AI
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:31:59 AM
Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But He is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path
Posted by David Neiwert at 1:08 PM
Saturday, November 28, 2015
People who have studied the extremist right as a historical and sociopolitical phenomenon in depth are acutely aware of a simple truth: America has been very, very lucky so far when it comes to fascistic political movements.
And now, with the arrival of the Donald Trump 2016 phenomenon, that luck may be about to run out.
Nor is this phenomenon just a flash in the pan. Trump is the logical end result of an endless series of assaults on not just American liberalism, but on democratic institutions themselves, by the American right for many years. It is the long-term creep of radicalization of the right come home to roost.
Fascistic elements and tendencies have always been part of America’s DNA. Indeed, it can be said that some of the worst traits of fascism in Europe were borrowed from their American exemplars – particularly the eliminationist tendencies, manifested first in the form of racial and ethnic segregation, and ultimately in genocidal violence.
Hitler acknowledged at various times his admiration for the American genocide against Native Americans [ http://www.jewishjournal.com/sacredintentions/item/hitlers_inspiration_and_guide_the_native_american_holocaust ], as well as the segregationist policies of the Jim Crow regime in the South (on which the Nuremberg Race Laws [ http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007695 ] were modeled [ http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/332-the-presence-of-the-past-confronting-the-nazi-state-and-jim-crow ]) and the threat of the lynch mob embodied in the Ku Klux Klan. According to Ernst Hanfstaengl [ http://www.celebritytypes.com/quotes/adolf-hitler.php ], Hitler was “passionately interested in the Ku Klux Klan. ... He seemed to think it was a political movement similar to his own." And indeed it was.
Despite the long-running presence of these elements, though, America has never yet given way to fascism. No doubt some of this, in the past half-century at least, was primarily fueled by the natural human recoil that occurred when we got to witness the end result of these tendencies when given the chance to rule by someone like Hitler – namely, the Holocaust. We learned to be appalled by racial and ethnic hatred, by segregation and eliminationism, because we saw the pile of corpses that they produced, and fled in terror.
Those of us who study fascism not just as a historical phenomenon, but as a living and breathing phenomenon that has always previously maintained a kind of half-life on the fringes of the American right, have come to understand that it is both a complex and a simple phenomenon: in one sense, it resembles a dynamic human psychological pathology in that it’s comprised of a complex constellation of traits that are interconnected and whose presence and importance rise and fall according to the stages of development it goes through; and in another, it can in many ways be boiled down to the raw, almost feral imposition of the organized violent will of an angry and fear-ridden human id upon the rest of humankind.
That’s where Donald Trump comes in.
In many ways, Trump’s fascistic-seeming presidential campaign fills in many of the components of that complex constellation of traits that comprises real fascism. Perhaps the most significant of these is the one component that has been utterly missing previously in American forms of fascism: the charismatic leader around whom the fascist troops can rally, the one who voices their frustrations and garners followers like flies.
Scholars of fascist politics have remarked previously that America has been fortunate for most of its history not to have had such a figure rise out of the ranks of their fascist movements. And in the case of Donald Trump, that remains true – he has no background or history as a white supremacist or proto-fascist, nor does he actually express their ideologies.
Rather, what he is doing is mustering the latent fascist tendencies in American politics – some of it overtly white supremacist, while the majority of it is the structural racism and white privilege that springs from the nation’s extensive white-supremacist historical foundations – on his own behalf. He is merrily leading us down the path towards a fascist state even without being himself an overt fascist.
The reality that Trump is not a bona fide fascist himself does not make him any less dangerous. In some ways, it makes him more so, because it disguises the swastika looming in the shadow of the flamboyant orange hair. It camouflages the throng of ravening wolves he’s riding in upon.
There is little doubt that Trump is tapping into fascistic sentiments, which is why so many observers are now beginning to finally use the word in describing Trump’s campaign. From Rick Perlstein [ http://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/donald_trump_american_hustler_the_frightening_fascist_tendencies_of_his_gop_rise/ ] and Digby [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/the_unprecedented_nightmare_of_donald_trumps_campaign_weve_openly_begun_using_the_f_word_in_american_politics/ ] and Chauncey deVega [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/23/donald_trumps_white_fascist_brigade_his_rallies_are_now_a_safe_space_for_racism/ ] (as well as a number of other writers [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/donald_trump_might_actually_be_invincible_his_hateful_message_has_taken_a_fascist_turn_and_the_press_is_letting_him_get_away_with_it/ ] at Salon) to Thom Hartmann at AlterNet [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/04/it_can_still_happen_here_donald_trump_ben_carson_and_the_american_facists_among_us_partner/ ] to the typically staid Seattle Times [ http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/donald-trumps-creeping-fascism-needs-to-be-rejected/ ], “fascism” is the word more and more people are using in relation to the campaign that Trump is running. Even some of his fellow conservatives [ http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/politics/donald-trump-fascism/ ] are beginning to use the word.
And they have a valid point, because Trump fills out so many of the key components that collectively create genuine fascism. And while it’s true that, as Josh Marshall suggests [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-matters ], there really is no single, agreed-upon definition of fascism, there’s also no doubt that we can grasp the idea of fascism not just by studying its history, but also by examining the various attempts at understanding and defining just what comprises fascism. And in doing so, we can recognize exactly what it is that Trump is doing.
What it’s decidedly not, no matter what you might have read, is the simple-minded definition you’ll see in Internet memes attributed to Benito Mussolini: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” As Chip Berlet has explained [ http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html ] ad nauseam, not only did Mussolini never say or write such a thing, neither did the fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile [ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/02/07/fake-quote-files-mussolini-on-fascism-and-corporatism/ ], to whom it is also often attributed [ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini ].
For one thing, as Berlet explains: “When Mussolini wrote about corporatism, he was not writing about modern commercial corporations. He was writing about a form of vertical syndicalist corporatism based on early guilds.” The Skeptical Libertarian [ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/02/07/fake-quote-files-mussolini-on-fascism-and-corporatism/ ] explains that the term “corporatism” and “corporate” meant an entirely different thing in 1920s Italy than it means today:
“Corporations” were not individual businesses. Under fascist corporatism, sectors of the economy were divided into corporate groups, whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated by the government. The idea was to split the difference between socialism and laissez faire capitalism, letting the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production.
… The bottom line is that corporate groups meant classes of people in the economy, which were allegedly represented through appointments to the Council. The system was not about welfare for private companies, but rather about totalitarian central planning of the whole economy through legislation and regulation. Corporatism meant formally “incorporating” divergent interests under the state, which would resolve their differences through regulatory mechanisms.
Moreover, as Berlet explains, this fake definition of fascism directly contradicts many of the things that Mussolini himself did in fact write about the nature of fascism. If he or Gentile ever did actually say it, it’s likely it was a bit of propaganda intended to ease and mislead business-minded followers.
Another thing that fascism decidedly is NOT is the grotesque distortion made by Jonah Goldberg [ http://www.hnn.us/articles/122469.html ], to wit, that fascism is a kind of socialism and therefore “properly understood as a phenomenon of the left.” This claim, in fact, is such a travesty of the idea of fascism that it functionally negates its meaning, rendering it, as George Orwell might describe it, a form of Newspeak. Indeed, it was Orwell himself [ http://books.google.com/books?id=mEgxAJr1REUC&pg=PR5&sig=SX6Gvd8macmsjHsY1H5Z7I3XLHI#PPA80,M1 ] who wrote that “the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite.”
Fascism, in reality, is a much more complex phenomenon than either of these definitions. Let’s look, by way of example, at some of the more recent efforts at defining it:
Stanley Payne, in Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980):
A. The Fascist Negations:
-- Antiliberalism
-- Anticommunism
-- Anticonservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)
B. Ideology and Goals:
-- Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models
-- Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
-- The goal of empire or a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other powers
-- Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture
C. Style and Organization:
-- Emphasis on esthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects
-- Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia
-- Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence
-- Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing the organic view of society
-- Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
-- Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective
Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, p. 218:
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Paxton's nine "mobilizing passions" of fascism:
-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;
-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external;
-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;
-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;
-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;
-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;
-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle.
Roger Griffin [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Griffin ]:
Fascism: modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.
To these I would add one other important component, taken from Harald Oftstad’s Our Contempt for Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values – And Our Own (1989), namely, the logical extension of the Darwinian struggle against the “lesser” that pervades so much fascist literature: the deep-seated hatred and contempt in which all persons deemed “weaker” (be this ethnic, racial, medical, genetic, or otherwise) are held, and the desire to eliminate them entirely that it fuels.
In Hitler’s own words:
The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
… [We will try to] “save” even the weakest and most sickly at any price, and this plants the seed of a future generation which must inevitably grow more and more deplorable the longer this mockery of Nature and her will continues. [Mein Kampf]
Taking a careful look at Trump’s campaign, the fascist traits immediately emerge:
• 1. Eliminationist rhetoric is the backbone of Trump’s appeal. His opening salvo in the campaign – the one that first skyrocketed him to the forefront in the race, poll-wise, and proved wildly popular with Republican voters [ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/25/fox-news-poll-trumps-deportation-plan-smart-silly-or-wrong.html ] – was his vow (and subsequent proposed program) to deport all 12 million of the United States’ undocumented immigrants [ https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform ] (using, of course, the deprecatory term “illegal alien”) and to erect a gigantic wall on the nation’s southern border. Significantly, the language he used [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b ] to justify such plans – labeling those immigrants “criminals,” “killers,” and “rapists,” contending that they bring crime and disease – is classic rhetoric designed to demonize an entire class of people by reducing them to objects fit only for elimination.
Trump’s appeal in this regard ultimately is about forming a “purer” community, and it has been relentless and expansive: When an audience member asked him at a town-hall-style appearance [ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/when-do-we-get-rid-muslims ] when and how he was going to “get rid of all the Muslims,” he responded that “we’re going to be looking at a lot of different things.” He now also claims that if elected, he will send back all the refugees from Syria who have arrived in the United States: “If I win, they’re going back [ http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-new-hampshire-syrian-refugees-are-going-back-n436616 ],” he told one of his approval-roaring campaign crowds. And shortly before he encouraged a crowd [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/22/3724879/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-beating/ ] that “maybe should have roughed up” a Black Lives Matter protester, he told an interviewer that the movement is “looking for trouble [ http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-says-black-lives-matter-movement-looking-trouble ].” Most recently, he tweeted out a graphic taken from a neo-Nazi website [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/22/3724965/donald-trump-tweets-fake-racist-and-wildly-inaccurate-murder-statistics/ ] purporting to demonstrate (falsely) that black people commit most murders in America (though he later claimed that he hadn’t endorsed the graphic [ http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261169-trump-pushes-back-on-black-murder-stats-retweets-arent ]).
• 2. The palingenetic ultranationalism. After the race-baiting and the ethnic fearmongering, this is the most obviously fascistic component of Trump’s presidential election effort, embodied in those trucker hats proclaiming: “Make America Great Again.” (Trump himself puts it this way: "The silent majority is back, and we’re going to take the country back. We're going to make America great again."
That’s almost the letter-perfect embodiment of palingenesis – that is, the myth of the phoenix-like rebirth from the ashes of an entire society in its “golden age.” In the meantime, Trump’s nationalism is evident not just in these statement but are the entire context of his rants against Latino immigrants and Syrian refugees.
• 3. Trump’s deep contempt not just for liberalism (which provides most of the fuel for his xenophobic rants, particularly against the media) but also for establishment conservatism [ http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/limbaugh-why-trump-is-clobbering-establishment-gop/ ]. Trump’s biggest fan, Rush Limbaugh, boasts: “In parlaying this outsider status of his, he’s better at playing the insiders’ game than they are, and they are insiders. He’s running rings around all of these seasoned, lifelong, highly acclaimed professionals in both the consultant class, the adviser class, the strategist class, and the candidate class. And he’s doing it simply by being himself.”
• 4. Trump constantly proclaims America to be in a state of crisis [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKqCEuv5c6M (next below; comments disabled)]
• 5. He himself embodies the fascist insistence upon male leadership by a man of destiny, and his refusal to acknowledge factual evidence of the falsity of many of his proclamations and comments embodies the fascistic notion that the leader’s instincts trump logic and reason in any event.
• 6. Trump’s contempt for weakness is manifested practically every day on the campaign trail, ranging from his dissing of former GOP presidential candidate John McCain [ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317 ] (a former prisoner of war) as “not a hero” because “I like people who weren’t captured,” to his recent mockery [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/25/trump-blasted-by-new-york-times-after-mocking-reporter-with-disability/ ] of a New York Times reporter with a disability.
This list could probably go on all day. But eventually, as we consider the attributes of real fascism, we also can begin to discern the difference between that phenomenon and the Trump candidacy.
Fascists have, in the past, always relied upon an independent, movement-driven paramilitary force capable of enacting various forms of thuggery on their opponents (as in the Italian Blackshirts, aka the Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milizia_Volontaria_per_la_Sicurezza_Nazionale ], and the German Brownshirts, the Sturmabteilung [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung ]). Trump, however, has no such force at his disposal.
What Trump does have is the avid support not only of various white-supremacist organizations [ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated ], as well as that of very real paramilitary organizations in the form of the Oath Keepers [ http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/the_gops_secret_oath_keeper_sickness_why_donald_trump_is_just_a_symptom_of_a_much_bigger_problem/ ] and the “III Percent [ http://iiipercent.blogspot.com/2015/10/for-anti-interventionists-trump-vs.html ]” movement, many of whose members are avid Trump backers, but neither of which have explicitly endorsed him. Moreover, Trump has never referenced any desire to form an alliance or to make use of such paramilitary forces.
What Trump has done is wink, nudge, and generally encouraged spontaneous violence as a response to his critics. This includes his winking and nudging at those “enthusiastic supporters [ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-trump-inspired-hate-crime-in-boston/401906/ ]” who committed anti-Latino hate crimes, his encouragement of the people at a campaign appearance who assaulted a Latino protester [ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/watch-trump-supporter-assaults-latino-protester-while-others-chant-usa-usa/ ], and most recently, his endorsement of the people who “maybe should have roughed up [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/22/3724879/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-beating/ ]” the “disgusting” Black Lives Matter protester who interrupted his speech.
That’s a clearly fascistic response. It also helps us understand why Trump is an extraordinarily dangerous right-wing populist demagogue, and not a genuine, in-the-flesh fascist.
A serious fascist would have called upon not just the crowd to respond with violence, but also his paramilitary allies to respond with retaliatory strikes. Trump didn’t do that.
That, in a tiny nutshell, is an example of the problem with Trump’s fascism: He is not really an ideologue, acting out of a rigid adherence to a consistent worldview, as all fascists are. Trump’s only real ideology is the Worship of the Donald, and he will do and say anything that appeals to the lowest common denominator of the American body politic in order to attract their support – the nation’s id, the near-feral segment that breathes and lives on fear and paranoia and hatred.
There’s no question these supporters bring a singular, visceral energy to the limited universe of the GOP primary, though I don’t know anyone who expects that such a campaign can survive the oxygen and exposure of a general election. Indeed, it is in many signs an indication of the doom that is descending upon a Republican Party in freefall, flailing about in a death spiral, that it is finally resorting to a campaign as nakedly fascistic as Trump’s in its attempts to secure the presidency.
This is why Trump has never called upon the shock troops of a paramilitary wing for support, and why he has always kept an arm’s-length distance from the white nationalists and neo-Nazis who have become some of his most enthusiastic backers [ https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/05/trump-2016-white-nationalists-throw-their-support-behind-donald ]. He isn’t really one of them.
What he is, as Berlet has explained elsewhere, is a classic right-wing nativist populist demagogue [ http://www.politicalresearch.org/2015/10/13/not-fascism-trump-is-a-right-wing-nativist-populist/ ]: “His ideology and rhetoric are much more comparable to the European populist radical right, akin to Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front, the Danish People’s Party or Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. All of them use the common radical right rhetoric of nativism, authoritarianism and populism.”
Of course, it’s also important to understand that fascism, in fact, is a subspecies of right-wing populism, very similar to the Klan in nature – that is, its malignant, metastasized version, crazed in its insatiable lust for power, fueled by fear and hatred, and fed by the blood of its vulnerable targets.
Trump is not fascist primarily because he lacks any kind of coherent, or even semi-coherent, ideology. What he represents instead is the kind of id-driven feral politics common to the radical right, a sort of gut-level reactionarism that lacks the rigor and absolutism, the demand for ideological purity, that are characteristic of full-bore fascism.
That does not, however, mean he is any less dangerous to American democracy. Indeed, he may be more dangerous than an outright fascist, who would in reality be far less appealing and far less likely to succeed in the current milieu. What Trump is doing, by exploiting the strands of right-wing populism in the country, is making the large and growing body of proto-fascists in America larger and even more vicious – that is, he is creating the conditions that could easily lead to a genuine and potentially irrevocable outbreak of fascism.
Recall, if you will, the lessons of Milton Mayer in his book, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945 – namely, the way these changes happen not overnight, but incrementally, like the legendary slow boiling of frogs:
"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
… "But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.”
It is by small steps of incremental meanness and viciousness that we lose our humanity. The Nazis, in the end, embodied the ascension of utter demonic inhumanity, but they didn't get that way overnight. They got that way through, day after day, attacking and demonizing and urging the elimination of those they deemed their enemies.
And this is what has been happening to America – in particular, to the conservative movement and the Republican Party – for a very long time. Donald Trump represents the apotheosis of this, the culmination of a very long-growing trend that really began in the 1990s.
That was when we first saw the popular rise of eliminationist hate talk [ http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982/orcinus-20/ ], wielded with thoughtless glee and great regularity by an increasingly rabid set of right-wing pundits led by Rush Limbaugh [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush%20Newspeak%20%20Fascism.pdf ], and then deeply codified by the talking heads who have subsequently marched across the sound stages at Fox News. It rose to the surface with the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin in 2008 [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-right-wing-populist.html ], followed immediately, in reaction to the election of Barack Obama, by the birth of the Tea Party [ http://www.amazon.com/Over-Cliff-Obamas-Election-American-ebook/dp/B00NUQJXQS ], which is perhaps the single most significant manifestation of right-wing populism in the nation’s history.
Trump aligned himself very early with the Tea Party elements, remarking in 2011 [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2011/04/donald-trump-claims-to-be-ideal-tea.html ] that “I represent a lot of the ingredients of the Tea Party.” And indeed he does – in particular, with its obeisance to the captains of industry and their untrammeled right to make profits at the expense of everyone else.
This is a phenomenon known as Producerism, and it is one of the hallmarks of right-wing populism. It's accurately defined in Wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism ] as:
a syncretic ideology of populist economic nationalism which holds that the productive forces of society - the ordinary worker, the small businessman, and the entrepreneur, are being held back by parasitical elements at both the top and bottom of the social structure.
... Producerism sees society's strength being "drained from both ends"--from the top by the machinations of globalized financial capital and the large, politically connected corporations which together conspire to restrict free enterprise, avoid taxes and destroy the fortunes of the honest businessman, and from the bottom by members of the underclass and illegal immigrants whose reliance on welfare and government benefits drains the strength of the nation. Consequently, nativist rhetoric is central to modern Producerism. Illegal immigrants are viewed as a threat to the prosperity of the middle class, a drain on social services, and as a vanguard of globalization that threatens to destroy national identities and sovereignty. Some advocates of producerism go further, taking a similar position on legal immigration.
In the United States, Producerists are distrustful of both major political parties. The Republican Party is rejected for its support of corrupt Big Business and the Democratic Party for its advocacy of the unproductive lazy waiting for their entitlement handouts (Kazin, Stock, Berlet & Lyons).
Berlet has written extensively [ http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/producerism.html ] about the long historical association of producerism with oppressive right-wing movements and regimes:
Producerism begins in the U.S. with the Jacksonians, who wove together intra-elite factionalism and lower-class Whites’ double-edged resentments. Producerism became a staple of repressive populist ideology. Producerism sought to rally the middle strata together with certain sections of the elite. Specifically, it championed the so-called producing classes (including White farmers, laborers, artisans, slaveowning planters, and “productive” capitalists) against “unproductive” bankers, speculators, and monopolists above—and people of color below. After the Jacksonian era, producerism was a central tenet of the anti-Chinese crusade in the late nineteenth century. In the 1920s industrial philosophy of Henry Ford, and Father Coughlin’s fascist doctrine in the 1930s, producerism fused with antisemitic attacks against “parasitic” Jews.
The Producerist narrative is why Henry Ford – who, as the ostensible author of The International Jew, a 1920 conspiracist tome that inspired Hitler’s paranoia, and whose capital later helped build the Nazi war machine in the 1930s, was also (and not coincidentally) perhaps the ultimate American enabler of fascism – is such a seminal figure for American right-wing populists, both as a leader in the 1920s and ‘30s, as well as a figure of reverence today. (Glenn Beck, in fact, on several occasions on his old Fox News show referenced Ford as something of a holy figure [ http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/attack-obamas-new-deal-beck-invokes- ] for his efforts to resist FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s.) The same narrative is also why, in today’s context, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged – a tendentious novel speculating on the disasters that would befall the world if its great industrial leaders suddenly chose to stop producing – are so important in their mythology.
