Christians and those of other faiths, as well as for those brave men and women engaged in our military, diplomatic, and humanitarian efforts to alleviate their suffering and restore stability, security, and hope to their nations. As the old Christmas carol reminds us:
Weekly Address: Merry Christmas from the President and First Lady
Published on Dec 25, 2015 by The White House
In this week's address, the President and First Lady wished Americans a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
*
Remarks of President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama
Weekly Address: Merry Christmas from the President and First Lady
The White House December 25, 2015
THE PRESIDENT: Merry Christmas, everybody! This is one of our favorite times of the year in the Obama household, filled with family and friends, warmth and good cheer. That’s even true when I spend all night chasing Bo and Sunny away from the cookies we leave for Santa.
It’s also my favorite weekly address of the year, because I’m joined by a special holiday guest star: Mrs. Obama.
THE FIRST LADY: Merry Christmas, everyone. Here at the White House, we’ve spent the past month helping everyone get into the holiday spirit.
Our theme this year is “A Timeless Tradition,” and the decorations in each room reflect some of our country’s most cherished pastimes – from saluting our troops and their families to helping children dream big dreams for their future.
And we’ve invited thousands of families here to the White House to enjoy the festivities – because there’s no holiday tradition more timeless than opening our doors to others.
THE PRESIDENT: Today, like millions of Americans and Christians around the world, our family celebrates the birth of Jesus and the values He lived in his own life. Treating one another with love and compassion. Caring for those on society’s margins: the sick and the hungry, the poor and the persecuted, the stranger in need of shelter – or simply an act of kindness.
That’s the spirit that binds us together – not just as Christians, but as Americans of all faiths. It’s what the holidays are about: coming together as one American family to celebrate our blessings and the values we hold dear.
During this season, we also honor all who defend those values in our country’s uniform. Every day, the brave men and women of our military serve to keep us safe – and so do their families.
THE FIRST LADY: So as we sing carols and open presents, as we win snowball fights...
THE PRESIDENT: Or lose snowball fights...
THE FIRST LADY: Let’s also take time to pay tribute to those who have given our country so much. Go to JoiningForces.gov to see how you can serve the troops, veterans, and military families in your community.
And together, we can show them just how grateful we are for their sacrifice. That’s a tradition we all can embrace – today and every day.
THE PRESIDENT: So on behalf of Malia, Sasha, Bo, Sunny, and everyone here at the White House – Merry Christmas. May God bless our troops and their families. And may God bless you all with peace and joy in the year ahead.
El Trumpo held a press conference on his plane where made it very clear that he would start spending money to attack Hillary and the other GOP candidates if they attacked him first.
I know that many non-Trump supporters have criticized him for not hitting Hillary nearly as much as he’s been railing on the other Republican candidates. But if he follows through on his promise to punch back on sexist accusations by going after slick Willy and his sexual proclivities, it will get bloody…
Hilton Head S.C Campaign Rally 12/30/2015. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is calling former President Bill Clinton "one of the great abusers of the world."
During a rally Wednesday in South Carolina, Trump continued his criticism of the husband of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump's Democratic rival for the White House has accused Trump of sexism, and Trump has responded by revisiting allegations of extramarital affairs by the former president as well as his sexual relationship with a White House intern.
Trump says that nobody respects women more than he does.
His comments come days before Bill Clinton is set to campaign on behalf of his wife in New Hampshire.
Donald Trump Campaign Rally in Hilton Head, South Carolina December 30, 2015 Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump held a campaign rally in Hilton Head, South Carolina. Mr. Trump discussed a number of issues concerning voters including immigration, terrorism, and the economy. http://www.c-span.org/video/?402610-1/donald-trump-campaign-rally-hilton-head-south-carolina
This is a quick tutorial on how to do Donald Trump's hairstyle on long hair. It's perfect for your Halloween costume!
I didn't want to make any political statements within the video, but for the record: the racist comments he has made are deplorable. His comments on women absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to be voting for him. This was a video meant for fun, and for making fun of his hair. Hope you enjoyed it that way! :)
This was a funny costume idea to me! I was looking at lists of 2015 popular costumes to get ideas for halloween hair tutorials. I saw Donald Trump on the list of popular halloween ideas and thought "nah, I can't do that." And then I wondered, "What if I could?" This hairstyle tutorial is the result!