Right-wing populism is essentially predicated on what today we might call the psychology of celebrity-worship: convincing working-class schlubs that they too can someday become rich and famous -- because when they do, would they want to be taxed heavily? It's all about dangling that lottery carrot out there for the poor stiffs who were never any good at math to begin with, and more than eager to delude themselves about their chances of hitting the jackpot.
The thing about right-wing populism is that it’s manifestly self-defeating: those who stand to primarily benefit from this ideology are the wealthy, which is why they so willingly underwrite it. It might, in fact, more accurately be called "sucker populism."
Nonetheless, right-wing populists have long been part of the larger conservative movement – though largely relegated to its fringes. Some of the more virulent expressions of this populism, including the Posse Comitatus movement, Willis Carto’s Populist Party, and the “Patriot”/militia movement of the 1990s, have been largely relegated to fringe status. However, there have been periods in America’s past when right-wing populism was not thoroughly mainstream but also politically ascendant. Probably the most exemplary of these was during the wave of Ku Klux Klan revival between 1915 and 1930.
This Klan crumbled in the late 1920s under the weight of internal political warfare and corruption; many of its field organizers later turned up in William Dudley Pelley’s overtly fascist Silver Shirts organization of the 1930s. After World War II, most of these groups – as well as the renowned anti-Semite radio preacher Father Charles Coughlin, and lingering American fascist groups like George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party – were fully relegated to fringe status. So, too, were subsequent attempts at reviving right-wing populism, embodied by Willis Carto and his Populist Party, as well as other forms of right-wing populism that cropped up in the latter half of the century, from Robert DePugh’s vigilante/domestic terrorist organization The Minutemen in the 1960s, to the Posse Comitatus and “constitutionalist” tax protesters in the 1970s and ‘80s, to the “militia”/Patriot movement of the 1990s. As it had been since at least the 1920s, this brand of populism was riddled with conspiracist paranoia, xenophobic white tribalism, and a propensity for extreme violence.
Yet beginning in the 1990s, as mainstream conservatives built more and more ideological bridges with this sector – reflected in the increasing adoption of far-right rhetoric within the mainstream – the strands of populism became more and more imbedded in mainstream-conservative dogma, particularly the deep, visceral, and often irrational hatred of the federal government. One of the more popular "mainstream" figures among this bloc in the 1990s was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. And so when he created something of a sensation with his campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, it meant that these ideas and agendas started receiving widespread circulation among the mainstream Right -- and with it, an increasing number of conservatives who called themselves "libertarians", when what they really meant was "populists."
But if Ron Paul opened the door for right-wing populism, though, he scarcely could have anticipated the overnight political star who would, in short order, come waltzing through it to great fanfare – namely, Sarah Palin [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-right-wing-populist.html ]. Hers is a somewhat different, more mainstream-friendly brand of right-wing populism – and as a result, it was embraced by a significantly greater portion of the American electorate.
Her populism emerged for national view shortly after John McCain announced her as his running mate. It was more than just the aggressive, McCarthyite attacks on Obama as a “radical” who “palled around with terrorists” and the paranoid bashing of “liberal elites” -- most of all, there was the incessant suggestion that she and McCain represented “real Americans” and were all about standing up for “the people.”
Populism, yes, but indisputably right-wing, too: socially and fiscally conservative, business-friendly, and hostile to progressive causes. The Producerist narrative was a constant current in Palin’s speeches, particularly when she would get the crowd chanting, “Drill, baby, drill!”
The populism whipped up by Palin’s candidacy became manifest as a national movement in short order with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. Indeed, not only was the Tea Party overtly a right-wing populist movement [ http://www.irehr.org/2009/09/14/tea-parties-race-republicans-and-the-opposition-to-obama/ ], it soon became a major conduit for a revival of the 1990s version of this populism, the “Patriot”/militia movement [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2010/02/getting-inside-tea-party-at-its-core.html ]. Many of these Tea Partiers are now the same Oath Keepers and “III Percenters” whose members widely support Trump’s candidacy.
Of course, most of these extremists are only one step removed, ideologically speaking, from the neo-Nazis and other white supremacists of the racist right, and both of those segments of the right lean heavily on nativist and authoritarian rhetoric. And there really is no other good word for Trump’s rhetoric, and the behavior of many of his followers, than “fascistic.” So it’s only somewhat natural that Trump’s right-wing populism would be mistaken for fascism – they are, after all, not just kissing cousins, but more akin to siblings. Not every right-wing populist is a fascist, but every fascist is a right-wing populist.
All of which underscores the central fact: Donald Trump may not be a fascist, but his vicious brand of right-wing populism is not just empowering the latent fascist elements in America, he is leading a whole nation of followers merrily down a path that leads directly to fascism.
Consider, if you will, what did occur in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s remarks about “roughing up” Black Lives Matter protesters: Two nights later, a trio of white supremacists in Minneapolis [ https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/25/three-men-who-shot-black-lives-matter-protesters-emerged-internet%E2%80%99s-racist-swamps ] invaded a Black Lives Matter protest there and shot five people, in an act that had been carefully planned and networked through the Internet.
What this powerfully implies is that Trump has achieved that kind of twilight-zone level of influence where he can simply demonize a target with rhetoric suggestive of violent retribution and his admirers will act out that very suggestion. It’s only a step removed from the fascist leader who calls out his paramilitary thugs to engage in violence.
America, thanks to Trump, has now reached that fork in the road where it must choose down which path its future lies – with democracy and its often fumbling ministrations, or with the appealing rule of plutocratic authoritarianism, ushered in on a tide of fascistic populism. For myself, I remain confident that Americans will choose the former and demolish the latter – that Trump’s candidacy will founder, and the tide of right-wing populism will reach its high-water mark under him and then recede with him.
What is most troubling, though, is the momentum that Trump’s candidacy has given that tide. He may not himself lack any real ideological footing, but he has laid the groundwork for a fascist groundswell that could someday be ridden to power by a similarly charismatic successor who is himself more in the mold of an ideological fascist. And it doesn’t take a very long look down the roll of 2016 Republican candidates to find a couple of candidates who might fit that mold.
Trump may not be fascist, but he is empowering their existing elements in American society; even more dangerously, his Tea Party brand of right-wing populism is helping them grow their ranks, along with their potential to recruit, by leaps and bounds. Not only that, he is making all this thuggery and ugliness seem normal. And that IS a serious problem.
Copyright 2015 David Neiwert (emphasis in original)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2015/11/donald-trump-may-not-be-fascist-but-he.html [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JKkcpAzg0 [as embedded; no comments yet] [also at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-neiwert/trump-may-not-be-a-fascist-but_b_8973768.html (with comments)]
--
Trump takes mainstream tone, no longer too fringey for GOP
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/4/16
Rachel Maddow looks back at the 2012 Republican primary in which Donald Trump had a strong start but was ultimately too embarrassingly fringey for mainstream Republicans, compared to 2016 when Trump, still of-the-fringe, is the Republican front-runner and redefining the party's mainstream. Duration: 15:35
'No Shit': Trump Campaign Admits 'Mexican Immigrants' in Ad Are Moroccans
Trump's first TV ad shows immigrants streaming "across our Southern border," using footage from North Africa
January 4, 2016
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/no-shit-trump-campaign-admits-mexican-border-footage-is-of-morocco-20160104 [with non-YouTube version of the ad embedded; with comments] [the included YouTube of the ad at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itsSDhgKwhw (with comments), another at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoQff8MMVM (with comments)]
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/gop-no-longer-embarrassed-to-mainstream-trump-595814979956 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-4-2016-trms (with comment)] [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6JCGHBXWSs (with comments)]
*
Trump campaign style harkens back to George Wallace in 1968
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/5/16
Rachel Maddow compares video and news accounts of the combative George Wallace campaign of 1968 with the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump. Duration: 19:08
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/trump-campaign-style-recalls-wallace-in-1968-596500547585 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-5-2015-trms-0 (no comments yet)]
*
Trump's combative style has echoes in history
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/5/16
Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, talks with Rachel Maddow about the parallels between the George Wallace campaign in 1968 and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, in particular their aggressive posturing against protesters and the media. Duration: 4:32
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trumps-combative-style-has-echoes-in-history-596494403699 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-5-2015-trms-0 (no comments yet)]
*
Fmr. George Wallace staffers on Trump
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
1/7/16
Tom Turnipseed, the executive director of segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign, and his wife Judy, who is also a former staffer, joins Lawrence O'Donnell to discuss why Donald Trump's campaign is like George Wallace's. Duration: 7:51
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/fmr-george-wallace-staffers-on-trump-598155331976 [with comments] [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOk8MUTiby4 (no comments yet), another for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrksAc1Q8MI (no comments yet)]
--
FULL Donald Trump Rally Rock Hill, SC - Jan 8, 2016
Streamed live on Jan 8, 2016 by FOX 46 Charlotte [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6YN4FNhAKN3MDO5DbJSnOA / http://www.youtube.com/user/WJZY46 , http://www.youtube.com/user/WJZY46/videos ]
Watch Donald Trump's FULL Rally in Rock Hill, South Carolina on January 8, 2016.
David Cameron Lambasts Donald Trump For Making 'Fundamental Mistake' Of Blaming All Muslims For ISIS
23/01/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/22/david-cameron-donald-trump-isis_n_9057942.html [with embedded video report, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21ycSh2kItI [Trump's appearance begins at c. the 17:30 mark; no comments yet] [also at e.g. and title/text adapted from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV1t3Ppa9dw (with comments)]
*
Muslim ejected from Trump rally speaks out
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2016/01/10/Muslim-woman-thrown-out-of-Trump-rally-speaks-out-.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PecHVj3OROs [embedded; with comments] [original of the article at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0UN0X120160110 ]
*
CAIR Asks Donald Trump to Apologize to Muslim Woman Abused by Crowd, Kicked Out of Rally
Last Updated: January 11, 2016
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/8/16) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump to offer a public apology to a Muslim woman verbally abused by the crowd and kicked out of one of his campaign rallies tonight in South Carolina.
Video: Muslim Woman Abused by Crowd, Kicked Out of Donald Trump Rally Interviewed by CNN [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0YBt_6HfbM (next below, as embedded; comments disabled) (also, minus the first c. 2 minutes of introductory material, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj0y9CDTezA {with comments} and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wJ3gDF85k {with comments}, from/non-YouTube version embedded at http://www.mediaite.com/tv/muslim-woman-kicked-out-of-trump-rally-speaks-out-they-were-saying-ugly-things/ {with comments})]
“The image of a Muslim woman being abused and ejected from a political rally sends a chilling message to American Muslims and to all those who value our nation’s traditions of religious diversity and civic participation,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “Donald Trump should issue a public apology to the Muslim woman kicked out of his rally and make a clear statement that American Muslims are welcome as fellow citizens and as participants in the nation’s political process.”
Awad also called on Trump to meet with American Muslim leaders to help stem the anti-Muslim hysteria resulting from his rhetoric and that of other GOP presidential candidates.
Last month, CAIR joined other national American Muslim organizations in condemning a Trump policy statement “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Video: CAIR, USCMO News Conference to Condemn Donald Trump's Call to Ban Muslims from U.S. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewf3JWbsBIU (next below, as embedded; comments disabled)]
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
- END -
CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, ihooper@cair.com
Copyright 2016 CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations
http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/13342-cair-asks-donald-trump-to-apologize-to-muslim-woman-abused-by-crowd-kicked-out-of-rally.html
--
White Supremacists Robocalling for Trump
‘My name is Reverend Ronald Tan, host of the Christian radio talk show program For God and Country. First Corinthians states: God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise and God chose the weak things of this world to shame the strong. For the Iowa caucuses, please support Donald Trump. He is courageous and he speaks his mind. God Bless.’
‘I’m Jared Taylor with American Renaissance. I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America. We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.’
‘I am William Johnson, a farmer and a white nationalist. Support Donald Trump. I paid for this through the super PAC. [Telephone] (213) 718-3908. This call is not authorized by Donald Trump.'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUQKZEFmaOI [no comments yet] [also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSD1CYT0yG4 (with comments], original video at https://www.facebook.com/david.dwyer.501/videos/10205589938852221 [with comments], transcript of the call from http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-robocalls-white-nationalists-iowa [with comments]
Chris Keane/Reuters
The Daily Beast
01.10.16
One of America’s most prominent white supremacists is making robocalls in Iowa imploring voters to support Donald Trump. Jared Taylor, the publisher of the white-nationalist American Renaissance website and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century, is making the calls on behalf of the American National Super PAC, which filed a statement of organization with the Federal Elections Commission late last week.
“I’m Jared Taylor with American Renaissance,” he says on the call, which was first flagged by Talking Points Memo [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-robocalls-white-nationalists-iowa ]. “I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should support immigrants who are good for America.
“We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”
Rev. Donald Tan, who TPM identifies as a Filipino-American pastor and talk-show host, also endorses Trump on the call. A press release announcing the robocall effort refers to Trump as the “Great White Hope” and says Tan decided to team up with white nationalists to support Trump because he had been “called of God to make America great again.”
At the end of the Iowa robocall, the group’s treasurer, William Johnson, who filed the statement with the FEC, identifies himself as a “farmer and white nationalist” and says the call has not been authorized by Trump.
Taylor has been a major player in white-nationalist circles since the 1990s and is a spokesman for the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, the ideological heir of the White Citizens Councils, which fought desegregation during the civil-rights era. The CCC was prominently cited in the manifesto of Dylann Roof [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/06/20/dylann-roof-s-racist-manifesto-is-ignorant-and-chilling.html ], who massacred nine people at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last June. Speaking for the CCC, Taylor denounced the killings while insisting Roof had “legitimate grievances.”
Trump has become an extremely popular figure among white nationalists, who tend to believe that the United States should be dissolved in favor of “ethnostates” and the creation of a white homeland. At a white-nationalist conference held on Halloween in Washington, D.C., Richard Spencer, another leading figure on the far right, praised Trump as an ideological “icebreaker.”
“[W]hat I think he’s done is that he’s delegitimized—and I think he’s to a degree he’s humiliated—mainstream conservatives [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/25/white-supremacists-are-glad-boehner-s-leaving.html ], the elite of the GOP, and certainly the kind of fuddy-duddy conservative movement types, the National Review,” Spencer told The Daily Beast [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/inside-the-white-supremacists-halloween-bash.html ] at the time. “He’s delegitimized them, he’s humiliated them, and I think that opens a space for someone else… it’s not so much Trump per se. It’s not like we think he’s going to save the world. It’s like we finally felt like we’re breaking through, that something’s breaking out, and what comes after Trump is going to be interesting.”
So far, Trump has been reluctant to offer a full-throated condemnation [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/31/behind-trump-the-gop-really-is-becoming-the-racist-party.html] ] of his white-supremacist fans such as Taylor and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. The robocall, however, may put the Republican frontrunner in a tough position, as it shows some white nationalists are now actively campaigning on his behalf. As Taylor himself told The New Yorker [ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated ] over the summer: “I’m sure he would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit.”
Related
White Supremacists for Trump
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/10/white-supremacists-for-donald-trump-the-positions-made-me-a-convert.html
Anti-Immigration Extremists Love Trump
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/anti-immigration-extremists-heart-trump.html
© 2014 The Daily Beast Company LLC
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/10/white-nationalists-campaigning-for-trump.html
*
'Against Trump' Writer Surprised By 'Openly Racist And Anti-Semitic' Response
National Review
'That did nothing to make me reconsider my deep concerns about the damage Trump is doing.'
By David Boaz | Cato Institute
Cato.org
01/22/2016 06:36 pm ET
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute.
Today I join some 20 other writers in making the case against Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy [ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination ]. The venerable National Review, founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., assembled a group of diverse critics to argue that Trump is not a conservative, not an advocate of limited government, but rather (as the editorial asserts [ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace ]) “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.”
The symposium is understandably being described in the media as “conservative thought leaders take on Trump.” I of course consider myself a libertarian, as my book The Libertarian Mind [ http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind ] would indicate, and not a conservative [ http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/thinking-about-french-revolution ]. But part of the impact of this symposium is that people of such widely varying views – I have a lot of disagreements with religious rightist Cal Thomas [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-boaz/post_3162_b_1372827.html ] and neoconservative Bill Kristol [ http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cuba-rand-paul-21st-century-republican-foreign-policy ] – nevertheless regard Trump as dangerous.
In my own contribution I emphasize two points:
From a libertarian point of view — and I think serious conservatives and liberals would share this view—Trump’s greatest offenses against American tradition and our founding principles are his nativism and his promise of one-man rule.
Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign. Trump launched his campaign talking about Mexican rapists and has gone on to rant about mass deportation, bans on Muslim immigration, shutting down mosques, and building a wall around America. America is an exceptional nation in large part because we’ve aspired to rise above such prejudices and guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone. Equally troubling is his idea of the presidency—his promise that he’s the guy, the man on a white horse, who can ride into Washington, fire the stupid people, hire the best people, and fix everything. He doesn’t talk about policy or working with Congress. He’s effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat. It’s a vision to make the last 16 years of executive abuse of power seem modest.
This isn’t my first sally against Trump. After hearing him in person at FreedomFest in July, I wrote about his nationalism, protectionism, and megalomania in the Washington Times [ http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-real-problem ]. And in August I reviewed his support for and use of eminent domain at the Guardian [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house ].
The National Review symposium was posted last night at 10 p.m., and I took note of it on Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153271609457341 ] and Twitter [ https://twitter.com/David_Boaz/status/690372585071190016 ]. It drew a lot of reaction. And I must say, I was surprised by how many of the responses, especially on Twitter, were openly racist and anti-Semitic. That did nothing to make me reconsider my deep concerns about the damage Trump is doing, and could do, to America’s libertarian heritage.
This story was originally published [ http://www.cato.org/blog/conservatives-lone-libertarian-take-donald-trump ] by Cato.org [ http://www.cato.org/ ].
Related:
National Review Stands Athwart Donald Trump, Even If It Can't Stop Him
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-review-donald-trump-debate_us_56a24a3ce4b0404eb8f14410
Copyright 2016 Cato Institute
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-national-review-david-boaz_us_56a29955e4b076aadcc6a253 [with comments]
--
New Book Claims Koch Brother’s Bircher Daddy Built Oil Refinery For Hitler! (Stalin Wants His Money Back)
January 11, 2016
http://wonkville.net/2016/01/11/new-book-claims-koch-brothers-bircher-daddy-built-oil-refinery-for-hitler-stalin-wants-his-money-back/ [with comments] [links to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/politics/father-of-koch-brothers-helped-build-nazi-oil-refinery-book-says.html ]
*
Bae Talese
@elongreen
7:11 PM - 11 Jan 2016
Oh my, Charles Koch was literally toilet-trained by a Nazi. (via @lhfang) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/11/new-book-father-of-politically-active-koch-brothers-built-a-refinery-for-the-nazis/ …
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/686747182502920192 [with comments]
*
The Kochs & the Nazis: Book Reveals Billionaires' Father Built Key Oil Refinery for the Third Reich
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by Democracy Now! [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw / http://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow , http://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow/videos ]
In her new book, "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right [ http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597 ]," New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer explores how the Koch brothers and fellow right-wing billionaires have funded a political machine aimed at shaping elections and public policy. The book contains a number of revelations and new details. Mayer begins with revealing that the Kochs’ father, industrialist Fred Koch, helped build an oil refinery in Nazi Germany—a project approved personally by Adolf Hitler. The refinery was critical to the Nazi war effort, fueling German warplanes. Mayer joins us to discuss.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/the_kochs_the_nazis_book_reveals
full show at http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/1/20
http://democracynow.org/
Hitler Kickstarted The Koch Empire. Also Stalin.
The new book “Dark Money” tells how Fred Koch, the father of the Koch brothers, earned a lot of his money from Hitler. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"The father of the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch helped construct a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was personally approved by Adolf Hitler, according to a new history of the Kochs and other wealthy families.
The book, “Dark Money,” by Jane Mayer, traces the rise of the modern conservative movement through the activism and money of a handful of rich donors: among them Richard Mellon Scaife, an heir to the Mellon banking fortune, and Harry and Lynde Bradley, brothers who became wealthy in part from military contracts but poured millions into anti-government philanthropy.
But the book is largely focused on the Koch family, stretching back to its involvement in the far-right John Birch Society and the political and business activities of the father, Fred C. Koch, who found some of his earliest business success overseas in the years leading up to World War II. One venture was a partnership with the American Nazi sympathizer William Rhodes Davis, who, according to Ms. Mayer, hired Mr. Koch to help build the third-largest oil refinery in the Third Reich, a critical industrial cog in Hitler’s war machine.”*
*Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/politics/father-of-koch-brothers-helped-build-nazi-oil-refinery-book-says.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWdRYpRbgI [with comments]
Concentration Camp Inmates Had To Rebuild A Nazi Refinery The Koch Brothers' Dad Helped Construct
The fascist regime used slave labor from Auschwitz.
The EuroTank oil refinery site, partially constructed by Fred Koch's Winkler-Koch company, is pictured in a confidential military document detailing the U.S. bombing of the facility in 1944 and 1945.
01/19/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-refinery-nazis_us_569e9870e4b00f3e9863266c [with comments]
‘Dark Money,’ by Jane Mayer
Sunday Book Review
JAN. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html
6 Years of Citizens United
01/21/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/six-years-of-citizens-uni_b_9038654.html [with comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv7_Hx9QY-Y [with comments]
*
Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded Rise of the Far Right
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by Democracy Now!
Democrats and Republicans are expected to spend about $1 billion getting their 2016 nominee elected. There’s a third group that will spend almost as much. It’s not a political party, and it doesn’t have any candidates. It’s the right-wing political network backed by the billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch, expected to spend nearly $900 million in 2016. The Kochs’ 2016 plans come as part of an effort to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to conservative candidates and causes over the last four decades. The story of the Koch brothers and an allied group of billionaire donors is told in a new book by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right." Mayer traces how the Kochs and other billionaires have leveraged their business empires to shape the political system in the mold of their right-wing agenda.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how
full show at http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/1/20
http://democracynow.org/
The Koch Effect - Scholars Strategy Network
https://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/the_koch_effect_for_spsa_w_apps_skocpol_and_hertel-fernandez-corrected_1-4-16_1.pdf
New Koch
The billionaire brothers are championing criminal-justice reform. Has their formula changed?
By Jane Mayer
January 25, 2016 Issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch
Report: The Kochs, A Nazi Past, Oil & The Foundation of The Right
10/06/2010
https://unknownjournal.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/%E2%96%BC-report-the-kochs-their-nazi-past-american-oil-the-foundation-of-republican-ideology/ [with comments]
related notes:
Notes on the Koch's, Their Nazi Past, American Oil & The Foundation of Republican Ideology
Oct 7, 2010
https://www.facebook.com/notes/damien-j-crisp/notes-on-the-kochs-their-nazi-past-american-oil-the-foundation-of-republican-ide/447649612431/ [with comments]
Charles Koch Pines For More Influence In Republican Presidential Primary
Billionaire libertarian Charles Koch told the Financial Times [ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3a5c5d40-b4a3-11e5-b147-e5e5bba42e51.html ] that with the hundreds of millions his political network has spent to support Republicans, "You’d think we could have more influence.”
01/08/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charles-koch-2016_us_568fe8bbe4b0a2b6fb6fc674 [with comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jm6_WdQIe8 [with comments].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbYUXlGGQlU [with comments].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZ9At_LNL8 [with comments]
*
How the Kochs Tried (and Failed) to Discredit Reporter Jane Mayer After She Exposed their Empire
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by Democracy Now!
In 2010, Jane Mayer published an extensive profile of the billionaire Koch brothers in The New Yorker, exploring their quiet effort to funnel more than $100 million to right-wing causes and undermine President Obama’s policy agenda. Six years later, Mayer reveals her subjects responded by hiring a private firm to discredit her reporting. Mayer details the episode in her new book on the Kochs and their right-wing, ultra-rich allies, "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right."
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/how_the_kochs_tried_and_failed
full show at http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/1/20
http://democracynow.org/
Covert Operations
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.
By Jane Mayer
August 30, 2010 Issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations
A Word from Our Sponsor
Public television’s attempts to placate David Koch.
By Jane Mayer
May 27, 2013 Issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-our-sponsor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cB7aTt5nNc [with comments]
*
Sudden exit leaves Koch-funded VA privatization group leaderless
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/22/16
Rachel Maddow reports on the Koch-funded group that has led the conservative effort to privatize the Veterans' Administration, and the questioned raised by the expected departure of the group's leader. Duration: 6:03
How the Koch Network Exploited the Veterans Affairs Crisis
From the beginning, the Koch brothers were exploiting troubles at VA hospitals to weaken Obamacare and attack Democrats.
Captain Pete Hegseth, right, and Captain Flagg Youngblood, testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 1, 2010, before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
September 23, 2014
Conservative-backed veterans group restructures after leader quits
January 20, 2016
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2016/01/20/cva-hegseth-leadership-changes/79055814/ [with comments]
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/surprise-exit-at-koch-group-raises-questions-607218755652 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-22-2015-trms (with comments)]
*
The Koch Brothers Have Gotten Much, Much Richer Under Obama
Their net worth has more than doubled since the president was elected.
By Sam Levine
01/23/2016 12:22 pm ET
Charles and David Koch [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/koch-brothers/ ], the billionaire brothers who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a conservative network to oppose Democrats, have actually done very well for themselves since President Barack Obama took office.
The Koch brothers, who believe strongly in a market-based libertarian philosophy, each had a net worth of $19 billion in 2008, the year Obama was elected to office, according to Forbes [ http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html ]. The fortune dipped slightly in 2009 to $16 billion amid a financial crisis that was caused, in part, by the kind of limited government oversight they believe in.
But the Kochs have rebounded nicely. According to Forbes, the brothers are now worth $41 billion each [ http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery/charles-koch ], meaning their fortune has more than doubled under Obama.
The president called out the billionaires in August [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-koch-brothers-harry-reid_us_55dd1f7be4b04ae49704f4e8 ] for backing efforts to block renewable energy standards. The Koch brothers have lobbied for tax breaks that favor their energy interests and funded efforts to repeal renewable energy standards [ https://ecowatch.com/2015/05/16/koch-brothers-war-on-renewables/ ] at the state level.
The vast and shadowy network of the Kochs' political groups now includes its own intelligence operation [ http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/inside-koch-world-077453 ]. They spent around $400 million on the 2012 campaign and pledged to spend an unprecedented almost $900 million [ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html ] on the 2016 election.
Related
Citizens United Consequences: Super Rich Empowered, Ordinary Americans Undermined, Democracy Subverted
01/20/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-wertheimer/citizens-united-consequen_b_9029038.html [with comment]
Copyright © 2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-brothers-net-worth_us_56a3ac86e4b076aadcc6d1f4 [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
FULL Donald Trump Cedar Falls, IA Rally 1-12-16
Published on Jan 12, 2016 by FOX 10 Phoenix [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJg9wBPyKMNA5sRDnvzmkdg , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJg9wBPyKMNA5sRDnvzmkdg/videos ]
Watch the FULL Donald Trump Rally Speech from Cedar Falls, Iowa on January 12, 2016.
Under Ted Cruz’s own logic, he’s ineligible for the White House
By Laurence H. Tribe
Laurence H. Tribe is a university professor and a professor of constitutional law at Harvard.
January 11, 2016
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/11/through-ted-cruz-constitutional-looking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html [with comments]
further:
Law Prof. Laurence Tribe Comments on Ted Cruz's Candidacy
January 21, 2016
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/1/21/laurence-tribe-cruz-presidency/ [with comments]
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president
By Mary Brigid McManamon
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
January 12, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html [with embedded video, and (over 7,000) comments]
Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution
The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born"
By Einer Elhauge
Einer Elhauge is the Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Founding Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics.
Jan 20, 2016
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/ted_cruz_is_not_eligible_to_run_for_president_a_harvard_law_professor_close_reads_the_constitution/ [with embedded video, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4pOwGvq-ck [very slightly clipped at the start; with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Q_ZBxV_OU (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mhNtoPgGfw (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6V-FcAgbDY (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM4eC9VIHUc (with comments)]
*
The Snake - Recited by Donald Trump; Sung by Al Wilson w/Lyrics
Published on Jan 14, 2016 by Angie Grover [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs9cOi4zxmmn4E2YkoyfYgw , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs9cOi4zxmmn4E2YkoyfYgw/videos ]
Donald Trump reads The Snake; Al Wilson sings the song.
Lyrics to The Snake -
On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
"Oh well," she cried, "I'll take you in and I'll take care of you"
"Take me in oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
She wrapped him up all cozy in a curvature of silk
And then laid him by the fireside with some honey and some milk
Now she hurried home from work that night as soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taking in had been revived
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
Now she clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight
But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
"I saved you," cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
The Snake - Recited by Donald Trump; Sung on Northern Exposure w/Lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL4JBsyh26s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZNJPwFW2tM [with comments] [Trump's dramatic reading of the lyrics to "The Snake" alone at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NaN1ujo_0 (with comments) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD_Ej5i7S4E (with comment), and, with Wilson's instrumental and vocal accompaniment, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFB2yAwgzOU (no comments yet)]
--
Cruz Londonderry NH Town Hall 1-12-16
Uploaded by John Kenny [ https://vimeo.com/user22098934 ]
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:51 PM EST via iMovie
Duration 1:17:45
Ted Cruz's Londonderry, NH town hall on January 12, 2016.
http://www.eventbrite.com/e/state-of-our-union-town-hall-meeting-with-senator-ted-cruz-tickets-20442900265
Ted Cruz delivers mock State of the Union address
01/12/16
http://www.politico.com/blogs/state-of-the-union-2016/2016/01/ted-cruz-mock-state-of-the-union-address-217673 [with comments]
President Ted Cruz's State Of The Union: An Exercise In Fantasy And Delusion
01/13/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/president-ted-cruzs-state_b_8973144.html [with comments]
https://vimeo.com/151716430 [no comments yet]
--
President Obama Delivers his Final State of the Union Address
Published on Jan 13, 2016 by The White House [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYxRlFDqcWM4y7FfpiAN3KQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse , http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos ]
President Barack Obama delivers his seventh and final State of the Union Address from the Capitol Building, January 12th, 2015.
*
Remarks of President Barack Obama – State of the Union Address As Delivered
January 13, 2016
9:10 P.M. EST
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans:
Tonight marks the eighth year that I’ve come here to report on the State of the Union. And for this final one, I’m going to try to make it a little shorter. (Applause.) I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa. (Laughter.) I've been there. I'll be shaking hands afterwards if you want some tips. (Laughter.)
And I understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we will achieve this year are low. But, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach that you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on some bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform -- (applause) -- and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse. (Applause.) So, who knows, we might surprise the cynics again.
But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients. And I will keep pushing for progress on the work that I believe still needs to be done. Fixing a broken immigration system. (Applause.) Protecting our kids from gun violence. (Applause.) Equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) Paid leave. (Applause.) Raising the minimum wage. (Applause.) All these things still matter to hardworking families. They’re still the right thing to do. And I won't let up until they get done.
But for my final address to this chamber, I don’t want to just talk about next year. I want to focus on the next five years, the next 10 years, and beyond. I want to focus on our future.
We live in a time of extraordinary change -- change that’s reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet, our place in the world. It’s change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families. It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away. It’s change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality. And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.
America has been through big changes before -- wars and depression, the influx of new immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change; who promised to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.” Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people. And because we did -- because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril -- we emerged stronger and better than before.
What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation -- our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery, our diversity, our commitment to rule of law -- these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.
In fact, it’s that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible. It’s how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. It’s how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love.
But such progress is not inevitable. It’s the result of choices we make together. And we face such choices right now. Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, turning against each other as a people? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, in what we stand for, in the incredible things that we can do together?
So let’s talk about the future, and four big questions that I believe we as a country have to answer -- regardless of who the next President is, or who controls the next Congress.
First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy? (Applause.)
Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us -- especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change? (Applause.)
Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman? (Applause.)
And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?
Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (Applause.) We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history. (Applause.) More than 14 million new jobs, the strongest two years of job growth since the ‘90s, an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever. (Applause.) That's just part of a manufacturing surge that's created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters. (Applause.)
Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction. (Applause.) Now, what is true -- and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious -- is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit; changes that have not let up.
Today, technology doesn’t just replace jobs on the assembly line, but any job where work can be automated. Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and they face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise. Companies have less loyalty to their communities. And more and more wealth and income is concentrated at the very top.
All these trends have squeezed workers, even when they have jobs; even when the economy is growing. It’s made it harder for a hardworking family to pull itself out of poverty, harder for young people to start their careers, tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And although none of these trends are unique to America, they do offend our uniquely American belief that everybody who works hard should get a fair shot.
For the past seven years, our goal has been a growing economy that works also better for everybody. We’ve made progress. But we need to make more. And despite all the political arguments that we’ve had these past few years, there are actually some areas where Americans broadly agree.
We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we’ve increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, boosted graduates in fields like engineering. In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all and -- (applause) -- offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one. We should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids. (Applause.)
And we have to make college affordable for every American. (Applause.) No hardworking student should be stuck in the red. We’ve already reduced student loan payments to 10 percent of a borrower’s income. And that's good. But now, we’ve actually got to cut the cost of college. (Applause.) Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
But a great education isn’t all we need in this new economy. We also need benefits and protections that provide a basic measure of security. It’s not too much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package for 30 years are sitting in this chamber. (Laughter.) For everyone else, especially folks in their 40s and 50s, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher. Americans understand that at some point in their careers, in this new economy, they may have to retool and they may have to retrain. But they shouldn’t lose what they’ve already worked so hard to build in the process.
That’s why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever. We shouldn’t weaken them; we should strengthen them. (Applause.) And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That, by the way, is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when you lose a job, or you go back to school, or you strike out and launch that new business, you’ll still have coverage. Nearly 18 million people have gained coverage so far. (Applause.) And in the process, health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.
Now, I’m guessing we won’t agree on health care anytime soon. (Applause.) A little applause right there. (Laughter.) Just a guess. But there should be other ways parties can work together to improve economic security. Say a hardworking American loses his job -- we shouldn’t just make sure that he can get unemployment insurance; we should make sure that program encourages him to retrain for a business that’s ready to hire him. If that new job doesn’t pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance in place so that he can still pay his bills. And even if he’s going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him. That’s the way we make the new economy work better for everybody.
I also know Speaker Ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty. America is about giving everybody willing to work a chance, a hand up. And I’d welcome a serious discussion about strategies we can all support, like expanding tax cuts for low-income workers who don't have children. (Applause.)
But there are some areas where we just have to be honest -- it has been difficult to find agreement over the last seven years. And a lot of them fall under the category of what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations. (Applause.) And it's an honest disagreement, and the American people have a choice to make.
I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy. I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed. There is red tape that needs to be cut. (Applause.) There you go! Yes! (Applause.) But after years now of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks just by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at everybody else’s expense. (Applause.) Middle-class families are not going to feel more secure because we allowed attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients did not cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. (Applause.) Immigrants aren’t the principal reason wages haven’t gone up; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that all too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. (Applause.)
The point is, I believe that in this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them. (Applause.) And I'm not alone in this. This year I plan to lift up the many businesses who’ve figured out that doing right by their workers or their customers or their communities ends up being good for their shareholders. (Applause.) And I want to spread those best practices across America. That's part of a brighter future. (Applause.)
In fact, it turns out many of our best corporate citizens are also our most creative. And this brings me to the second big question we as a country have to answer: How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?
Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. (Laughter.) We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight. And 12 years later, we were walking on the moon. (Applause.)
Now, that spirit of discovery is in our DNA. America is Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. America is Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. America is every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley, racing to shape a better world. (Applause.) That's who we are.
And over the past seven years, we’ve nurtured that spirit. We’ve protected an open Internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. (Applause.) We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day. But we can do so much more.
Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources that they’ve had in over a decade. (Applause.) So tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us on so many issues over the past 40 years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. (Applause.) For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the families that we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all. (Applause.)
Medical research is critical. We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources. (Applause.) Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it. (Applause.)
But even if -- even if the planet wasn’t at stake, even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record -- until 2015 turned out to be even hotter -- why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future? (Applause.)
Listen, seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal -- in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy -- something, by the way, that environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. And meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly 60 percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth. (Applause.)
Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either. (Applause.)
Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from old, dirtier energy sources. Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future -- especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. We do them no favor when we don't show them where the trends are going. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet. And that way, we put money back into those communities, and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system. (Applause.)
Now, none of this is going to happen overnight. And, yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests who want to protect the status quo. But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, the planet we’ll preserve -- that is the kind of future our kids and our grandkids deserve. And it's within our grasp.
Climate change is just one of many issues where our security is linked to the rest of the world. And that’s why the third big question that we have to answer together is how to keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem.
I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. Let me tell you something. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. (Applause.) Period. It’s not even close. It's not even close. (Applause.) It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.) No nation attacks us directly, or our allies, because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead -- they call us. (Applause.)
I mean, it's useful to level the set here, because when we don't, we don't make good decisions.
Now, as someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that’s not primarily because of some looming superpower out there, and certainly not because of diminished American strength. In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states.
The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds are blowing in from a Chinese economy that is in significant transition. Even as their economy severely contracts, Russia is pouring resources in to prop up Ukraine and Syria -- client states that they saw slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.
It’s up to us, the United States of America, to help remake that system. And to do that well it means that we’ve got to set priorities.
Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. (Applause.) Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country. Their actions undermine and destabilize our allies. We have to take them out./p>
But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks, twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages -- they pose an enormous danger to civilians; they have to be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. (Applause.) That is the story ISIL wants to tell. That’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, and we sure don't need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world’s largest religions. (Applause.) We just need to call them what they are -- killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed. (Applause.)
And that’s exactly what we’re doing. For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we’re taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, their weapons. We’re training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.
If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote. (Applause.) Take a vote. But the American people should know that with or without congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America’s commitment -- or mine -- to see that justice is done, just ask Osama bin Laden. (Applause.) Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. When you come after Americans, we go after you. (Applause.) And it may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limits. (Applause.)
Our foreign policy hast to be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. For even without ISIL, even without al Qaeda, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world -- in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, in parts of Central America, in Africa, and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks. Others will just fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet-bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.
We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis, even if it's done with the best of intentions. (Applause.) That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately will weaken us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam; it's the lesson of Iraq -- and we should have learned it by now. (Applause.)
Fortunately, there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.
That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.
That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. And as we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war. (Applause.)
That’s how we stopped the spread of Ebola in West Africa. (Applause.) Our military, our doctors, our development workers -- they were heroic; they set up the platform that then allowed other countries to join in behind us and stamp out that epidemic. Hundreds of thousands, maybe a couple million lives were saved.
That’s how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, and protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia. It cuts 18,000 taxes on products made in America, which will then support more good jobs here in America. With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region; we do. You want to show our strength in this new century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it. It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
Let me give you another example. Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, and set us back in Latin America. That’s why we restored diplomatic relations -- (applause) -- opened the door to travel and commerce, positioned ourselves to improve the lives of the Cuban people. (Applause.) So if you want to consolidate our leadership and credibility in the hemisphere, recognize that the Cold War is over -- lift the embargo. (Applause.)
The point is American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world -- except when we kill terrorists -- or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling. Leadership means a wise application of military power, and rallying the world behind causes that are right. It means seeing our foreign assistance as a part of our national security, not something separate, not charity.
When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change, yes, that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our kids. When we help Ukraine defend its democracy, or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order we depend on. When we help African countries feed their people and care for the sick -- (applause) -- it's the right thing to do, and it prevents the next pandemic from reaching our shores. Right now, we’re on track to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS. That's within our grasp. (Applause.) And we have the chance to accomplish the same thing with malaria -- something I’ll be pushing this Congress to fund this year. (Applause.)
That's American strength. That's American leadership. And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example. That’s why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo. (Applause.) It is expensive, it is unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies. (Applause.) There’s a better way. (Applause.)
And that’s why we need to reject any politics -- any politics -- that targets people because of race or religion. (Applause.) Let me just say this. This is not a matter of political correctness. This is a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity, and our openness, and the way we respect every faith.
His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot that I'm standing on tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. (Applause.) It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. It betrays who we are as a country. (Applause.)
“We the People.” Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we’ve come to recognize mean all the people, not just some; words that insist we rise and fall together, and that's how we might perfect our Union. And that brings me to the fourth, and maybe the most important thing that I want to say tonight.
The future we want -- all of us want -- opportunity and security for our families, a rising standard of living, a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids -- all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates. It will only happen if we fix our politics.
A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country -- different regions, different attitudes, different interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, fiercely, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.
But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice. It doesn’t work if we think that our political opponents are unpatriotic or trying to weaken America. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise, or when even basic facts are contested, or when we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.
Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.
But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task -- or any President’s -- alone. There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber, good people who would like to see more cooperation, would like to see a more elevated debate in Washington, but feel trapped by the imperatives of getting elected, by the noise coming out of your base. I know; you’ve told me. It's the worst-kept secret in Washington. And a lot of you aren't enjoying being trapped in that kind of rancor.
But that means if we want a better politics -- and I'm addressing the American people now -- if we want a better politics, it’s not enough just to change a congressman or change a senator or even change a President. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves. I think we've got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. (Applause.) Let a bipartisan group do it. (Applause.)
We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families or hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections. (Applause.) And if our existing approach to campaign finance reform can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution -- because it's a problem. And most of you don't like raising money. I know; I've done it. (Applause.) We’ve got to make it easier to vote, not harder. (Applause.) We need to modernize it for the way we live now. (Applause.) This is America: We want to make it easier for people to participate. And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do just that.
But I can’t do these things on my own. (Applause.) Changes in our political process -- in not just who gets elected, but how they get elected -- that will only happen when the American people demand it. It depends on you. That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people.
What I’m suggesting is hard. It’s a lot easier to be cynical; to accept that change is not possible, and politics is hopeless, and the problem is all the folks who are elected don't care, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure. And then, as frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into our respective tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.
We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want. It will not produce the security we want. But most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world.