What I Used: -BigSexyHair Get Layered Hairspray -NuMe Megastar Flat Iron
Today I show you how to style your hair like Donald Trump. Wish your locks were as blonde and luscious as Donald Trumps? Now they can be! Simply follow the easy step by step instructions in this video and your hair will look identical to his. This is without a doubt the most accurate technique available - How? I spoke directly to Trump and asked him for a detailed walkthrough of his daily hair preparation. He happily obliged, which came as a shock to me as up until now it was top secret.
Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science [ http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/20/wealthy-selfies-how-being-rich-increases-narcissism/ ], confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.
And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.
So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?
But it’s also true that those empowered by money-driven politics include a disproportionate number of spoiled egomaniacs. Which brings me to the current election cycle.
The most obvious illustration of the point I’ve been making is the man now leading the Republican field. Donald Trump would probably have been a blowhard and a bully whatever his social station. But his billions have insulated him from the external checks that limit most people’s ability to act out their narcissistic tendencies; nobody has ever been in a position to tell him, “You’re fired!” And the result is the face you keep seeing on your TV.
But Mr. Trump isn’t the only awesomely self-centered billionaire playing an outsized role in the 2016 campaign.
There have been some interesting news reports lately about Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas gambling magnate. Mr. Adelson has been involved in some fairly complex court proceedings, which revolve around claims of misconduct in his operations in Macau, including links to organized crime and prostitution. Given his business, this may not be all that surprising. What was surprising was his behavior in court [ http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/judge-adelson-lawsuit-subject-unusual-scrutiny-amid-review-journal-sale ], where he refused to answer routine questions and argued with the judge, Elizabeth Gonzales. That, as she rightly pointed out, isn’t something witnesses get to do.
Then Mr. Adelson bought Nevada’s largest newspaper. As the sale was being finalized, reporters at the paper were told to drop everything and start monitoring all activity of three judges, including Ms. Gonzales. And while the paper never published any results from that investigation, an attack on Judge Gonzales, with what looks like a fictitious byline, did appear in a small Connecticut newspaper owned by one of Mr. Adelson’s associates.
Are there other cases? Yes indeed, even if the egomania doesn’t rise to Adelson levels. I find myself thinking, for example, of the hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, another big power in the G.O.P., who published an investor’s letter declaring that inflation was running rampant [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/06/heres-the-latest-dumb-argument-from-a-billionaire-that-will-hurt-the-economy/ ] — he could tell from the prices of Hamptons real estate and high-end art. Economists got some laughs out of the incident, but think of the self-absorption required to write something like that without realizing how it would sound to non-billionaires.
Or think of the various billionaires [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/krugman-pathos-of-the-plutocrat.html ] who, a few years ago, were declaring with straight faces, and no sign of self-awareness, that President Obama was holding back the economy by suggesting that some businesspeople had misbehaved. You see, he was hurting their feelings.
Just to be clear, the biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities. And the biggest reason billionaires hate Mr. Obama is what he did to their taxes [ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/thanks-obama-highest-earners-tax-rates-rose-sharply-in-2013.html ], not their feelings. The fact that some of those buying influence are also horrible people is secondary.
But it’s not trivial. Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it’s an ugly spectacle, and it’s probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.
Behind Trump’s strong new push to attack Clinton as ‘weak’
By Anne Gearan and Abby Phillip January 1, 2016
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — For as long as Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye, she has answered questions — and sometimes volunteered information — about how much and how hard she works to get it all done.
Few, even her political enemies, have questioned her work ethic or staying power — until Donald Trump.
Ever since — and increasingly in recent days — the magnate has lobbed a barrage of insults at Clinton from onstage at his campaign rallies, on television and online. The former secretary of state is “low-energy,” Trump says. She lacks stamina. She’s physically weak.
The attacks — often coded, always personal — seem to be aimed at raising questions in voters’ minds about a factor that has long been whispered in some GOP circles: how Clinton’s age could affect her ability to serve.
The regularity of Trump’s attacks on Clinton’s alleged physical weakness suggest that the magnate thinks he has touched on a legitimate campaign failing.
“I think that my words represent toughness and strength. Hillary’s not strong. Hillary’s weak, frankly. She’s got no stamina; she’s got nothing,” the billionaire said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “She couldn’t even get back on the stage last night.”