So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, whether you supported my agenda or fought as hard as you could against it -- our collective futures depends on your willingness to uphold your duties as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. (Applause.) We need every American to stay active in our public life -- and not just during election time -- so that our public life reflects the goodness and the decency that I see in the American people every single day.
It is not easy. Our brand of democracy is hard. But I can promise that a little over a year from now, when I no longer hold this office, I will be right there with you as a citizen, inspired by those voices of fairness and vision, of grit and good humor and kindness that helped America travel so far. Voices that help us see ourselves not, first and foremost, as black or white, or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born, not as Democrat or Republican, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word -- voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.
And they’re out there, those voices. They don’t get a lot of attention; they don't seek a lot of fanfare; but they’re busy doing the work this country needs doing. I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you, the American people. And in your daily acts of citizenship, I see our future unfolding.
I see it in the worker on the assembly line who clocked extra shifts to keep his company open, and the boss who pays him higher wages instead of laying him off.
I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late at night to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early, and maybe with some extra supplies that she bought because she knows that that young girl might someday cure a disease.
I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early because he knows she might someday cure a disease.
I see it in the American who served his time, and bad mistakes as a child but now is dreaming of starting over -- and I see it in the business owner who gives him that second chance. The protester determined to prove that justice matters -- and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe. (Applause.)
I see it in the soldier who gives almost everything to save his brothers, the nurse who tends to him till he can run a marathon, the community that lines up to cheer him on.
It’s the son who finds the courage to come out as who he is, and the father whose love for that son overrides everything he’s been taught. (Applause.)
I see it in the elderly woman who will wait in line to cast her vote as long as she has to; the new citizen who casts his vote for the first time; the volunteers at the polls who believe every vote should count -- because each of them in different ways know how much that precious right is worth.
That's the America I know. That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Undaunted by challenge. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. (Applause.) That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. I believe in change because I believe in you, the American people.
And that’s why I stand here confident as I have ever been that the State of our Union is strong. (Applause.)
Thank you, God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
END
10:09 P.M. EST
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address [remarks as prepared for delivery at https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-white-house/president-obamas-2016-state-of-the-union-address-remarks-as-prepared-for-deliver/10156510001315193 and https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/president-obama-s-2016-state-of-the-union-address-7c06300f9726 ]
*
2016 State of the Union Address: Enhanced
Published on Jan 12, 2016 by The White House
President Obama delivers his last State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation. January 12, 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCXSO-3mt5I [with comments], [embedded at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlLSBTAg0aM [with comments], [embedded at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2016/01/13/president-obama-delivers-his-final-state-union-address-0
*
S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley delivers GOP response to State of the Union
Published on Jan 12, 2016 by PBS NewsHour [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6ZFN9Tx6xh-skXCuRHCDpQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour , http://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour/videos ]
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley delivered the Republican response to President Barack Obama's 2016 State of the Union address.
Full speech transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gov-nikki-haleys-republican-response-to-2016-state-of-the-union/
Nikki Haley causes a stir in SOTU response
01/13/16
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nikki-haley-causes-stir-sotu-response [with embedded video, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNz40oI17ts [with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m13KmA-zsoU (with comments)]
*
Obama Loves America So Much He Wants To Save It From Becoming Fascist
"As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background."
By Ryan Grim
01/13/2016 12:42 am ET | Updated Jan 13, 2016
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama put the American people on notice Tuesday night that a dark future awaited U.S. democracy if they didn't begin to come together rather than retreat into ethnic or religious corners.
In describing what one Republican senator called an "apocalyptic future," Obama laid out a possible path the country could take away from democracy and toward what sounded like an American version of fascism.
"I remember thinking it's kind of a dreadful prediction for our future," Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told HuffPost. "He was very optimistic about America, but then he laid out a very almost apocalyptic future."
Obama warned that if people lose hope and let cynicism take over, dark forces will surge. "If we give up now, then we forsake a better future," he said, warning of war, the rise of racism and the loss of voting rights.
"Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure," he added. "As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background."
Of course, there are already "those" who are urging just that, namely Donald Trump, who tweeted, just as Obama was issuing his warning, how bored he was.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The #SOTU speech is really boring, slow, lethargic - very hard to watch!
9:05 PM - 12 Jan 2016
[ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/687108096926330880 ]
"We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want, or the security we want, but most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world," Obama added.
"It seemed as though he'd been listening to too many Donald Trump speeches," Portman offered.
Maybe so, and surely we all have been. But the direct statement appearing in what is historically an uplifting speech will either be remembered as political-junkie trivia (Who was that real estate heir with the toupee who flashed in the pan that one time?) or perhaps as a prescient warning that the tree of liberty was awfully sick before it died.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) recently returned from the Middle East, which is having its own fragile, gingerly experiment with limited democracy here and there. He wanted to be clear that he wasn't responding specifically to the president's remarks, but warned that, in general, democracy can be vulnerable.
"Not in reference to the speech, I think democracy is something that we do have to protect and there are times when people can in fact play on weakness," Corker told HuffPost, adding that his trips have shown him how difficult it is to build institutions of democracy. "We've seen it happen throughout history, right? ... I'm constantly in the [Mideast] region; I was just there last week. Even though ours is a very mature democracy, especially in new democracies, it can be very difficult. When those are weak, certainly it's very easy for a strong man or woman to come in and take advantage of the situation."
Obama punctuated his speech with direct reminders that America is not in decline, not a victim and not beset by weakness.
• "The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world."
• "Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction."
• "I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close."
Obama then added a line that wasn't in his written remarks: "It's useful to level-set here, otherwise we make bad decisions."
Despite the apocalyptic warning, Obama does seem to believe that the cause of justice and democracy can win out, if only because of the strength of the people themselves.
"That’s the America I know," he said. "That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. Because of you. I believe in you."
Trump's backers, however -- and it's the support for Trump that is the cause of Obama's alarm, not Trump himself -- are unlikely to take the president's word that things are going their direction, certainly not as wages have been largely flat for several decades. American workers who could suffer through their daily lives with the hope that their children might have a better shot are losing that dream as the cost of education skyrockets.
It's time to find some brown people to blame. Robert O. Paxton, one of the world's leading scholars of fascism, describes the phenomenon in his 2004 The Anatomy of Fascism [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2015/11/donald-trump-may-not-be-fascist-but-he.html (that article, in full, first item this post)]. "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion," he writes.
For Obama, the warning comes from a deeply felt place. "This part is the speech he most wanted to give," said a person familiar with Obama's thinking, when asked about the section of the address condemning fascism.
Of course, just as Obama was warning about our poisonous politics, he couldn't help himself from taking a few ad-libbed digs at the Republicans in the chamber. They left a mark.
"Pollsters tell us he's the most polarizing president in history," Portman said. "You saw some of it tonight, where he did some lecturing at us, while he was also talking about us coming together. It's almost like he has two competing parts to his own approach to governing and his personality. So he has to stick it to Republicans on some issues and then say, 'Why can't we work together?'"
Republicans gave it right back. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) told HuffPost that he's not worried about a future dictator when we already have a lawless leader.
"He used the words 'the rule of law,' but if you look at many of the president's unilateral actions, he hasn't at all himself respected the statement that he made," Gardner said. "So I hope that over the coming year we don't see a president who will continue end-running Congress and acting unilaterally. Our Constitution is designed as three separate but equal branches and this president hasn't treated us as such."
So Obama is as bad as it could get?
"I don't know," Gardner said.
Copyright © 2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-dark-future-state-of-the-union_us_5695d5fee4b05b3245db1efe [no comments yet]
*
Donald Trump reacts to Obama's State of the Union jab
Published on Jan 13, 2016 by Fox News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIJgqnII2ZOINSWNOGFThA / http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel , http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel/videos ]
Republican presidential frontrunner reacts to President Obama's final State of the Union address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iK_1moRRYg [with comments]
*
Raw Video: President Obama in Omaha
Published on Jan 15, 2016 by The White House
After delivering his final State of the Union on January 12th, President Obama headed to Nebraska to sit down with Lisa, a new mother who wrote a heartfelt letter to the President about her son, Cooper. The President sat down with Lisa and her friends and family for a conversation in her living room. January 13, 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzbzSbfgQjg [with comments]
*
The President Delivers Remarks in Omaha
Published on Jan 13, 2016 by The White House
The President speaks at an arena on the campus of the University of Nebraska Omaha, January 13, 2016.
*
Remarks by the President at the University of Nebraska-Omaha
Baxter Arena
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Omaha, Nebraska
January 13, 2016
4:32 P.M. CST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Omaha! (Applause.) Thank you! (Applause.) Oh! Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Omaha. (Applause.) That's so nice, thank you. Go, Mavericks! (Applause.) This is quite a place you got here. (Applause.) It’s still got the new-arena smell. (Laughter.) A perfect spot for your hockey team to stage another run to the Frozen Four. (Applause.)
I want to start off by thanking Lisa for the wonderful introduction -- and her hospitality in her living room. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.) She did a great job. Before I came here I stopped over at Lisa’s place, with her husband and her one-year-old. And he was fired up and ready to go. (Laughter.) He was bouncing around -- and I was getting tired just watching him. (Laughter.)
I also want to thank Dr. Hank Bounds, the President of the University of Nebraska. (Applause.) Dr. John Christensen, Chancellor here at UNO. (Applause.) We've got Lieutenant Governor Mike Foley here; your former Senator, Ben Nelson -- (applause) -- your Congressman, Brad Ashford. (Applause.) And all of you are here. (Applause.) This is a pretty good crowd!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.) I do. I do. I do. This is so nice -- what a wonderful welcome. Those of you who have seats, though, feel free to sit down. It's okay. (Laughter.) But if you want to stay standing, that's fine, too. (Applause.)
Last night, I gave my final State of the Union address. (Applause.) I promised that it was going to be shorter, and then it ended up just being like a minute shorter. (Laughter.) So, technically, it was shorter, but it wasn’t like as short as I was planning. But today, I'm definitely going to be shorter.
AUDIENCE: Noooo --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) But whenever I give a State of the Union I want to get out of Washington and talk to people out in the country. And so the first place I decided to visit was Omaha. (Applause.) Part of the reason I wanted to come here is I've got a lot of friends, like Brad and others, and I had not been here in a while. So the last time I was here for an event in Omaha was 2008. (Applause.) And that year, in the primary, I won the Nebraska caucus. (Applause.) And there were people -- I saw some signs -- who called the city “Obamaha.” (Applause.)
And then, in November of 2008, Joe Biden and I won one electoral vote here -- (applause) which I was pretty excited about. And then four years later, I got whupped all across this state. (Laughter.) It was not pretty. It was not pretty. But I love Nebraska anyway. (Applause.) There’s something about the Midwest and its people and the way that folks pull together and the degree to which, in this state, the kind of politics I talked about last night has always been there. There’s a civility and people treating each other with respect.
And so that's part of the reason why I wanted to come back here today, because, as I said last night, America is at its best when we see each other as one people --(applause) -- not Democrats first, not Republicans first, but Americans first. That's our priority.
And that's harder to do during political season. I understand that. And you hear a bunch of folks right across the river -- (laughter) -- and I don't know if the TV ads drift over here but -- (laughter) -- they’re kind of depressing. (Laughter.) I mean, I like talking about hope and all the good stuff that was going on, and then you look at some of these ads and it's some doom and some gloom. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Four more years!
THE PRESIDENT: It's like everybody is running around and saying America is in decline, and everything is scary, and let’s find somebody to blame. And the point I wanted to make, the core thing I wanted to say last night was that’s not the spirit that brought America so far. That's not how we traveled so far. (Applause.) And it’s not what I see every day. That's not what I see in communities and neighborhoods all across this country.
Now, what’s true is we’re all living through a time of extraordinary change, and that’s always a little bit unsettling. And that's what Lisa wrote to me about -- at 4:00 a.m., which I wanted to tell Lisa, you should get some sleep. (Laughter.) But when you have a one-year-old, that’s what happens. (Laughter.) But you heard Lisa talk about she was wondering whether the world she grew up in would be just as prosperous and secure for her new baby as it was for her.
But I want everybody to remember, America has been through big changes before. And each time, we overcame our fears and we overcame our challenges. Each time, we made change work for us. And each time, we emerged stronger and better than we were before. (Applause.) That’s what we do as Americans. We go through war and depression, and all kinds of social and economic changes. But each time, we’ve ended up better than we were before.
Now, here’s the thing -- progress is not inevitable. We got to work for it -- somebody is stealing my lines up here. (Laughter.) It’s the result of the choices that we have to make together. And we’ve got to make some choices. Do we respond to these changes with fear and do we turn on each other, or do we face the future with confidence in who we are, and what we stand for, and all the incredible things we can get done together? (Applause.)
So I just want to repeat the four big questions that I think we have to answer as a country. And this is true whether you’re a Democrat, whether you’re a Republican. You should think about and we have to have good answers for these four questions, regardless of who’s President, regardless of who controls Congress.
Number one: How do we make sure that this new economy works for everybody and not just some people? (Applause.) That’s question number one. Number two, a related question: How do we make sure that the spirit of innovation is used to solve some of our biggest challenges? Number three: How do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming the world’s policeman? (Applause.) Number four, and maybe most important, is how do we have a politics that reflects the best in us and not the worst? (Applause.)
So, on the economy, the first thing I try to remind people is, is think about where we were seven years ago. We were -- because people forget -- and some of you were in grade school, and I had no gray hair. (Laughter.) So just to refresh your memory here for a second, we were in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. I was going back to look at my first State of the Union address, where I had to basically remind everybody that the money in their banks were safe. I had to tell folks that that was -- that it was going to be okay. That’s how fragile things were.
But to paraphrase something that a friend of mine, who I guess people know around here, named Warren Buffett, once said -- (applause) -- no one ever benefitted by betting against America. And because of the grit and the resilience of the American people, because of hard work, because businesses got going, and because, frankly, we made some pretty good policy decisions, we now have the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (Applause.)
We’re in the midst of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history -- 14 million new jobs, around 40,000 right here in Omaha and the surrounding areas. (Applause.) Our national unemployment rate has been cut in half; it’s down to 5 percent. It’s below 3 percent here in Nebraska. (Applause.) So our starting point has to be things are not terrible if your unemployment rate is at 5, and here in Omaha it’s below 3.
Now, that does not mean that things haven’t been changing in profound ways. And that’s also what I have to talk about. Look, it’s changed to the point where even folks who have jobs, and even when the economy is growing, it’s harder for hardworking families to pull themselves out of poverty. It’s harder for young people to start out on their careers, especially if they’ve got too much student loan debt. (Applause.) It’s tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And there’s more inequality, and upward mobility has stalled. And that offends our fundamental American belief that anybody who works hard can get ahead. (Applause.)
So people agree that real opportunity in the new economy requires everybody gets a great education and the training they need to land a good job. And we’ve been working on that. Over the past seven years, we’ve increased early childhood education, we’ve boosted high school graduation rates. (Applause.) We’re training and graduating more engineers and folks in other fields that we need to grow the economy. But we’ve got to build on that progress.
We’ve got to create opportunity for every child, which means pre-K for everybody. (Applause.) It means hands-on computer classes and math classes for the jobs of the future. It means we should recruit and support and lift up great teachers who are doing great things for our kids. (Applause.) And it means that no student should be priced out of a college education, or loaded up with crippling debt. (Applause.)
So one of the things -- I didn’t try to list all the proposals I would like to see happen this year -- that’s why you go to the website, WhiteHouse.gov. (Laughter.) Which now works, I promise. (Laughter.) But we should guarantee two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student. (Applause.) That’s what real opportunity looks like in the new economy.
And then, once we’ve made sure everybody has a great education, as folks move throughout their lives, we’ve got to pair real opportunity with real security. Basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today.
I was talking to Lisa’s dad and mom -- they were there -- and mostly they just wanted to talk about their adorable one-year-old grandson. (Laughter.) But they’ve been married for 44 years. And dad had worked at a company that produces cement and ships it around the country, and he had worked there for 40 years, and he’s still working there. And mom had been a nurse, and she retired. But that kind of career path, where somebody is at one place for that long -- with good benefits, pension, health care -- that’s not going to be the pattern for most of the young people who are here today.
And so the idea is, how do we make sure that even if you’re in this new economy where you’re changing jobs, you’re retraining, you’re starting your own business -- you have some basic security? And that’s what the Affordable Care Act, by the way, is all about. (Applause.) That’s what it’s all about. The goal wasn’t to replace employer-based care. If you’ve got health care on the job, that’s great. But if you lose your job, or you have to go back to school, or you want to start a new business, or you’re starting a new job and you’ve got a preexisting condition -- you should have health care options. (Applause.) You should have health care options.
The same is true for some of the other programs that we had that haven’t been adapted to this new economy. So I mentioned unemployment insurance right now. When folks lose their jobs, unemployment insurance right now is not available for a lot of folks who had been working part-time or were temporary workers. And if you take a job that doesn’t pay as much, sometimes you get penalized. There should be a system of wage insurance so that you can still pay the bills and make up some of the difference as you transition into a new career. (Applause.)
And if we update the unemployment insurance system, that will encourage more folks to retrain for new, better-paying jobs. And when they change jobs, you should be able to save for your retirement even though you didn’t stay in one job for 30 years. There should be a way for you to take your retirement savings with you. (Applause.)
Now, having said all that, somebody here said folks need bigger paychecks. And part of what’s happened in this new economy is workers, frankly, just have less leverage, because companies move more. It means that they can off-shore, they can move to a new state. It means that a lot of times they’re under more severe competition. And that gets a lot of folks frustrated.
But part of what I’ve been concerned about as I’ve been listening to some of the political rhetoric is, let’s make sure that we don’t blame people who had nothing to do with the fact that wages aren’t growing. Let’s try to solve the problem, but not misidentify the problem
So, for example, let’s agree that working families will not get a bigger paycheck by us eliminating all the reforms that we made on Wall Street, or by letting Big Oil and hedge funds make their own rules. That’s not going to help working families. (Applause.)
Now, as I said last night, families on food stamps did not cause the financial crisis. (Applause.) We’ve got to reform our broken immigration system, but immigrants are not the reason wages haven’t gone up. (Applause.) Those decisions were made in boardrooms around the country. You guys aren’t the ones who were -- I don’t think you’ve got off-shore accounts that allow you to dodge paying your taxes. (Laughter.) If you do, then the IRS wants to talk about you. (Laughter.)
But in this new economy, I believe workers, start-ups, small businesses -- they need more of a voice, more of a say, not less. The rules should work for working Americans. And I’m going to spend some of the time this year lifting up a lot of companies who figured out if they pay good wages, provide good benefits, treat their customers well, are environmentally responsible, they can also make really good profits. And it’s good for everybody. (Applause.) It’s good for their shareholders and customers and communities.
And a lot of our best corporate citizens are our most creative. Which brings me to the second question that I raised yesterday -- how do we make sure that we continue to be an innovation economy, and how do we use innovation to meet some of our biggest challenges?
Some of you heard me talk about our space program. Sixty years ago, the Russians beat us to space. And how did we respond? We didn’t go, oh, my God, America is in decline and we’re doomed. (Laughter.) We didn’t say, ah, that’s not actually a spaceship up there, that’s a comet. (Laughter and applause.) We didn’t argue about the science, we didn’t shrink our R&D budget. We built a space program almost overnight. Twelve years later, we were walking on the moon. (Applause.)
I think my favorite movie last year was “The Martian.” And I like space, but there was one line Matt Damon delivered where he said, I’m just going to science the heck out of this. (Laughter.) He didn’t say “heck,” but you get the point. (Laughter.) But that’s the American spirit, right? “Okay, let’s solve the problem.” Sometimes they’re tough problems, but we can figure this out. We can figure this out.
That’s the spirit we need today. That’s why I put Joe Biden in charge of us figuring out how to cure cancer. (Applause.) He’s working with scientists and doctors, and obviously, with families who’ve been affected,, because he knows what they’ve gone through.
That’s why we’ve got to make sure that American businesses produce and sell the energy of the future. We should keep pressing forward with the clean energy that’s going to be creating new jobs for decades to come, and transition from dirty energy. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be subsidizing the past; we should invest in the future. That puts us ahead of the curve. (Applause.)
And that’s how we’re going to keep leading the world to combat climate change and protect this planet, Lisa’s son, your kids and your grandkids. (Applause.) There’s nothing more important than making sure that future generations are able to enjoy the incredible bounty that God has given us.
Third question: How do we keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build all over the world?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Keeping you as President! (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well, I can’t do that. (Applause.) I can’t do that because of the Constitution. And I can’t do that because Michelle would kill me. (Laughter and applause.)
But, look, just as all this talk about how the American economy is terrible is just not true, it’s also not true when you hear folks talking about how America is so weak. We aren’t just the strongest economy in the world, we are far and away the most powerful nation on the planet. (Applause.) Nobody can match our troops. (Applause.) Nobody can match what we can do to mobilize to solve problems around the world.
And when I said that, by the way, last night, it was strange that some in the chamber didn’t agree and applaud with that. I mean, that’s kind of a weird thing. I didn’t say that it’s the strongest in the world because of me. I mean, I understand why they wouldn’t want to give me credit for it -- which is true. (Laughter.) It’s because the United States of America, for 250 years, has been working to make us the strongest.