Her energy level, he has said, should disqualify her from the presidency. “Hillary is a person who doesn’t have the strength or the stamina, in my opinion, to be president,” Trump told ABC’s “This Week.” “She doesn’t have strength or stamina. She’s not a strong enough person to be president.”
Trump, who often takes credit for saddling former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) with a “low-energy” label, has lately used the same line on Clinton.
“She’s even lower-energy than Jeb Bush,” he told a South Carolina crowd on Wednesday.
After launching her second presidential campaign, Clinton kept a lighter public schedule than many rivals for most of the year. But as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary approach, her trail schedule is kicking into high gear. In the first week of 2016, Clinton has three New Hampshire events, five Iowa events and two appearances in Nevada in the space of four days.
Trump’s attacks have baffled some Clinton backers and angered others, with many of her supporters hearing more than a whiff of sexism in his words. For his part, Trump has accused Clinton of playing the “women’s card.”
Most recently, a campaign aide noted that Clinton seems to out-hustle her younger aides on the trail. The longer the day, “the more likely she is to want to have a beer with staff at the end,” Clinton’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, told Politico.
Among Clinton’s supporters, Trump’s swipes only add to the aura of mental and physical toughness that has long been a Clinton campaign staple, along with an accounting of her long political résumé. Her allies say they think the attacks may serve to bolster her appeal to women — especially those who have dealt with questions about their ability to keep up with men in the workplace.
“If they are young, people wonder if they have enough experience or the toughness to deal with the big boys in Washington. If they are middle-aged and have children, people wonder how they will run and serve and take care of children. If they are older, people wonder if they will have enough stamina,” Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg said. “People rarely ask these questions of men, let alone Trump, who is the same age as Clinton.”
Despite the fact that, at 68, Clinton is younger than 69-year-old Trump and 74-year-old Democratic rival Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s more than 25-year tenure in the public eye works to her disadvantage on this issue, said Jennifer Lawless, a professor of government at American University who studies women in politics.
“She seems like she’s been around forever, so it cues people to think more about her age than other candidates,” Lawless said. “That might be part of the reason she’s getting more attention than Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders for her age.”
Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate to raise criticisms of Clinton that hint at her age. A Web ad for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx3gWQOJ7PM (next below; comments disabled)]
— who is 24 years her junior — featured Clinton’s recent comments that she is “from the ’60s — a long time ago,” to tee off Rubio’s mantra that frames the 2016 election as a “generational choice.”
At the last Democratic debate, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, 52, broke into an exchange between Clinton and Sanders to ask: “May I offer a different generation’s perspective on this?”
The attention Clinton’s aides have paid to anything that might suggest weakness or fragility dates to well before this campaign. It was especially true when Clinton fell and suffered a head injury in 2012, in the waning weeks of her tenure as secretary of state. Details were initially scant and closely held, but as her condition kept her away from work for weeks, aides provided extensive medical information about what was described as a temporary and relatively minor illness.
Clinton later said she was surprised by the illness, because she had always been healthy. Her campaign issued a medical fitness report [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/31/clinton-releases-health-tax-records/ ] last year, pronouncing her fully recovered and healthy overall. (Trump, who refers to his health as “perfection,” released a letter from his doctor last month in which the physician said that Trump’s “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary.”)
Meanwhile, in conservative media, Clinton’s illness was discussed as a sign of frailty and a potential liability in her 2016 campaign.
Clinton is slimmer and fitter now than when she left the State Department, a disciplined dieter who practices yoga in her hotel room, according to campaign staff. Her campaign mantra that she is a fighter who will work every day to address a growing list of causes and perceived injustices is a message that frames Clinton as possessing as much energy, stamina and work ethic as any younger person, or a man.
Trump’s implication that Clinton has little fire in the belly and would not work hard as president seems to have annoyed the Clinton team more than alarmed it. Her campaign declined to comment.
Those who know her best are skeptical that the attack will resonate, saying it has little merit.
“In all honesty, I cannot remember a time when this came up as an issue,” said Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton adviser. “Because her reputation even among people who have opposed her on issues is: This is someone who does the work, does the homework and is prepared to stay as long as it takes to get the job done.”
Lawless, the AU professor of government, notes that Trump’s “stamina” comments could give Clinton a boost — they could play into her ability to identify with women, especially of a certain age, who have a sense that they have always been discounted and have had to work harder and prove more.
“There are women who are her age and who are still working and still feeling quite spry,” Lawless said.