But that should not be a controversial statement, right? I mean, we can all clap about that. (Applause.) But that’s how crazy our politics has gotten sometimes. That’s how crazy our politics has gotten -- where we now feel obliged to not root for America doing good.
So when you hear people peddling this fiction about our enemies getting stronger, America getting weaker; when you hear folks say we can solve challenges just by looking meaner and talking tougher, or carpet-bombing wherever we want -- that’s just hot air. It’s bluster. (Applause.) It’s not serious. It’s not serious. There’s another word for it that starts with a “B” -- it’s baloney. (Laughter and applause.)
Now, because we’re the strongest nation, we’ve got choices to make about how we use our power. Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. That’s what we’re doing with ISIL. And for more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries. We’re cutting off their financing. We’re disrupting their plots. We’re stopping the flow of terrorist fighters. We’re stamping out their ideology. We’ve had 10,000 airstrikes. We’re taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, their weapons. And they will learn the same lesson that terrorists before them have learned, which is when you come after Americans, we go after you. (Applause.) And it may take time, but our reach has not limits and we will get you. We’ll get you. (Applause.)
But our foreign policy has to also have judgment and wisdom. And we can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into a crisis. (Applause.) So what I suggested last night is, we have to have a patient and disciplined strategy. It’s got to use every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies. But on a lot of world problems, from climate change to Ebola to Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, we’ll mobilize the world to work with us, and we make sure other countries pull their own weight so we’re not ending up sending our troops and spending our money every time there’s a problem around the world. (Applause.) That’s not a lack of leadership; that’s common sense. (Applause.)
That’s how we led 200 nations to forge the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change. (Applause.) That’s how we’ve gotten Iran to roll back its nuclear program. They’re shipping out their nuclear materials right now. (Applause.)
That’s how we dealt with the Ebola crisis. Our troops, our doctors, our development workers -- all outstanding, great courage -- they set up the logistics in West Africa so that other countries could then come in. You had Chinese planes who couldn’t land before, because of our military setting up the landing strip, could then come in and support the effort to stamp out the spread of Ebola. (Applause.)
And we couldn’t be prouder of the doctors and nurses, including here at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, who heroically treated and cared for patients. (Applause.) They saved lives not just here, but their courage saved lives around the world -- because they showed that, you know what, we can deal with this. It’s a problem; it’s serious; we’re going to “science the heck out of it.” (Laughter.) And as a consequence, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people’s lives were saved. (Applause.)
That’s how America leads. That’s the strength of our values. That’s the power of our example. (Applause.)
And that’s why we have to reject any politics -- any politics -- that targets people because of their race or their religion. (Applause.) That we have to reject. That we have to reject. (Applause.) That we’ve got no room for. (Applause.)
I want to be clear about this. This is not about being politically correct. Now, since I’m on a college campus, I’ll tell you, I understand the argument about political correctness. There are times where folks don’t want to hear something and they just shut things down. If somebody doesn’t agree with affirmative action, that’s a legitimate policy difference. That doesn’t mean they’re racist. If somebody has a disagreement about my economic policies, we can have a discussion about that. There should never be a situation on college campuses, for example, where people can’t speak at all. Right? (Applause.) The First Amendment is important. The First Amendment is valuable. So we do have to be cautious about suggesting that anytime somebody says something we shut them down.
But let me say this. That doesn’t mean that you go around insulting people and thinking that that is clever, or that is being honest, or telling it straight. No, that’s just being offensive. (Applause.) And that’s feeding some of our worst impulses. And that does not make us strong. That doesn’t make us strong. (Applause.) And that doesn’t help us fight terrorism, by the way.
When politicians insult Muslims, including Muslim Americans -- including Muslim Americans who are in uniform, fighting on our behalf -- (applause) -- when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us safer. The overwhelming majority of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world, they’re our greatest allies in fighting this scourge of terrorism. (Applause.) So it doesn’t make us stronger. It doesn’t help the effort. It is wrong. It betrays who we are as a country -- one people, who rise and fall together. (Applause.)
And when I think back to the arc of my entire political career, that's one thing that I believe more firmly than anything -- the fact that we are in this together. That's what makes America great. (Applause.)
On the flight over here, Brad was telling me about his grandfather. He said his grandfather was from Sweden. And here in the Midwest, we got some folks of Swedish extraction. And he was telling me about how his grandfather helped to set up an organization that was pretty well known at the time, back in the ‘30s and ‘40s, that was critical in fighting anti-Semitism and helping to bring Jews who were escaping Hitler and Nazi Germany. And I thought about Brad’s grandfather as just one example of all the stories in the history of this country that have made us the envy of the world, that have made us that “shining city on a hill.”
It's not just that we've got a big military. It's not just that we've got a great economy. It's that, in fits and starts, we figured out that if you treat everybody with respect, and you give everybody a shot, and everybody is working together, everybody is better off, everybody is stronger, everybody’s religion is protected. (Applause.) Everybody’s point of view is heard. And that's what we have to remember.
And that’s the last question that we have to answer -- and the most important one: How do we infuse those principles into our politics?
And I said this yesterday and I meant it. I have really enjoyed being President, and I'm going to squeeze every last thing I can get out of it over this next year. (Applause.) But, look, probably my only big regret is that our parties are even more polarized, our politics are even more rancorous than they were seven years ago. I'm going to keep on trying to do better to see if I can help break the fever here. But it's not going to happen unless the American people send a clear message to their elected officials that that's not the kind of politics we want. (Applause.)
Look, I can say this as somebody who is never going to be on the ballot again -- there are some institutional things we've got to fix. I think we have to end political gerrymandering -- (applause) -- so that congressmen aren't choosing their own voters. Because that divides people. If you’ve got a congressional district that's 80 percent Democrat, or 80 percent Republican, then you don't feel obliged to talk to people who don't agree with you -- and that's a problem.
I think we have to end the just crazy amounts of money, much of it hidden, that is in our political system right now. (Applause.)
I believe that there should not be a single state in which we're making it harder for people to vote instead of easier. (Applause.) That doesn’t make any sense. We’re not supposed to be a nation in which we discourage people from participating. This country works by encouraging people to have a voice in their government -- (applause) -- which means that one of the things that I’m going to do over the course of this year is talk about why is it that we should have a single mom who’s got -- a nurse, let’s say, just like Lisa’s mom was -- she might have to take public transportation, get up early, go to her job, fix breakfast, now she’s got to pick up the kid or drop off the kid, come home. And she’s got to vote on a Tuesday. Why wouldn’t we want to make it so that she’s got a little more time to vote? (Applause.) Why are we making it impossible for her?
And a lot of states are doing it. A lot of states are doing it. But that’s how it should be in every state. Because none of these things that I just talked about can happen just by a President saying so -- any President. Whoever replaces me is not going to be able to get all that done unless the American people demand it; when we as citizens demand it. (Applause.)
That’s what I said back in 2008. I didn’t say, “Yes, I can,” I said “Yes, we can.” (Applause.) I asked you not to believe in my ability to bring about change; I asked to believe in your ability to bring about change. (Applause.)
And as I said last night, I know it’s hard. Sometimes it’s frustrating. But if we don’t accept that responsibility and that privilege of citizenship, and we accept the cynicism that says, ah, change can’t happen, and politics is pointless, and our voices and our actions don’t matter, then we’re going to forsake a better future, and the void will be filled by folks with money and power and special interests. And they’re going to gain more and more control over decisions about whether young people are being sent to war. They will be unfettered in pursuing policies that might lead to another economic crisis. They might roll back rights that generations of American fought to secure.
And then, when people get more and more frustrated because things don’t change, you start hearing voices that urge us to fall back into our respective tribes, and start scapegoating our fellow citizens -- people who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background. We can’t go down that path. (Applause.)
So, Omaha, whatever you believe -- whether you are a Democrat, or a Republican, or you don’t believe in political parties; whether you supported me or you didn’t -- our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligation as citizens -- to vote and to speak out -- (applause) -- and to stand up for others, especially those who are vulnerable, especially those who need help -- knowing that we are only here because somebody else did that for us. (Applause.) That’s how all of us are here.
And when we do that, we will see the goodness and the decency and the optimism of people like Lisa reflecting itself in Washington. That’s what we’re fighting for. (Applause.)
And I know it’s there because I see it in the American people every day. (Applause.) I see it every day. I see it in all the students -- first-generation college students -- (applause) -- working hard, and scrimping and saving, and eating Ramen -- (laughter) -- and then eating some more Ramen -- just to get ahead. And you’ve got teachers like Lisa, who come in early, and are helping young people cultivate a passion, or master a new skill that can change their lives. And then you’ve got parents who are volunteering at local schools -- not just to help out their own kids but to help out their neighbor’s kids. (Applause.) And folks coaching Little League. And businesses who are doing the right thing by their employees. (Applause.) And folks who are fighting on our behalf halfway around the world, and their families who are sacrificing alongside them. (Applause.) And folks working to help our veterans after they’ve been served. Big-hearted, optimistic people. They’re everywhere -- in coffee shops, and churches all across Nebraska, and in Louisiana, and in New York, and in Arizona, and every place else. Folks whose spirit has built America. (Applause.)
That’s why I’m hopeful about our future -- because of you, the American people. Because of folks like all of you, I am absolutely confident that we’re going to get to where we need to go, and America will remain the greatest country on Earth.
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.)
END
5:15 P.M. CST
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/13/remarks-president-university-nebraska-omaha
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ILnsAqJjM [with comments], [embedded at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2016/01/13/president-delivers-remarks-omaha
--
FBN GOP 6 p.m. ET debate - January 14, 2016
Published on Jan 14, 2016 by Fox Business [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCXoCcu9Rp7NPbTzIvogpZg / http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxBusinessNetwork , http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxBusinessNetwork/videos ]
The GOP debate featuring former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
*
Transcript: Preliminary Republican Presidential Debate
JAN. 14, 2016
Following is a transcript of the preliminary Republican debate, as transcribed by the Federal News Service.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, the Republican candidates for president are looking to capture their moment. South Carolina has a history of making and breaking campaigns. And this week Charleston is the center of the political universe. Three days from now, the Democrats will debate just a few miles away.
Here, in a city older than the country itself, from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, to the “war by the shore,” South Carolina prepares once again to take center stage. And the Republican candidates all hope that the spotlight of the Palmetto State would shine upon them.
(APPLAUSE)
TRISH REGAN, CO-MODERATOR: Good evening, and welcome to the North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center. Tonight we hear from 10 Republican candidates vying to become the next president of the United States.
I’m Trish Regan, along with my co-moderator Sandra Smith.
SANDRA SMITH, CO-MODERATOR: This evening FOX Business is bringing you the sixth Republican presidential debate of the 2016 campaign. For the next hour, three of the candidates will be answering the questions voters want answered.
REGAN: So let’s introduce them. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: This debate will last one hour. Each candidate will have up to 90 seconds to respond to each question, one minute for each follow-up.
REGAN: When your time is up, you are going to hear this bell.
(BELL RINGS)
REGAN: All right. So let’s begin.
In Tuesday’s State of the Union Address, the president said that our economy is strong. He cited the significant decline we’ve seen in unemployment rate and the millions of jobs that have been created.
What is your assessment of the economy right now? And I would like to hear from all of you on this one, beginning with Ms. Fiorina.
CARLY FIORINA (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, thank you. Good evening. If I may begin by saying how honored I am to be standing here with two former Iowa Caucus winners.
Governor, Senator.
And how honored I am to be talking with all of you. You know, I’m not a political insider. I haven’t spent my lifetime running for office. The truth is I have had and been blessed by a lot of opportunities to do a lot of things in my life.
And unlike another woman in this race, I actually love spending time with my husband.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: I’m standing here because I think we have to restore a citizen government in this country. I think we have to end crony capitalism. The crony capitalism that starts with both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
You know, Hillary Clinton sits inside government and rakes in millions, handing out access and favors. And Donald Trump sits outside government and rakes in billions buying people like Hillary Clinton.
The state of our economy is not strong. We have record numbers of men out of work. We have record numbers of women living in poverty. We have young people who no longer believe that the American dream applies to them.
We have working families whose wages have stagnated for decades, all while the rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected get more connected.
Citizens, it’s time to take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Governor Huckabee, same question to you. Where do you see the country right now?
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I wish I saw the country in the same place that the president presented it to be the other night in the State of the Union. He talked about how great the economy was doing. And I guess for the people he hangs out with, it’s probably doing great.
But the president should’ve stood in the line at the layaway counter at Walmart just before Christmas. He would have heard a very different story about the economy of America.
HUCKABEE: I wish I could introduce him the lady who cleans the building where our campaign headquarters is located in Little Rock. Her name is Kathleen (ph). She works all day at a local hospital cleaning, and then she goes to the building where a bank, and our headquarters, and other offices are she spends another seven hours. She works 15 hours a day.
I guarantee you she’s not working 15 hours a day because she loves scrubbing toilets, and sweeping floors. She’s working that many hours because that’s what it takes for her to make it work.
And, she’s not alone. There are people all over this country who are working like that. Many of them working two jobs — and they used to have one job, and that would take care of them. But, because of wage stagnation, which we’ve had for 40 years, because the fact that they’re punished for working harder if they work that many hours. The government gets more of their second shift than they do.
And, as a result there are a lot of people who are hurting today. I wish the President knew more of them. He might make a change in the economy and the way he’s managing it.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you Governor Huckabee. Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Well, all he has to do is listen to the Democratic debate and find out how bad the economy is. All they do is complain about the hollowing out of the middle of America, and how America is struggling so badly, and have to make these radical changes in Washington.
But they’ve been in control for the last seven years, and what have we seen? The most important jobs, I believe, in this country are the ones that fill the middle. For the 74% of Americans who don’t have a college degree between the age of 25 and 65 are manufacturing jobs. Your governor, and your legislature, and your team here have done an amazing job of bringing manufacturing jobs back to South Carolina.
(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
SANTORUM: Right here. Right here in Charleston, right down in the street in Boeing (ph). You’ve done a great job, and what’s happened? You’ve grown this economy, you’ve strengthened the center of your state, the middle. That’s because you know that if you’re really going to create wealth and opportunity, you got to get jobs, and good paying jobs for everybody.
And, so what’s happened? Two million jobs, manufacturing jobs, have left this country because of Barack Obama. Regulations, EPA, workplace regulations, things driving people off-shore all because of his number one priority, global climate change.
Well, let me tell you this, Mr. President. For every dollar of GDP, China creates five times as much pollution as we do here. You want to — lower global climate change, bring those jobs back to America and let American workers do that job with less pollution.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Senator Santorum. Thank you, candidates.
Moving to the world stage. The middle east is on the brink of chaos. Iran continues to provoke the United States, North Korea claims it’s tested a hydrogen bomb, and Afghanistan is in danger of falling back into Taliban hands. Critics of the administration say it’s all due to lack of U.S. leadership.
To you, Mrs. Fiorina, how do you see America’s role in the world today?
FIORINA: America must lead because when we do not lead, when this exceptional nation does not lead, the world is more dangerous and a more tragic place.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, they all refuse to lead. Worse, they refuse to respond when this nation is provoked. Hillary Clinton famously asked what difference does it make how four Americans died in Benghazi?
Mrs. Clinton, here’s what difference it makes. When you do not stand up and say the truth, that this was a purposeful terrorist attack, when you do not say the United States of America will retaliate for that attack, terrorists assume it’s open season.
We have refused to respond to every provocation. The President wouldn’t even mention the fact that Iran had taken two Navy boats and our sailors — hostage. He didn’t mention the fact that they violated the Geneva convention. He didn’t respond to the fact that Iran launched two ballistic missile just a short time ago, in direct violation of a deal they had just signed. We didn’t respond to the fact that North Korea attacked Sony Pictures.
When we refuse to respond over, and over to provocation and bad behavior, we will get more provocation and bad behavior. I know most of our allies personally. I have met many of our adversaries. I know our military and our intelligence capability, and I know this. When we will not stand with our allies, when we will not respond to our adversaries, when we do not lead in the world the world is a dangerous and tragic place. I will be a Commander in Chief who will lead.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Well, since we’ve been talking about the Middle East, Senator Santorum, conflicts between Saudi Arabia and Iran have certainly escalated, amid accusations that Saudi Arabia bombed the Iranian Embassy in Yemen after the Saudi Embassy in Tehran was attacked.
As we confront an increasingly unstable Middle East, how will you, as president, navigate this administration’s promises to Iran while standing by our historic allies in the region?
RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), FORMER SENATOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the historic promises that we have made to — to Iran in this agreement need to be torn up on the first day in office of the next president.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: And let me tell you why, because Iran has already torn it up. Iran has not approved the agreement that President Obama has said that they have approved. They have approved a different agreement in their parliament.
The fact of the matter is they have violated this agreement. Carly just mentioned some of those violations.
They have launched ballistic missiles, tested them, in clear violation.
And here’s the pathetic part. The president announced that they were going to impose sanctions. And then President Rouhani went on Twitter and said there would be retaliation.
And what did we do?
We backed down.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are 50 some Citadel cadets in this audience tonight.
(APPLAUSE) SANTORUM: I would ask them to stand up if they will. And here’s what I want to tell each and every one of them, as you stand. Here’s what I want to tell them.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Whether it’s you’re watching that movie this weekend that just came out when we abandoned our men and women in Benghazi, or whether it’s we treat Iran, that gave courtesies to our sailors, as they made them record a hostage video, let me tell you this, if you choose to serve this country, I will have your back. I will not let America be trampled upon anymore by these radical jihadists.
REGAN: Thank you, Senator Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Governor Huckabee, in Afghanistan, the Taliban is strengthening. Attacks are on the rise and thousands more civilians have been wounded or killed. Much of the Taliban surge can be attributed to the withdrawal of U.S. forces there.
You have expressed skepticism with the war there, saying you see no end game in sight.
What, then, is your solution to the growing conflict there?
MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AK), FORMER GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let me put that in context. When I went to Afghanistan, I saw a land that looked like the land of the Flintstones. It was desolate. It was barren. It was primitive.
And it’s been that way for thousands of years. They want to take the world back to be just like that.
We don’t.
We need to make a clear goal as to why we want to be anywhere in the Middle East, and I’ll tell you why we want to be and need to be, is to destroy radical Islam and everything that threatens civilization. It’s not just a threat...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: — to Israel or to America, it’s a threat to every civilized person on this Earth. And we need to be equipping not only the Kurds in Iraq, we need to be making sure that those who are willing to fight radical Muslims will do it, but we need to never ever spend a drop of American blood unless there is a clearly defined goal and we can’t make sure we win unless we have a military that’s the strongest in the history of mankind.
We’ve got to rebuild our navy. It’s the smallest navy we’ve had since 1915, when my grandfather got on a destroyer in World War I when he was in the U.S. Navy. We’ve got young men in Air Force B-52s, one in particular, he’s flying a B-52 that his father flew in the ’80s and his grandfather flew in the ’50s. Those planes are older than me.
We’ve got to have a military that the world is afraid of, use it sparingly, but when we do, the whole world will know that America is on their tail and they will be on their tail on the ground, never ever to rise up again.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Governor Huckabee, if I could just follow-up with that.
Do we need to be in Afghanistan?
HUCKABEE: Only if there is a concerted effort to destroy the advance of radical Islamists who are against us. As far as what are we going to make it look like. Frankly, I don’t know what we can make it look like. You can’t create for other people a desire for freedom and democracy.
And frankly, that is not the role of the United States. The role of the United States military is not to build schools, it is not to build bridges, it is not to go around and pass out food packets.
It is to kill and destroy our enemy and make America safe and that is the purpose we should be there if we’re going to be there.
REGAN: Thank you Governor Huckabee.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, nearly 600 women say they were attacked in a German city on New Year’s Eve by men of Arab or North African descent and 45 percent of those alleged attacks were sexual assaults. Twenty-two of those 32 men arrested so far are asylum-seekers. Are you worried about similar problems in the United States?
FIORINA: Of course I’m worried about similar problems in the United States. We can not allow refugees to enter this country unless we can adequately vet them and we know we can’t. Therefore we should stop allowing refugees into this country.
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: And by the way, we do not need to be lectured about why we’re angry and frustrated and fearful because we’ve had an illegal immigration problem in this country for 25 years.
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: And we have every right to be frustrated about the fact that politicians stand up in election after election after election and promise us to fix the problem and yet, it has never been fixed.
I offer leadership that understands that actions speak louder than words, that results count. We must secure our border. We must fix our broken immigration system. We must enforce a pro-American immigration system that serves our interests, not the rest of the world. I understand what it takes to translate goals into results and that is what I will do as president of the United States. Of course, we should be worried, for heavens sakes.
This administration has now told us they don’t know who has overstayed a visa. This administration has told us they don’t even bother to check Facebook or Twitter to find out who’s pledging allegiance to jihadis. We can do better than this, citizens. We need to take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: I want to stay with you on this. The world shares a common enemy right now in the way of ISIS. Russia, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, we all agree ISIS is a threat and it must be stopped.
During World War II, the world partnered with Joseph Stalin, who was arguably one of the most formidable — despicable figures of the 20th century. But they partnered with him to fight the Nazis.
Today, everyone seems to agree we need some kind of coalition to fight ISIS. Do you agree with that? And if so, would your coalition include possibly, Russia and Iran?
FIORINA: We need to be very clear-eyed now about who are our allies and who are our adversaries. In the fight against ISIS, Saudi Arabia is our ally. Iran is our adversary. And despite Donald trump’s bromance with Vladmir Putin, Vladmir Putin and Russia are our adversary. We can not...
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: We can not outsource leadership in the Middle East to Iran and Russia. We must stand and lead. The Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the Saudis, Egyptians, Bahrainis (sic), the Emirates, the Kurds. I know virtually all of these nations and their leaders. And they have asked us for very specific kinds of support: bombs, material, arms, intelligence.
We are not providing any of it today. I will provide all of it. We have allies who will stand up and help us deny ISIS territory, which is what we must do to defeat them. We must deny them territory. They will help us do this. And yes, we need a coalition.
But only in the United States of America can lead such a coalition. I will lead it. But we must be clear-eyed through this fight. Iran is our adversary. Russia is our adversary. We can never outsource our leadership. Only the United States of America can lead to defeat ISIS. I will.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, thank you.
SMITH: All right, thank you, candidates. We’re just getting started. Jobs, Homeland Security, gun rights, all those issues are coming up straight ahead. We’re live from North Charleston and the Republican Presidential Debate. We’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Welcome back, everyone, to the Republican presidential debate. On to the next round of questions — Sandra.
SMITH: All right, let’s get started. Senator Santorum, to you first. President Obama has urged technology leaders to make it hard for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice. Hillary Clinton says social media companies can help by swiftly shutting down terrorist accounts.
The companies say that they’re already working with law enforcement and any proposed legislation would do more harm than good. Should companies like Facebook and Twitter be required by law to more actively — be more actively engaged in fighting terror?
SANTORUM: I would just say that if we were doing a better job within the government, we wouldn’t need the private sector to do the things that we’re asking them to do.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: I’ve had a little experience in this in the private sector myself. And what I found was a government with layers and layers of bureaucracy, of people who had some technical expertise but they had no authority, number one.
And one of the things I found out about in the bureaucracy is if a lot of people have authority, nobody has authority, number one. And number two, that if you don’t do anything, you don’t get fired.
It’s only when you do something and something goes wrong, you get fired. So they do nothing. And that’s what is happening in our Defense Department right now. We have a capability that they’re trying to develop to play defense.
We have a lot of technologists that are very skilled. And they’re trying to figure out how to play defense. But what we don’t have is we don’t have folks who are thinking about offense.
We don’t have war-fighters. We have technologists. Technologists are not war-fighters. Technologists are thinking, how do I protect cyber-security, how do I secure, how do I protect?
SANTORUM: And we need to have a much more dynamic, how do we — how do we go after them?
How do we respond?
And we need leadership that’s willing to make sure that when someone attacks us — and ladies and gentlemen, they’re attacking us as we speak. They’re attacking us all day every day, not just the government, but they’re attacking private sector companies all day every day.
They have to learn that we’re going to pay — they’re going to pay a price when they do so.
And then right now, just like in every other aspect of our national security, people who attack us are not paying a price. We need a leader who will make sure that they know when they mess with America, they’re going to pay a price.
SMITH: Senator, would you — would you require anything of those companies like Facebook and Twitter if you were president?
SANTORUM: Look, Facebook and Twitter can teach us things. We can cooperate with them. We can share ideas and information. But this is a — and this is a very dicey area for the government to go in and require the industry to do its job.
It needs to develop that capability. We need to be — have responsible dialogue, but I don’t think requirements are the order of the day.
SMITH: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, the president has just issued an executive order to expand the gun laws and background checks. And none of you on stage agree with this.
But recent polls show the majority of Americans are in favor of universal background checks.
(BOOS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not in this room.
REGAN: It’s the poll data.
(CROSSTALK)
FIORINA: And we all believe the polling data all the time, don’t we?
REGAN: So tell me...
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: — why, in your view, is the president’s proposal a problem?
FIORINA: Oh, it’s a problem for so many reasons.
First of all, it is yet another lawless executive order. You see, he doesn’t like the fact that Congress has rejected his ideas twice on a bipartisan basis, so he’s decided he just gets to override them.
Sorry, Mr. President, not the way “The Constitution” works.
Secondly...
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: — secondly, he basically admitted in that speech that he hasn’t been paying much attention to enforcing the laws we have. He said, gee, we need a few more FBI agents. That would have helped, perhaps, stop a tragedy here in South Carolina with Dylann Roof, a guy who clearly never should have been sold a gun.
In other words, Mr. President, you’re right, we need to enforce the laws we have. Let’s enforce the laws we have. There are criminals running around with guns who shouldn’t have them. We don’t prosecute any of them. Less than 1 percent.
But I want to go back to the technology issue for a moment, if I may, as well, because in this regard, I disagree with Senator Santorum. Look, I come from the technology industry and I can tell you there is one thing that bureaucracies don’t know how to do. They do not know how to innovate.
We have come seven generations of technology since 2011. We have bureaucracies that are incapable of bringing in that innovation.
So, yes, there are some very specific things that we should ask the private sector to help us with, including making sure we have the latest and greatest in algorithms to search through all these databases so that we find terrorists before they attack us, not after it’s too late.
And, finally, when a president who understands technology in the Oval Office. Mrs. Clinton, actually, you cannot wipe a server with a towel.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, you’ve said that was when you were CEO of HP, you actually worked with the government.
FIORINA: Yes, and see...
REGAN: — to try and combat some of these terrorist threats.
FIORINA: As CEO of Hewlett Packard...
REGAN: What did you do?
FIORINA: As CEO of Hewlett Packard, I was asked very specifically for some very real help. The help I was asked to provide, this is now public information. So I am not revealing what — something that was — was classified.
We had a very large shipment of equipment, software and hardware, headed to a retail outlet. And I was called by the head of the NSA, who had an urgent need for that capability, to begin laying out a program to track terrorists.
We turned that truck around on a highway and it was escorted to the headquarters in San Jose.
In World War II, our government went to the private sector and said, help us do things that we cannot do.
The private sector has capabilities that the government does not have. There are some legal authorities that are required.
The Sony attack could have been detected and repelled, had legal authorities been passed in Congress allowing private networks and public networks to work together.
Those legal authorities have not yet been passed.
Yes, I was asked to help.
(RINGS BELL)
FIORINA: I know the technology industry. They will help again. But they must be asked by a president who understands what they have.
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: All right, Governor Huckabee, you called President Obama’s executive orders on gun control unconstitutional and completely insane.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: (LAUGHING) Yes, I did.
SMITH: You even told gun store owners to ignore the President’s orders.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Yet, innocent people are dying from gun violence in cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Charleston everyday. Is there anything that can be done at the federal level to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals?
HUCKABEE: Well, why don’t we start by making sure the Justice Department never does an idiotic program like Fast and Furious where the U.S. Government put guns...
(CHEERING)
HUCKABEE: ...in the hands of Mexican drug lords...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...and end up killing one of our border agents. You know, they want to talk about law abiding citizens, I just find it amazing the President keeps saying the gun show loophole. There is no gun show loophole. I promise you I’ve been to more gun shows than President Obama.
SMITH: (LAUGHING)
HUCKABEE: And, I’ve bought more weapons at them, and you fill out forms. The President also says things that it’s easier to get a gun now than it is to grow trees. Again, I purchase guns, and I can assure you that it is much more difficult to purchase a firearm than it is to get the ingredients of a salad at the supermarket.
What the President keeps pushing are ideas that have never worked. Ideas that would not have stopped San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Aurora, and at some point you wonder if you keep retrying things that don’t work, maybe we should just see if we could resell all those used lottery tickets that didn’t work real well because that’s the logic of just keep doing the same thing, but something that has failed. Of course, we want to stop gun violence, but the one common thing that has happened in most mass shootings is that they happened in gun- free zones where people who would have been law abiding citizens, who could have stood up and at least tried to stop it and we’re not allowed to under the law.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Governor Huckabee.
REGAN: Governor Huckabee, an American in San Bernardino murdered 14 people while terrorists with Belgian and French passports murdered 130 people. Were facing a threat within our borders, and from outside the United States. Those European terrorists, they could have come here at any time given that we have a visa waiver program that enables people to travel back and forth. It exists within those countries, and 36 others.
In countries around the world, including many in Europe, cannot ensure that their citizens are not jihadists, why are we waiving the visa requirement at all?
HUCKABEE: Well, we shouldn’t be and that’s one of the reasons that I think there a lot of voices in our country who are saying it’s time to relook (ph) at the visa program. The European Union is a failure, it’s not allowed for even the economic goals that they were trying to achieve.
But, what we’re not seeing is that it’s making Europe less safe, and it’s proven not to be exactly what they all thought it was going to be.
Our first and foremost responsibility in this country, and the first responsibility of the President of the United States is protect America, and protect Americans. We have a President who seems to be more interested in protecting the reputation and image of Islam than he is protecting us. And, I want to be very clear...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...that this President.
(CHEERING)
HUCKABEE: Makes comments like he did the other night, that we have to be so careful because we don’t want to offend Muslims. He needs to read his own FBI crime stats from last year which would show him that of the hate crimes in the country, over 5,500, about 1,100 were religious hate crimes. And, of those, 58% were directed toward Jews. Only 16% directed toward Muslims.
Maybe what the President should have talked about the other night is how we ought to be more careful in the anti-semitic comments that are going toward American Jews than toward Muslims because by three times as many...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...they’re being targeted for religious hate crime.
REGAN: If you get the visa waiver program, does that shut down international commerce?
HUCKABEE: It does not shut down international commerce, but it may slow it down. And, you don’t want to slowdown commerce that is making us safer. It’s worth it. This lady who came and joined with the San Bernardino killer had passed three background checks, and that’s why a lot of Americans didn’t buy it when the President said we’ll bring in Syrian refugees, but don’t worry we’ll check them out.
We have a lot of confidence in a president who told us that we could keep our doctor, we could keep our health insurance, and cost us less, and now the latest is if you like your gun you can keep it too, and frankly, we don’t buy it. We don’t believe it. He’s lost his credibility, and his inept...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...inability to work with Congress and pass legislation has led him to do what I never even imagined doing as a governor, and that’s just going and doing it my own way.
HUCKABEE: That’s why we elect a president, is to lead, is to be able to shepherd things through. And if I can do it with a 90 percent Democrat legislature in Arkansas, there is no excuse for any president not being able to lead in Washington if he knows what the heck he is doing when he gets there.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you, Governor Huckabee.
SMITH: Senator Santorum, many of our military leaders believe America’s critical infrastructure is vulnerable to a terrorist attack. This is the power in our homes, the water we drink, the Internet and phone systems by which we stay connected.
If attacked, these essential services that underpin American society could come to a grinding halt. Do you have a specific plan to protect us from this type of attack?
SANTORUM: Well, the most devastating attack that could occur is an electromagnetic pulse attack, and that would be an attack that would be triggered by a nuclear explosion in the upper atmosphere of our country.
The best way to stop that from happening is to make sure that those who contemplating and actually war-gaming and talking about using it, Iran, doesn’t get a nuclear weapon so they can’t explode that device.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: And the president of the United States has put Iran on a path to a nuclear weapon. And we have done nothing to do anything to harden our grid. There is actually a bill in Congress that would put money forward to try to put redundancy and harden our electric grid so it could actually survive an EMP.
An EMP is a devastating explosion that sends a pulse that knocks out all electric, everything, everything that is connected to any kind — that is wired, that has a circuit board gets fried out. Everything is gone. Cars stop. Planes fall out of the sky.
This is a devastating attack. And this president has done nothing, number one, to take the most probable person to — probable country to launch an attack and stop them, and has done nothing to try to defend us, particularly our electric grid. The bottom line is, I put the original sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program when I was in the United States Senate. I’ve been fighting for 12 years with one thing in mind, that we must stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And...
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Because they’re different than every other country. They do not want a nuclear weapon to defend themselves. They want a nuclear weapon to have theological ends to bring about their mahdi so they can control the world. And that is the most serious threat facing this country right now.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Senator Santorum, I want to stay with you on this, moving to jobs and the economy. In his State of the Union Address the other night, President Obama touted his record on jobs, citing more than 14 million new jobs and boasted of nearly 900,000 manufacturing jobs added in the past six years.
Do you dispute his track record of creating jobs?
SANTORUM: Well, the numbers just don’t add up. I mean, they have not added manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country, 2 million of them. The bottom line is that this president has done more to take jobs away from the hard-working people who are struggling the most.
And that’s folks who are, as I said, the 74 percent of Americans who don’t have a college degree. And they’re out there talking about, well, we’re going to provide free college for everybody. Well, who is going to pay for it? The 74 percent that don’t have a college degree.
They’re not — nobody is focused. Let’s just be honest, nobody is focused on the people who are struggling the most in America today. We talk about immigration. Talk about the president’s immigration plan. He wants to bring in more and more people into this country. Let people who are here illegally stay in this country.
Almost all of the people who are here illegally, and most of the people who came here legally over the last 20 years, they’re working in wage-earning jobs. That is why wages have flat-lined.
And we have unfortunately two political parties with most of the candidates in this field for some form of amnesty, some form of allowing people to stay here even though they’re here illegally and for increasing levels of legal immigration.
I’m someone who believes that we need to be the party that stands for the American worker. And when we say we need to send people back, I mean we send people back.
And let me just make one point. I was in Storm Lake, Iowa, the other day, near a Tyson’s plant, 91 percent of the kids that go to the elementary school there are minority kids. And they said, well, what are you going to do with all of these people, their families, they’ve lived here for a long time?
I said, I’m going to give them a gift. I’m going to give them a gift of being able to help the country they were born in.
SANTORUM: And I’m going to export America, the education they were able to see. They learned English language. They learned about capitalism. They learned about democracy. You want to stop flow of immigrants?
Let’s send six million Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, El Savadorians...
(BELL RINGS)
... back into their country, so they can start a renaissance in their country so they won’t be coming over here anymore.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Senator Santorum, thank you.
SMITH: Governor Huckabee, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said the greatest threat to our security is our national debt.
Our national debt is now on pace to top $19 trillion. Yet, you as well as Ms. Fiorina have laid forward no plan to reform entitlements. How can you say you’re going to pay down our country’s debt without cutting Social Security or Medicare?
HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, let’s just remember that Social Security is not the government’s money, it belongs to the people who had it taken out of their checks involuntarily their entire working lives.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: For the government to say, well it is fault of working people that we have a Social Security problem, no. It is the fault of a government that used those people’s money for something other than protecting those people’s accounts. So let’s not blame them and punish them.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: But here is a fact, and I sometimes hear Republicans say well, we’re going to have to cut this and extend the age. You know what I think a lot of times when I hear people say, well, let’s make people work to their 70. That sounds great for white-collar people who sat at a desk most of their lives. You ever talk to somebody that stood on concrete floor for the first 40 years of their working life? Do you think they can stand another five years or 10 years, many of them will retired virtually crippled because they worked hard. And we’re going to punish them some more? I don’t think so. Here’s the fact.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCAKBEE: Four percent economic growth, we fully fund Social Security and Medicare. Our problem is not that Social Security is just too generous to seniors. It isn’t. Our problem is that our politicians have not created the kind of policies that would bring economic growth.
And I still support strongly that we get rid of the 77,000 pages of the monstrous tax code...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ... pass the fair tax, supercharge this economy with the rocket fuel that happens with the consumption tax and we don’t have to cut Social Security to any senior who has worked their lifetime for it.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you, Governor Huckabee.
SMITH: OK. We’re going to continue this conversation. We’re taking a quick break and then coming up, the candidates’ plans for strengthening the middle class. We’re live in North Charleston with the Republican Presidential Debate. We’ll be right back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERICAL BREAK)
REGAN: Welcome back to the Republican presidential debate live from North Charleston.
We want to jump right back in.
Sandra is kicking it off.
SMITH: All right, thanks, Trish.
Well, let’s get started with Ms. Fiorina.
Today, the middle class represents about 50 percent of the U.S. population, down from about 61 percent back in 1971. That’s according to Pew Research. The same research revealed a widening income gap in America. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
What will you do to strengthen a middle class that is no longer the majority?
FIORINA: For decades, the professional political class in both parties has been talking about the middle class. For decades, Republicans in particular have been talking about reducing the size and scope of government, spending less money, reducing the complexity.
And yet, for 40 years, the government has gotten bigger and more expensive.
We now have a 75,000 plus page tax code, although politicians have run for office for decades promising reform. And all the while, middle class incomes have stagnated.
You see, when government gets bigger and bigger, more powerful, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed.
We need to understand who the job creators are in this country, because we need more jobs to grow the middle class and to grow the wages of the middle class.
Who creates jobs?
Small businesses, new businesses, family-owned businesses. (APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: They create two thirds of the new jobs in this country and they employ half the people.
I started out typing for a nine person real estate firm. My husband Frank started out driving a tow truck for a family-owned auto body shop. And we are crushing small businesses and destroying the middle class.
So here’s my blueprint to take back America. Let us first actually reform the tax code from 73,000 pages down to three. There’s a 20-year-old plan to do exactly that.
And then let us begin piece by piece to focus on every single dollar the government spends, so that we will spend less overall and still have enough for our priorities. And that requires the government to budget the way you do at home — examine every dollar, cut any dollar, move any dollar. The fancy term for that is zero- based budgeting, but I call it common sense.
Citizens, we’ve got to take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Fiorina.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Governor Huckabee, you know it used to be you could graduate from high school and get a pretty good job at the local factory, enough to take care of your family and yourself. Those days seem to be gone. It’s pretty hard to do that nowadays.
Businesses are increasingly turning to automation to increase their productivity levels. It’s happening right here, in fact, at the Boeing factory in North Charleston.
The president says automation threatens workers’ ability to get higher wages.
Do you agree with that?
And if so, do you have a solution?
HUCKABEE: Let me go back to the reason so many people are having a hard time getting ahead. The tax system punishes them.
Think about this. If you work really hard and you start moving up the economic ladder, you get bumped into a different tax bracket. So the government thinks it deserves more of your hard work than you do.
And it’s one of the reasons that no matter how many different reforms you have to a tax on people’s productivity, you’re still taxing their work, their savings. You’re taxing their capital gains, inheritance, dividends, you’re taxing everything that produces something.
And it’s way I really believe it’s time to do something bold, not something minute. This is no time for a tap of the hammer, a twist of the screwdriver. It’s time for something big. That’s why the fair tax transforms our economy.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And we don’t punish workers. It’s the only way we’re going to get middle class people moving ahead again, because the harder they work, the more they keep. No payroll tax deducted from their checks. They get their entire paycheck.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And, one of the most important parts, it’s built on the common sense with which we raised our kids, and trained dogs. You reward behavior you want more of. And, you punish behavior you want less of. That’s how I raise kids, it’s how I trained our dogs, and folks, it’s not that difficult.
We now punish the behavior we say we want more of by taxing it, and we reward the behavior that we say we want less of, so if you make a good investment, we punish you with a tax. If you make a bad investment you can write that off and the rest of the taxpayers will help subsidize you, and bail you out.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you very much, Governor Huckabee.
Senator Santorum, 40% of babies born today are born to single moms. That’s twice as high as reported back in 1980, and it’s 11 times as high as in 1940. Studies show that children are always better off economically, most often — and emotionally, with two parents in a household. From a policy perspective, should the government be doing anything to encourage family formation?
SANTORUM: You know, we’ve had this debate about the economy, and we haven’t talked the one issue now increasingly even the right, and even the are coming to agreement. I’ve run around doing 300 town hall meetings talking about a book written by a liberal Harvard sociologist, not a normal thing for me to be talking about, but I now name Robert Putnam who wrote a book called, “Our Kids”.
And, he wrote this book, I think, ostensibly to support the Democratic argument that the middle of America’s hollowing out, and income gap is widening, and rich are getting richer. When he studied all the information as to what was going on, he realized that the biggest reason that we’re seeing the hollowing out of the middle of America is the breakdown of the American family.
The reality is that if you’re a single parent — a child of a single parent, and you grew up in a single parent family neighborhood, you went to that single parent family school, the chance of you ever, ever reaching the top 20% of income earners is 3% in America. At least — I don’t know about you, but that’s not good enough. And, we have been too politically correct in this country because we don’t want to offend anybody to fight for the lives of our children. (APPLAUSE)
You want — You want to be shocked? You read the first few chapters of Mr. — Dr. Putnam’ book. He talks about Port Clinton, Ohio and growing up there in the 1950’s, and how poor kids actually survived and did well, even though they were poor and disadvantaged. But, then he goes to the towns today and these kids are failing, and failing miserably. They don’t even have a shot, and we won’t even have the courage to have leadership at the federal level — not with legislation, but the most powerful tool a president have, the bully pulpit to encourage each and everyone of you, churches and businesses, and educators, and community leaders to let’s have a national campaign to rebuild the American family, and give every child its birthright which is a Mom and a Dad who loves them.
That will change this economy.
(CHEERING & APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you.
SMITH: Thank you, Senator.
We’re not finished yet. More Republican Presidential Debate in North Charleston after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMITH: Welcome back, it’s time for the closing statements. Candidates will each get one minute, starting with Senator Santorum.