Evan Kohlmann @IntelTweet A new video from al-Shabab in Somalia shows Donald Trump calling for a ban on Muslims and warns "basic human rights do not apply" in the US. 1:14 PM - 1 Jan 2016 [ https://twitter.com/IntelTweet/status/683003308513046529 ]
Al-Shabab is an “an al-Qaeda-linked militant group based in Somalia [ http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/world/africa/al-shabaab-explainer/ ].” It is best known for its deadly attack on a mall in Kenya in September 2003. Kohlmann, however, says Trump appearance in the video signifies his larger utility for the broader jihadist movement.
Evan Kohlmann @IntelTweet The new Shabab video featuring @realDonaldTrump appears clear evidence jihadists hope to use him to specifically solicit American recruits. 1:28 PM - 1 Jan 2016 [ https://twitter.com/IntelTweet/status/683007006001786880 ]
Trump is preceded by this warning from al-Qaeda militant Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a U.S. drone in 2011:
Muslims of the West: Take heed and learn from the lessons of history. There are ominous clouds gathering in your horizon. Yesterday America was a slang of slavery, segregation, lyching and Ku Klux Klan. Tomorrow it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps.
Trump is then seen at a podium announcing his plan for a total ban on Muslims.
While there is no evidence that the details of Clinton’s claim were correct, the video released today underscores that her underlying point was sound: Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric has been and will continue to be used by jihadists as a recruitment tool.
Harriet Tubman to be first African-American on U.S. currency
WASHINGTON | By Megan Cassella Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:40pm EDT
VIDEO
Anti-slavery crusader Harriet Tubman will become the first African-American to be featured on the face of U.S. paper currency when she replaces President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, the U.S. Treasury Department announced on Wednesday.
She will also be the first woman on U.S. paper currency in more than a century.
The redesigned $20 bill will move Jackson to the back of the bill alongside an image of the White House, Treasury officials said.
A new $10 bill will keep founding father Alexander Hamilton on the front, while adding images of five women, all leaders of the women's suffrage movement, to the back.
The reverse of a new $5 note will honor events held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., including former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, Jr., officials said.
The slew of changes give the Treasury "a chance to open the aperture to reflect more of America's history," Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew told reporters on a conference call.
The decision to replace the seventh president of the United States with Tubman, who was born a slave and helped hundreds of slaves escape using the network of safe-houses known as the Underground Railroad, followed public outreach by the Treasury Department regarding which woman should be featured on a bill after they announced plans in June to feature one on the $10 note.
While no depictions of African-Americans have appeared on U.S. currency, the signatures of five African-Americans have been on it. Four were Registers of the Treasury and included Blanche K. Bruce, Judson W. Lyons, William T. Vernon and James C. Napier, and one was U.S. Treasurer Azie Taylor Morton.
Native American Sacagawea has been featured on the gold dollar coin since 1999, and suffragist Susan B. Anthony has appeared on the silver dollar coin since 1979. Deaf-blind author and activist Helen Keller is on the back of the Alabama quarter, which was first issued in 2003.
Prompted partly by a young girl's letter to President Barack Obama about the lack of women on U.S. currency, a social media campaign last year called "Women on 20s" began pushing for a woman to replace Jackson.
On Wednesday, the movement's leaders said they were "ready to claim victory" but only if the bill was issued by 2020 to mark the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote.
“What was to be a celebration of female American heroes ... cannot be postponed,” the group's founder Barbara Ortiz Howard said in a statement.
U.S. Treasury spokesman Rob Runyan could not say when the redesigned bill would be issued.
The women last depicted on U.S. bills were first lady Martha Washington on the $1 silver certificate from 1891 to 1896, and Native American Pocahontas in a group photo on the $20 bill from 1865 to 1869.
Harriet Tubman became the top-trending hashtag on Twitter shortly after the news broke on Wednesday, with more than 100,000 tweets and mentions online.
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams (@BPEricAdams) tweeted, “Having #HarrietTubman on the new $20 bill is a #milestone for our nation, a powerful acknowledgment of great #women and #AfricanAmericans.”
Other users applauded Treasury’s decision to keep Hamilton on the $10 bill, which is a decision many say resulted from the influence of the popular, Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway musical “Hamilton,” created by Lin-Manuel Miranda.
Actress Mara Wilson (@MaraWritesStuff) tweeted Miranda on Wednesday stating, “@Lin_Manuel First you win a Pulitzer, now you're affecting US currency. Get some rest!"