Thank you very much, I want to thank the people of Charleston, which has become a little bit of a second home to me, because I am very privileged to have two young men who go to the Citadel here and they’re here tonight, my son John and my son Daniel.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Ladies and gentlemen, America is frustrated and angry and looking for someone who’s a fighter, but I also think they’re looking for someone who’s a winner. Somebody who can go out there and take on the establishment and make a difference. And take on someone who’s going to be the person who’s going to be between a Republican holding the presidency and that’s Hillary Clinton.
And there’s one person on this stage, one person in the race who’s done it and done it repeatedly. I’ve taken on Hillary Clinton on the issues you care about. Partial-birth abortion.
Go and google Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton and there you’ll see a five-minute debate. I’ll let you decide who won the debate. I’ll tell you who won, because we passed the bill and I know I’m out of time but I’m going to take some of Rand Paul’s time here for a second.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: If you’re looking for someone who fought Hillary Clinton on Iran’s sanctions, she was one of four who voted — who’s deciding vote who voted against Iran’s sanctions, so we didn’t get it in place as earlier as we should have.
I’ve fought battles against her. In 1994, I ran against the Clinton machine. James Carville and Paul Begala, ran the race against me when I took on the author of Hillary care.
And each one of those battles, I won. You want a fighter, you want a winner, I’d appreciate your vote. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Senator Santorum. Governor Mike Huckabee.
HUCAKBEE: Well, Rick, I’m pretty sure I did also fight the Clinton machine because every election I was ever in in Arkansas, I assure you, they were behind it, helping finance and campaign for every opponent.
And I share with you the understanding that it’s going to be a tough battle. But I spent the first half of my adult life in the private and nonprofit sector, raising a family, understanding how tough it is for people to make it.
And that first half of my life is what led me to believe that America needs a different kind of leadership, not people who spent their whole life running from one office to the next, and living off the government dime. And I got involved because I got sick of what I saw.
I also believe that there’s got to be some leadership that not only addresses the monetary and military issues of this country, but the moral issues of this country. At the end of every political speech, most of us say, God bless America.
But how can he do that when we continue to slaughter 4,000 babies a day?
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And I want to be the president that treats every person, including the unborn, as a person. And protect them under the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution. I close with this word from a gentleman in East Texas named Butel Lucre (ph). He’s 100 years old and I met him down in East Texas.
HUCKABEE: And he said this to me. “I sure wish, Mike, we had the days when The Ten Commandments were in all of our capitals and in every school, and we prayed again.
You know, he may be 100 years old, but I believe some of those old ideas to get this country back where we unapologetically get on our knees before we get on our feet might be the best solutions we’ve ever sought as a country.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And I ask for your support and your vote.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Governor.
REGAN: Carly Fiorina?
FIORINA: My husband Frank, that I mentioned, I love spending time with. He’s down there. He was real excited the other day because in New Hampshire, he was introduced as my eye candy.
(LAUGHTER)
FIORINA: You know, everybody out there watching knows this. You cannot wait to see the debate between me and Hillary Clinton. You would pay to see that fight.
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: And that’s because you know I will win. And that’s important. We’ve got to start by beating Hillary Clinton.
All of my life, I have been told to sit down and be quiet. Settle. Settle. Don’t challenge the system.
That’s what the American people are being told now and we have been told that for way too long — sit down and be quiet about our God, about our guns, about the abortion industry, settle for illegal immigration that’s been a problem for decades, as so many of our problems have festered for decades. Accept a system of government and politics that no longer works for us.
I will not sit down and be quiet. And neither will you.
So I ask you to stand with me, fight with me, vote for me, citizens. It is time to take our future back, time to take our politics back. It is time to take our government back. Citizens, it is time. We must take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you to all the candidates.
(CROSSTALK)
REGAN: That does it, everyone for the first debate right here in North Charleston.
In just about two hours from now, at 9:00 p.m. Eastern seven more candidates are going to be taking to this stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/us/politics/transcript-preliminary-republican-presidential-debate.html
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTo2X4eG8cY [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJSsFfRpxUk [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ48hwDs62E [with comment],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92xZFG7LkIk [with comments]
*
FBN GOP 9 p.m. ET debate part 1 - January 14, 2016
Published on Jan 15, 2016 by Fox Business
The GOP debate featuring real estate mogul Donald Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Ohio Governor John Kasich.
*
6th Republican debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant [annotations viewable at the source, linked at the end of this transcript]
January 14, 2016
Seven candidates participated in Thursday's 2016 presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C.: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey governor Chris Christie.
The complete transcript:
The debate began after moderators Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartiromo introduced the candidates.
BARTIROMO: So let's get started. Candidates, jobs and growth -- two of the biggest issues facing the country right now. In his State of the Union address earlier this week, the president said, quote, "we have the strongest, most durable economy in the world."
And according to our Facebook research, jobs is one of the biggest issues resonating across the country, including here in South Carolina. The president is touting 14 million new jobs and an unemployment rate cut in half.
The president said that anyone who claims America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction. Senator Cruz, what do you see that he doesn't?
CRUZ: Well, Maria, thank you for that question, and let me say thank you to the state of South Carolina for welcoming us.
Let me start -- I want to get to the substance of the question on jobs, but I want to start with something. Today, many of us picked up our newspapers, and we were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees, with their hands on their heads.
In that State of the Union, President Obama didn't so much as mention the 10 sailors that had been captured by Iran. President Obama's preparing to send $100 billion or more to the Ayatollah Khamenei. And I'll tell you, it was heartbreaking.
But the good news is the next commander-in-chief is standing on this stage.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: And I give you my word, if I am elected president, no service man or service woman will be forced to be on their knees, and any nation that captures our fighting men will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, on to your substantive question. The president tried to paint a rosy picture of jobs. And you know, he's right. If you're a Washington lobbyist, if you make your money in and around Washington, things are doing great. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great under Obama. But we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Median wages have stagnated. And the Obama-Clinton economy has left behind the working men and women of this country.
The reason all of us are here is we believe we should be fighting for the working men and women of this country, and not Washington, D.C.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Kasich, we are not even two weeks into this stock trading year, but (inaudible) investors already lost $1.6 trillion in market value. That makes it the worst start to a new year ever. Many worry that things will get even worse, and that banks and financial stocks are particularly vulnerable.
Now, if this escalates, like it did back when Barack Obama first assumed the presidency, what actions would you take if this same thing happens all over again just as, in this example, you are taking over the presidency?
KASICH: Look, it takes three things basically to grow jobs. And I've done it when I was in Washington when we had a balanced budget; had four years of balanced budgets; paid down a half-trillion of debt. And our economy was growing like crazy. It's the same thing that I did in Ohio. It's a simple formula: common sense regulations, which is why I think we should freeze all federal regulations for one year, except for health and safety. It requires tax cuts, because that sends a message to the job creators that things are headed the right way. And if you tax cuts -- if you cut taxes for corporations, and you cut taxes for individuals, you're going to make things move, particularly the corporate tax, which is the highest, of course, in the -- in the world.
But in addition to that, we have to have fiscal discipline. We have to show that we can march to a balanced budget. And when you do that, when you're in a position of managing regulations; when you reduce taxes; and when you have fiscal discipline, you see the job creators begin to get very comfortable with the fact that they can invest.
Right now, you don't have the -- you have taxes that are too high. You have regulations -- I mean, come on, they're affecting everybody here, particularly our small businesses. They are -- they're in a position where they're smothering people. And I mean, are you kidding me? We're nowhere close to a balanced budget or fiscal discipline.
Those three things put together are going to give confidence to job creators and you will begin to see wages rise. You will begin to see jobs created in a robust economy. And how do I know it? Because I've done it. I did it as the chairman of the Budget Committee, working with Senator Domenici. And I've done it in the state of Ohio as the chief executive.
Our wages are growing faster than the national average. We're running surpluses. And we can take that message and that formula to Washington to lift every single American to a better life.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: We know that recent global events have many people worried -- Iran detaining American sailors, forcing them to apologize; North Korea and its nuclear ambitions; an aggressive China; and a Middle East that continues to deteriorate, not to mention ISIS is getting stronger.
Governor Christie, sometimes it seems the world is on fire. Where and when should a president use military action to restore order?
CHRISTIE: Well, Maria, I'm glad to have heard from you in the summary of that question about what's going on in the world. Because Tuesday night, I watched story time with Barack Obama. And I've got to tell you, it sounded like everything in the world was going amazing, you know?
(APPLAUSE)
The fact is, there's a number of things that the next president is going to have to do to clean up this mess. The first thing is we have to strengthen our alliances around the world. And the best way to do that is to start talking to our allies again and having them be able to count on our word.
CHRISTIE: Lots of people will say lots of different things about me in this campaign and others, but the one thing they've never said about me is that I'm misunderstood. And so when we talk to our allies and we give them our word, in a Christie administration, they know we're going to keep it.
Next, we have to talk to our adversaries, and we have to make sure they understand the limits of our patience. And this president, given what Ted said right at the beginning, he's absolutely right. It's a -- it's absolutely disgraceful that Secretary Kerry and others said in their response to what's going on in Iran that this was a good thing; it showed how the relationship was getting better.
The president doesn't understand -- and by the way, neither does Secretary Clinton -- and here's my warning to everybody out in the audience tonight. If you're worried about the world being on fire, you're worried about how we're going to use our military, you're worried about strengthening our military and you're worried most of all about keeping your homes and your families safe and secure, you cannot give Hillary Clinton a third term of Barack Obama's leadership.
I will not do that. If I'm the nominee, she won't get within 10 miles of the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Just to be clear Governor, where and when would you use military action?
CHRISTIE: Military action, Maria, would be used when it was absolutely necessary to protect American lives and protect American interests around the world. We are not the world's policeman, but we need to stand up and be ready.
And the problem, Maria, is that the military is not ready, either. We need to rebuild our military, and this president has let it diminish to a point where tinpot dictators like the mullahs in Iran are taking our Navy ships. It is disgraceful, and in a Christie administration, they would know much, much better than to do that.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Bush, the president just told the nation two nights ago that America is back and that the idea that our enemies are getting stronger or that this country is getting weaker, well, it's just rhetoric and hot air. Now other Democrats go even further, sir, saying Republicans even suggesting such comments actually embolden our enemies. I guess they would include you. What do you say?
BUSH: Well first of all, the idea that somehow we're better off today than the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States is totally an alternative universe. The simple fact is that the world has been torn asunder.
Think about it. With grandiose language, the president talks about red lines and nothing to follow it up; talks about ISIS being the JV team, they form a caliphate the size of Indiana with 35 (thousand) to 40,000 battle-tested terrorists. He's missing the whole point, that America's leadership in the world is required for peace and stability.
In the crowd today is Major General James Livingston, who's the co-chairman of my campaign here in South Carolina, a Medal of Honor recipient.
(APPLAUSE)
I've learned from him that what we need to achieve is peace through strength, which means we need to rebuild the military. In this administration, every weapon system has been gutted, in this administration, the force levels are going down to a level where we can't even project force. Our friends no longer think we have their back and our enemies no longer fear us, and we're in a much difficult -- we're in a much different position than we should be.
And for the life of me, I have no understanding why the president thinks that everything is going well. Terrorism is on the run, China, Russia is advancing their agenda at warp speed, and we pull back.
As president of the United States, I will be a commander in chief that will have the back of the military. We will rebuild the military to make sure that it is a solid force, not to be the world's policeman, but to make sure that in a peaceful world, people know that the United States is there to take care of our own national interests and take care of our allies.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: So I take it from that you do not agree with the president.
BUSH: No. And worse -- worse yet, to be honest with you, Hillary Clinton would be a national security disaster.
Think about it. She wants to continue down the path of Iran, Benghazi, the Russian reset, Dodd-Frank, all the things that have -- that have gone wrong in this country, she would be a national security mess. And that is wrong.
And you know what? Here's the problem. If she gets elected, she's under investigation with the FBI right now. If she gets elected, her first 100 days, instead of setting an agenda, she might be going back and forth between the White House and the courthouse. We need to stop that. (LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Senator Rubio, the president says that ISIS doesn't threaten our national existence like a Germany or a Japan back in World War II, that the terror group is nothing more than twisted souls plotting attacks in their garages.
But House Homeland Security Committee recently said that over 1,000 ongoing investigations of homegrown extremism in 50 states. So how do you define the threat? Germany then or dangerous nut cases now?
RUBIO: Yeah, I would go, first of all, one step further in this description of Hillary Clinton. She wouldn't just be a disaster, Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being commander in chief of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Someone who cannot handle intelligence information appropriately cannot be commander in chief and someone who lies to the families of those four victims in Benghazi can never be president of the United States. Ever.
(APPLAUSE)
On the issue of Barack Obama, Barack Obama does not believe that America is a great global power. Barack Obama believes that America is a arrogant global power that needs to be cut down to size. And that's how you get a foreign policy where we cut deals with our enemies like Iran and we betray our allies like Israel and we gut our military and we go around the world like he has done on 10 separate occasions and apologized for America.
He doesn't understand the threat in ISIS. He consistently underestimates it but I do not. There is a war against ISIS, not just against ISIS but against radical jihadists terrorists, and it is a war that they win or we win.
When I'm president of the United States, we are going to win this war on ISIS. The most powerful intelligence agency in the world is going to tell us where we are, the most powerful military in the world is going to destroy them. And if we capture any of them alive, they are getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and we are going to find out everything they know.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Thank you, Senator.
BARTIROMO: Dr. Carson, the president says he does not want to treat ISIS as a foreign army, but ISIS is neither a country nor a government. How do you attack a network that does not respect national borders?
CARSON: Well, I'm very happy to get a question this early on. I was going to ask you to wake me up when that time came.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, I find it really quite fascinating some of the president's proclamations. The fact of the matter is he doesn't realize that we now live in the 21st century, and that war is very different than it used to be before. Not armies massively marching on each other and air forces, but now we have dirty bombs and we have cyber attacks and we have people who will be attacking our electrical grid. And, you know, we have a whole variety of things that they can do and they can do these things simultaneously. And we have enemies who are obtaining nuclear weapons that they can explode in our exoatmosphere and destroy our electric grid.
I mean, just think about a scenario like that. They explode the bomb, we have an electromagnetic pulse. They hit us with a cyberattack simultaneously and dirty bombs. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue at that point? He needs to recognize that those kinds of things are in fact an existential threat to us.
But here's the real key. We have the world's best military, even though he's done everything he can to diminish it. And the fact of the matter is if we give them a mission and we don't tie their hands behind their back, they can get it accomplished.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Mr. Trump, at the State of the Union, the president pointed to a guest who was a Syrian refugee you might recall whose wife and daughter and other family members were killed in an air attack. Now he fled that country seeking asylum here, ultimately ended up in Detroit where he's now trying to start a new life.
The president says that that doctor is the real face of these refugees and not the one that you and some of your colleagues on this stage are painting; that you prefer the face of fear and terror and that you would refuse to let in anyone into this country seeking legitimate asylum. How do you answer that?
TRUMP: It's not fear and terror, it's reality. You just have to look today at Indonesia, bombings all over.
(APPLAUSE)
You look at California, you look, frankly, at Paris where there's a -- the strictest no-gun policy of any city anywhere in the world, and you see what happens: 130 people dead with many to follow. They're very, very badly wounded. They will -- some will follow. And you look around, and you see what's happening, and this is not the case when he introduced the doctor -- very nice, everything perfect but that is not representative of what you have in that line of migration.
That could be the great Trojan Horse. It could be people that are going to do great, great destruction. When I look at the migration, I looked at the line, I said it actually on your show recently, where are the women? It looked like very few women. Very few children. Strong, powerful men, young and people are looking at that and they're saying what's going on?
TRUMP: You look at the kind of damage that two people that two people that got married, they were radicalized -- they got married, they killed 15 people in actually 15 -- going to be probably 16 but you look at that and you take a look -- a good strong look and that's what we have. We are nineteen trillion dollars -- our country's a mess and we can't let all these people come into our country and break our borders. We can't do it.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, the New York Times is reporting that you failed to properly disclose a million dollars in loans from Goldman Sachs and CitiBank. During your senate race, your campaign said, "it was inadvertent." A million dollars is inadvertent?
CRUZ: Well Maria, thank you for passing on that hit piece in the front page of the New York Times. You know the nice thing about the mainstream media, they don't hide their views. The New York Times a few weeks back had a columnist who wrote a column saying, "Anybody But Cruz." Had that actually -- that same columnist wrote a column comparing me to an evil demonic spirit from the move, "It Follows" that jumps apparently from body to body possessing people.
So you know the New York Times and I don't have exactly have the warmest of relationships. Now in terms of their really stunning hit piece, what they mentioned is when I was running for senate -- unlike Hillary Clinton, I don't have masses of money in the bank, hundreds of millions of dollars. When I was running for senate just about every lobbyist, just about all of the establishment opposed me in the senate race in Texas and my opponent in that race was worth over 200 million dollars. He put a 25 million dollar check up from his own pocket to fund that campaign and my wife Heidi and I, we ended up investing everything we owned.
We took a loan against our assets to invest it in that campaign to defend ourselves against those attacks. And the entire New York times attack -- is that I disclosed that loan on one filing with the United States Senate, that was a public filing. But it was not on a second filing with FDIC and yes, I made a paperwork error disclosing it on one piece of paper instead of the other. But if that's the best the New York Times has got, they better go back to the well.
BARTIROMO: Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right. Welcome back to the Republican presidential debate, right here in North Charleston, South Carolina. Let's get right back to the questions. And I'll start with you, Senator Cruz.
Now you are, of course, a strict constitutionalist -- no one would doubt that. And as you know, the U.S. Constitution says only natural-born citizens are eligible for the office of president of the United States. Stop me if you've heard this before. Now, you were born...
(LAUGHTER)
... you were born in Canada to an American mother. So you were and are considered an American citizen. But that fellow next to you, Donald Trump -- and others -- have said that being born in Canada means you are not natural-born, and that has raised questions about your eligibility.
Do you want to try to close this topic once and for all tonight?
CRUZ: Well, Neil, I'm glad we're focusing on the important topics of the evening.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
You know, back in September, my friend Donald said that he had had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this birther issue.
(LAUGHTER)
Now, since September, the Constitution hasn't changed.
(LAUGHTER)
But the poll numbers have.
(APPLAUSE)
And I recognize -- I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.
If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president.
If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico.
At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on -- some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil.
Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.
(APPLAUSE)
(UNKNOWN): Not me.
CRUZ: Because -- because Donald's mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized. Now, Donald...
TRUMP: But I was born here.
CRUZ: ... on the issue -- on the issue of citizenship, Donald...
TRUMP: (inaudible). Big difference.
CRUZ: ... on the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm not going to use your mother's birth against you.
TRUMP: OK, good. Because it wouldn't work.
CRUZ: You're an American, as is everybody else on this stage, and I would suggest we focus on who's best prepared to be commander- in-chief, because that's the most important question facing the country.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Mr. Trump...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: ... that you raised it because of his rising poll numbers.
TRUMP: ... first of all, let me just tell you something -- and you know, because you just saw the numbers yourself -- NBC Wall Street Journal just came out with a poll -- headline: Trump way up, Cruz going down. I mean, so don't -- so you can't -- you can't...
(BOOING)
... they don't like the Wall Street Journal. They don't like NBC, but I like the poll.
(LAUGHTER)
And frankly, it just came out, and in Iowa now, as you know, Ted, in the last three polls, I'm beating you. So -- you know, you shouldn't misrepresent how well you're doing with the polls.
(APPLAUSE)
You don't have to say that. In fact, I was all for you until you started doing that, because that's a misrepresentation, number one.
TRUMP: Number two, this isn't me saying it. I don't care. I think I'm going to win fair and square (inaudible) to win this way. Thank you.
Lawrence Tribe and (inaudible) from Harvard -- of Harvard, said that there is a serious question as to whether or not Ted can do this. OK? There are other attorneys that feel, and very, very fine constitutional attorneys, that feel that because he was not born on the land, he cannot run for office.
Here's the problem. We're running. We're running. He does great. I win. I choose him as my vice presidential candidate, and the Democrats sue because we can't take him along for the ride. I don't like that. OK?
(LAUGHTER)
The fact is -- and if for some reason he beats the rest of the field, he beats the rest of the field (inaudible). See, they don't like that. They don't like that.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
No, they don't like he beats the rest of the field, because they want me.
(LAUGHTER)
But -- if for some reason, Neil, he beats the rest of the field, I already know the Democrats are going to be bringing a suit. You have a big lawsuit over your head while you're running. And if you become the nominee, who the hell knows if you can even serve in office? So you should go out, get a declaratory judgment, let the courts decide. And you shouldn't have mentioned the polls because I would have been much...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Why are you saying this now -- right now? Why are you raising this issue now?
TRUMP: Because now he's going a little bit better. No, I didn't care (inaudible). It's true. No, it's true. Hey look, he never had a chance. Now, he's doing better. He's got probably a four or five percent chance.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
CRUZ: Neil...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: The fact is, there is a big overhang. There's a big question mark on your head. And you can't do that to the party. You really can't. You can't do that to the party. You have to have certainty. Even if it was a one percent chance, and it's far greater than one percent because (inaudible).