(Reporting by Megan Cassella; additional reporting by Timothy Ahmann in Washington and Gina Cherelus and Amy Tennery in New York; Editing by Toni Reinhold)
Harriet Tubman in a photo dated between 1860 -1875. Reuters/Courtesy Library of Congress
Remarks by the President at Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the 13th Amendment
[...]
We would do a disservice to those warriors of justice -- Tubman, and Douglass, and Lincoln, and King -- were we to deny that the scars of our nation’s original sin are still with us today. (Applause.) We condemn ourselves to shackles once more if we fail to answer those who wonder if they’re truly equals in their communities, or in their justice systems, or in a job interview. We betray the efforts of the past if we fail to push back against bigotry in all its forms. (Applause.)
But we betray our most noble past as well if we were to deny the possibility of movement, the possibility of progress; if we were to let cynicism consume us and fear overwhelm us. If we lost hope. For however slow, however incomplete, however harshly, loudly, rudely challenged at each point along our journey, in America, we can create the change that we seek. (Applause.) All it requires is that our generation be willing to do what those who came before us have done: To rise above the cynicism and rise above the fear, to hold fast to our values, to see ourselves in each other, to cherish dignity and opportunity not just for our own children but for somebody else’s child. (Applause.) To remember that our freedom is bound up with the freedom of others -– regardless of what they look like or where they come from or what their last name is or what faith they practice. (Applause.) To be honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. To nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. To nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. That is our choice. Today, we affirm hope. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/09/remarks-president-commemoration-150th-anniversary-13th-amendment
"The Fearful and the Frustrated [...] Nevada Republican lawmaker Michele Fiore says she'll shoot Syrian refugees herself [...] Befuddled Pat Robertson Declares Islam Is Not A Religion, Again"
That's a couple of crumbs from an F6 big one. Growing up in such a culture sure has the potential of hardening people. Kudos to the many millions of Americans who have not lost sight of simple, decent, and compassionate human values.
7,499,356 views •Oct 19, 2017
VICE
In the backwoods of Georgia, a controversial, right-wing, "anti-terror" militia group gathers once a month to complete field training exercises under the command of Chris Hill—a.k.a Blood Agent. This militia group, called the Georgia III% Security Force, is part of the Three Percenter movement, which is inspired by the unfounded claim that only three percent of colonists fought against the British in the American Revolution.
VICE joins Hill and the Georgia III% Security Force during one of their monthly gatherings to see how they prepare themselves to "defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" and see what they'll do to protect their guns.
On 4th July, a small town in Pennsylvania gathers to watch fireworks celebrating its country’s independence, hard won in a war fought 250 years ago.
Today parts of America feel like they’re at war again, as this powerful country battles disease and division under its polarising and unpredictable President.
As the nation gears up for the presidential election, the ABC’s US Bureau Chief David Lipson takes us on a road trip through the northeast swing states to talk to ordinary people about the coming contest.
Trump’s re-election looked like a certainty before the pandemic. Now, with the economy buckling under more lockdowns, COVID cases rising and civil unrest running in the streets, his grip on power looks more tenuous.
As fringe groups arm themselves for conflict, will this fractured country survive the ultimate democratic stress-test?
David meets Phil from the Michigan Patriots Militia who’s angry about his state’s lockdown orders describing them as ‘a stomp on our constitutional rights’. In protest, the Michigan Patriots Militia took control of the State parliament in April. Now Phil warns a Trump defeat could get ugly.
‘There's a lot people out there that would not be able to handle that… there is people… that just think Trump is…like a God.”
‘Bikers for Trump’ member Londa has kept her faith in Trump and is banking on him to deliver the prosperity America used to enjoy.
‘He doesn’t care what anybody thinks. He’s doing what’s best for the country.’
In middle-class Ohio, a professional soccer mum with six children says she’s changed her mind about Trump because he’s ‘unkind’.
‘It's just not the way that I would want my kids to be treating anybody”.
In Detroit, once the engine of America’s car industry, Dave meets African American woman Desha. She watched her husband die a painful death from COVID-19 and is now urging African Americans to come out and vote on election day.
“Gotta do it. Like we have to, you have to, it is so much more important, you know, now than ever before.”
Watch the season finale of Foreign Correspondent, Life and Liberty, on Tuesday 28 July at 8pm on ABC TV and iview.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