I mean, you have great constitutional lawyers that say you can't run. If there was a -- and you know I'm not bringing a suit. I promise. But the Democrats are going to bring a lawsuit, and you have to have certainty. You can't have a question. I can agree with you or not, but you can't have a question over your head.
CAVUTO: Senator, do you want to respond?
CRUZ: Well, listen, I've spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the U.S. Supreme Court. And I'll tell you, I'm not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump.
TRUMP: You don't have to. Take it from Lawrence Tribe.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Take it from your professors...
(CROSSTALK)
CRUZ: The chances of any litigation proceeding and succeeding on this are zero. And Mr. Trump is very focused...
TRUMP: He's wrong. He's wrong.
CRUZ: ... on Larry Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is. He's a left-wing judicial activist, Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore's lawyer in Bush versus Gore. He's a major Hillary Clinton supporter. And there's a reason why Hillary's supporters are echoing Donald's attacks on me, because Hillary...
TRUMP: He is not the only one.
CRUZ: ... wants to face Donald Trump in the general election.
TRUMP: There are many lawyers.
CRUZ: And I'll tell you what, Donald, you -- you very kindly just a moment ago offered me the V.P. slot.
(LAUGHTER) I'll tell you what. If this all works out, I'm happy to consider naming you as V.P. So if you happen to be right, you could get the top job at the end of the day.
TRUMP: No -- no...
(LAUGHTER)
... I think if it doesn't...
(APPLAUSE)
I like that. I like it. I'd consider it. But I think I'll go back to building buildings if it doesn't work out.
CRUZ: Actually, I'd love to get you to build a wall.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: I have a feeling it's going to work out, actually.
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: Let me (inaudible). I was invoked in that question, so let me just say -- in that answer -- let me say, the real question here, I hate to interrupt this episode of Court TV.
(LAUGHTER)
But the real -- but I think we have to get back to what this election has to be about. OK? Listen, we -- this is the greatest country in the history of mankind. But in 2008, we elected a president that didn't want to fix America. He wants to change America. We elected a president that doesn't believe in the Constitution. He undermines it. We elected a president that is weakening America on the global stage. We elected a president that doesn't believe in the free enterprise system.
This election has to be about reversing all of that damage. That's why I'm running for office because when I become president of the United States, on my first day in office we are going to repeal every single one of his unconstitutional executive orders. When I'm president of the United States we are getting rid of Obamacare and we are rebuilding our military. And when I'm president, we're not just going to have a president that gives a State of the Union and says America is the greatest country in the world. When I'm president, we're going to have a president that acts like it.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, senator.
BARTIROMO: Mr. Trump, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley in her response to the State of the Union address
(APPLAUSE)
BARITROMO: appeared to choose sides within the party, saying Republicans should resist, quote, "the siren call of the angriest voices". She confirmed, she was referring to you among others. Was she out of line? And, how would a President Trump unite the party?
TRUMP: Okay. First of all, Nikki this afternoon said I'm a friend of hers. Actually a close friend. And wherever you are sitting Nikki, I'm a friend. We're friends. That's good.
(LAUGHTER)
But she did say there was anger. And I could say, oh, I'm not angry. I'm very angry because our country is being run horribly and I will gladly accept the mantle of anger. Our military is a disaster.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Our healthcare is a horror show. Obamacare, we're going to repeal it and replace it. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people. And yes, I am angry.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And I won't be angry when we fix it, but until we fix it, I'm very, very angry. And I say that to Nikki. So when Nikki said that, I wasn't offended. She said the truth.
One of your colleagues interviewed me. And said, well, she said you were angry and I said to myself, huh, she's right. I'm not fighting that. I didn't find it offensive at all. I'm angry because our country is a mess.
(APPLAUSE)
BARITROMO: But what are you going to do about it?
CAVUTO: Marco Rubio. I'm sorry, it's the time constraints. You and Governor Christie have been exchanging some fairly nasty words of late, and I will allow the governor to respond as well.
The governor went so far to say, you won't be able to slime your way to the White House. He's referring to a series of ads done by a PAC, speaking on your behalf, that say quote,"One high tax, Common Core, liberal, energy-loving, Obamacare, Medicaid-expanding president is enough. You think you went too far on that and do you want to apologize to the governor?
RUBIO: You know, as I said already twice in this debate, we have a very serious problem in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: We have a president of the United States that is undermining this country's security and expanding the role of...
CAVUTO: That is not my question.
RUBIO: Well, I am going to answer your question, Neil. He is -- this president is undermining the constitutional basis of this government. This president is undermining our military. He is undermining our standing in the world. I like Chris Christie, but we can not afford to have a president of the United States that supports Common Core.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: We can not afford to have a president of the United States that supports gun control. This president, this president is more interested in funding -- less interested in funding the military, than he is in funding planned -- he's more interested in funding Planned Parenthood than he is in funding the military.
Chris Christie wrote a check to Planned Parenthood. All I'm saying is our next president has to be someone that undoes the damage Barack Obama has done to this country. It can not be someone that agrees with his agenda.
Because the damage he has done to America is extraordinary. Let me tell you, if we don't get this election right, there may be no turning back for America. We're on the verge of being the first generation of Americans that leave our children worse off than ourselves.
So I just truly, with all my heart belief, I like everybody on the stage. No one is a socialist. No one here is under FBI investigation. So we have a good group of people.
CAVUTO: Is he a liberal?
RUBIO: Our next president...
CAVUTO: Is he a liberal?
RUBIO: Unfortunately, Governor Christie has endorsed many of the ideas that Barack Obama supports, whether it is Common Core or gun control or the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor or the donation he made to Planned Parenthood. Our next president, and our Republican nominee can not be someone who supports those positions.
CAVUTO: Governor?
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: I stood on the stage and watched Marco in rather indignantly, look at Governor Bush and say, someone told you that because we're running for the same office, that criticizing me will get you to that office.
It appears that the same someone who has been whispering in old Marco's ear too.
(LAUGHTER)
So the indignation that you carry on, some of the stuff, you have to also own then. So let's set the facts straight. First of all, I didn't support Sonia Sotomayor. Secondly, I never wrote a check to Planned Parenthood.
Third, if you look at my record as governor of New Jersey, I have vetoed a 50-caliber rifle ban. I have vetoed a reduction this clip size. I vetoed a statewide I.D. system for gun owners and I pardoned, six out-of-state folks who came through our state and were arrested for owning a gun legally in another state so they never have to face charges.
And on Common Core, Common Core has been eliminated in New Jersey. So listen, this is the difference between being a governor and a senator. See when you're a senator, what you get to do is just talk and talk and talk. And you talk so much that nobody can ever keep up with what you're saying is accurate or not.
When you're a governor, you're held accountable for everything you do. And the people of New Jersey, I've seen it.
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: And the last piece is this. I like Marco too, and two years ago, he called me a conservative reformer that New Jersey needed. That was before he was running against me. Now that he is, he's changed his tune.
I'm never going to change my tune. I like Marco Rubio. He's a good guy, a smart guy, and he would be a heck of a lot better president than Hillary Rodham Clinton would ever be.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Neil, my name was mentioned here. Neil, my name was mentioned as well.
Here's the deal, Chris is totally right. He's been a good governor, and he's a heck of a lot better than his predecessor that would have bankrupted New Jersey.
Everybody on this stage is better than Hillary Clinton. And I think the focus ought to be on making sure that we leave this nomination process, as wild and woolly as it's going to be -- this is not being bad.
These attack ads are going to be part of life. Everybody just needs to get used to it. Everybody's record's going to be scrutinized, and at the end of the day we need to unite behind the winner so we can defeat Hillary Clinton, because she is a disaster.
(APPLAUSE)
Our country rise up again, but we need to have a compelling conservative agenda that we present to the American people in a way that doesn't disparage people, that unites us around our common purpose.
And so everybody needs to discount some of the things you're going to hear in these ads, and discount the -- the back-and-forth here, because every person here is better than Hillary Clinton.
CARSON: Neil, I was mentioned too.
CAVUTO: You were?
CARSON: Yeah, he said everybody. (LAUGHTER)
And -- and I just want to take this opportunity to say, you know, in the 2012 election, you know, we -- and when I say we, Republicans -- tore themselves apart.
You know, we have to stop this because, you know, if we manage to damage ourselves, and we lose the next election, and a progressive gets in there and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, this nation is over as we know it. And we got to look at the big picture here.
BARTIROMO: Governor Kasich...
(APPLAUSE)
... Governor Kasich, Hillary Clinton is getting some serious competition from Senator Bernie Sanders. He's now at 41 percent in the latest CBS/New York Times poll. Vice President Biden sang his praises, saying Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real, and he has credibility on it.
So what does it say about our country that a candidate who is a self-avowed socialist and who doesn't think a 90 percent tax rate is too high could be the Democratic nominee?
KASICH: Well, if that's the case, we're going to win every state, if Bernie Sanders is the nominee. That's not even an issue. But look...
(APPLAUSE)
... and I know Bernie, and I can promise you he's not going to be president of the United States. So here's this -- the situation, I think, Maria.
And this is what we have to -- I -- I've got to tell you, when wages don't rise -- and they haven't for a lot of families for a number of years -- it's very, very difficult for them.
Part of the reason why it hasn't risen because sometimes we're not giving people the skills they need. Sometimes it's because the Federal Reserve kept interest rates so low that the wealthy were able to invest in -- in strong assets like the stock market when everybody else was left behind.
People are upset about it. I'll tell you what else they're upset about: you're 50 or 51 years old, and some kid walks in and tells you you're out of work, and you don't know where to go and where to turn. Do we have answer for that? We do. There are ways to retrain the 50 and 51-year-olds, because they've got great value.
I'll tell you what else people are concerned about. Their kids come out of college, they have high debt and they can't get a good job. We got to do a lot about the high cost of high -- higher education, but we've got to make sure we're training people for jobs that exist, that are good jobs that can pay.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me tell you that, in this country -- in this country, people are concerned about their economic future. They're very concerned about it. And they wonder whether somebody is getting something to -- keeping them from getting it.
That's not the America that I've ever known. My father used to say, "Johnny, we never -- we don't hate the rich. We just want to be the rich." And we just got to make sure that every American has the tools, in K-through-12 and in vocational education, in higher education.
And we got to fight like crazy so people can think the American dream still exists, because it does, with rising wages, with full employment and with everybody in America -- and I mean everybody in America -- having an opportunity to realize the American dream of having a better life than their mother and their father.
I'm president -- look, I've done it once. I've done it once in Washington, with great jobs and lower taxes. The economy was really booming.
And now in Ohio, with the same formula, wages higher than the -- than the national average. A growth of 385,000 jobs.
(BELL RINGS)
It's not that hard. Just know where you want to go, stick to your guts. Get it done, because our -- our children and grandchildren are counting on us to get it done. And, folks, we will. You count on it.
BARTIROMO: Dr. Carson, one of the other candidates on this stage has brought Bill Clinton's past indiscretions. Is that a legitimate topic in this election? And what do you think of the notion that Hillary Clinton is an enabler of sexual misconduct?
CARSON: Well, there's not question that we should be able to look at past president whether they're married to somebody who's running for president or not in terms of their past behavior and what it means. But you know, here's the real issue, is this America anymore? Do we still have standards? Do we still have values and principles?
You know, you look at what's going on, you see all the divisiveness and the hatred that goes on in our society. You know, we have a war on virtual everything -- race wars, gender wars, income wars, religious wars, age wars. Every war you can imaging, we have people at each other's throat and our strength is actually in our unity.
You know, you go to the internet, you start reading an article and you go to the comments section -- you cannot go five comments down before people are calling each all manner of names. Where did that spirit come from in America? It did not come from our Judeo-Christian roots, I can tell you that. And wherever it came from we need to start once again recognizing that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And let's not let the secular progressives drive that out of us.
The majority of people in American actually have values and principles and they believe in the very things that made America great. They've been beaten into submission. It's time for us to stand up for what we believe in.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Well, we are not done. Coming up, one of the top things people are talking about on Facebook, guns. And you can join us live us on this stage in the conversation during this commercial break right from home. You can go to Facebook.com/(inaudible). We will be streaming live and talking about how we think the debate is going so far.
CAVUTO: We're back in a moment in Charleston, South Carolina.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back to the Republican presidential debates, right here in North Charleston. Let's get right back to the questions.
Governor Bush, gun rights, one of the top issues seen on Facebook with close to 3 million people talking about it in the past month. Right here in Charleston, Dylann Roof, who has been accused of killing nine people in a nearby church, reportedly had not passed his background check when he got his gun. What is the harm in tightening standards for not only who buys guns, but those who sell them?
BUSH: First of all, I'd like to recognize Governor Haley for her incredible leadership in the aftermath of the --
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: The Emanuel AME church killings. And I also want to recognize the people in that church that showed the grace of God and the grace of forgiveness and the mercy that they showed.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: I don't know if any of us could have done what they did, one after another, within 48 hours of that tragedy taking place. Look, here's the deal, in this particular case, the FBI made a mistake. The law itself requires a background check, but that didn't fulfill their part of the bargain within the time that they were supposed to do.
We don't need to add new rules, we need to make sure the FBI does its job. Because that person should not have gotten a gun, should not -- would not have passed a background check. The first impulse of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is to take rights away from law- abiding citizens.
That's what they do, whether it's the San Bernardino attack or if it's these tragedies that take place, I think we need to focus on what the bigger issue is. It isn't law-abiding gun owners.
Look, I have an A plus rating in the NRA and we also have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while.
And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities. Target the efforts for people that are committing crimes with guns, and if you do that, and get it right, you're going to be much better off than creating a political argument where there's a big divide.
The other issue is mental health. That's a serious issue that we could work on. Republicans and Democrats alike believe this.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: The president's first impulse is do this by executive order, power he doesn't have. Why not go to Congress and in a bipartisan way, begin to deal with the process of mental health issues so that people that are spiraling out of control because of mental health challenges don't have access to guns.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Trump, are there any circumstances that you think we should be limiting gun sales of any kind in America?
TRUMP: No. I am a 2nd amendment person. If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now.
If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct.
We have a huge mental health problem in this country. We're closing hospitals, we're closing wards, we're closing so many because the states want to save money. We have to get back into looking at what's causing it. The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger and we have to find out what is going on.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: We have to protect our 2nd amendment and you cannot do this and certainly what Barack Obama was doing with the executive order. He doesn't want to get people together, the old-fashioned way, where you get Congress. You get the Congress, you get the Senate, you get together, you do legislation. He just writes out an executive order. Not supposed to happen that way.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you sir.
XXX where you get Congress.
TRUMP: You get the Congress. You get the Senate. You get together. You do legislation. He just writes out an order, executive order. It's not supposed to happen that way.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Senator Rubio, you said that President Obama wants to take people's guns away. Yet under his presidency, gun sales have more than doubled. That doesn't sound like a White House unfriendly to gun owners.
RUBIO: That sounds like people are afraid the president's going to take their guns away.
(APPLAUSE)
Look, the Second Amendment is not an option. It is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right of every American to be able to protect themselves and their families. I am convinced that if this president could confiscate every gun in America, he would. I am convinced that this president, if he could get rid of the Second Amendment, he would. I am convinced because I see how he works with his attorney general, not to defend the Second Amendment, but to figure out ways to undermine it.
I have seen him appoint people to our courts not to defend the Second Amendment, but to figure out ways to undermine it.
Here's my second problem. None of these instances that the president points to as the reason why he's doing these things would have been preventive. You know why? Because criminals don't buy their guns from a gun show. They don't buy their guns from a collector. And they don't buy their guns from a gun store. They get -- they steal them. They get them on the black market.
And let me tell you, ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns from a gun show. These...
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
... his answer -- you name it. If there's an act of violence in America, his immediate answer before he even knows the facts is gun control. Here's a fact. We are in a war against ISIS. They are trying to attack us here in America. They attacked us in Philadelphia last week. They attacked us in San Bernardino two weeks ago. And the last line standing between them and our families might be us and a gun.
When I'm president of the United States, we are defending the Second Amendment, not undermining it the way Barack Obama does.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: But what fact can you point to, Senator -- what fact can you point to that the president would take away everyone's gun? You don't think that's (inaudible)?
RUBIO: About every two weeks, he holds a press conference talking about how he can't wait to restrict people's access to guns. He has never defended...
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: I'll give you a fact. Well, let me tell you this. Do you remember when he ran for president of the United States, and he was a candidate, and he went and said, "These Americans with traditional values, they are bitter people, and they cling to their guns and to their religion." That tells you right away where he was headed on all of this.
This president every chance he has ever gotten has tried to undermine the Second Amendment.
(APPLAUSE)
He doesn't meet -- here's the difference. When he meets with the attorney general in the White House, it's not "how can we protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans." It's "give me options on how I can make it harder for law-abiding people to buy guns." That will never happen when I am president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Christie, you, too, have criticized the president's recent executive action on gun control, saying it's unconstitutional, another step to bypass Congress. But hasn't your own position on guns evolved, sir? The New Jersey Star-Ledger reports that you signed several laws to regulate the possession of firearms, and that you argued back in August 2013, and I quote, "These common sense measures will strengthen New Jersey's already tough gun laws."
So isn't that kind of what the president wants to do now?
CHRISTIE: No, absolutely not. The president wants to do things without working with his Congress, without working with the legislature, and without getting the consent of the American people. And the fact is that that's not a democracy. That's a dictatorship. And we need to very, very concerned about that.
See, here's the thing. I don't think the founders put the Second Amendment as number two by accident. I don't think they dropped all the amendments into a hat and picked them out of a hat. I think they made the Second Amendment the second amendment because they thought it was just that important.
The fact is in New Jersey, what we have done is to make it easier now to get a conceal and carry permit. We have made it easier to do that, not harder. And the way we've done it properly through regulatory action, not buy signing unconstitutional executive orders. This guy is a petulant child. That's what he is. I mean, you know...
(APPLAUSE)
... the fact is, Neil, let's think about -- let's think about -- and I want to maybe -- I hope the president is watching tonight, because here's what I'd like to tell him.
Mr. President, we're not against you. We're against your policies. When you became president, you had a Democratic Congress and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. You had only 21 Republican governors in this country. And now after seven years of your policies, we have the biggest majority we've had since the 1920s in the House; a Republican majority in the Senate; and 31 out of 50 Republican governors.
The American people have rejected your agenda and now you're trying to go around it. That's not right. It's not constitutional. And we are going to kick your rear end out of the White House come this fall.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: So what is the answer, Senator Cruz, to stop mass shootings and violent crime, up in 30 cities across the country?
CRUZ: The answer is simple. Your prosecute criminals. You target the bad guys. You know, a minute ago, Neil asked: What has President Obama do -- done to illustrate that he wants to go after guns?
Well, he appointed Eric Holder as attorney general. Eric Holder said he viewed his mission as brainwashing the American people against guns. He appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, someone who has been a radical against the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
He launched Fast and Furious, illegally selling guns to Mexican drug lords that were then used to shoot law enforcement officials. And I'll tell you what Hillary Clinton has said: Hillary Clinton says she agrees with the dissenters -- the Supreme Court dissenters in the Heller case.
There were four dissenters, and they said that they believe the Second Amendment protects no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever, which means, if their view prevailed and the next president's going to get one, two, three, maybe four Supreme Court justices, the court will rule that not a single person in this room has any right under the Second Amendment and the government could confiscate your guns.
And I'll note that California senator -- Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said, if she could say to Mr. America and Mrs. America, "give me your guns, I'm rounding them up," she would.
And let me make a final point on this. Listen, in any Republican primary, everyone is going to say they support the Second Amendment. Unless you are clinically insane...
(LAUGHTER)
... that's what you say in a primary. But the voters are savvier than that. They recognize that people's actions don't always match their words. I've got a proven record fighting to defend the Second Amendment.
There's a reason Gun Owners of America has endorsed me in this race. There's a reason the NRA gave me their Carter Knight Freedom Fund award...
(BELL RINGS) ... and there's a reason, when Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer came after our right to keep and bear arms, that I led the opposition, along with millions of Americans -- we defeated that gun control legislation.
And I would note the other individuals on this stage were nowhere to be found in that fight.
BARTIROMO: Senator...
(APPLAUSE)
... let me follow up and switch gears.
Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, "embodies New York values." Could you explain what you mean by that?
CRUZ: You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: I am from New York. I don't.
CRUZ: What -- what -- you're from New York? So you might not.
(LAUGHTER)
But I promise you, in the state of South Carolina, they do.
(APPLAUSE)
And listen, there are many, many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of New York. But everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.
And -- and I would note indeed, the reason I said that is I was asked -- my friend Donald has taken to it as (ph) advance playing Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA", and I was asked what I thought of that.
And I said, "well, if he wanted to play a song, maybe he could play, 'New York, New York'?" And -- and -- you know, the concept of New York values is not that complicated to figure out.
Not too many years ago, Donald did a long interview with Tim Russert. And in that interview, he explained his views on a whole host of issues that were very, very different from the views he's describing now.
And his explanation -- he said, "look, I'm from New York, that's what we believe in New York. Those aren't Iowa values, but this is what we believe in New York." And so that was his explanation.
And -- and I guess I can -- can frame it another way. Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I'm just saying.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: Are you sure about that?
CAVUTO: Maria...
TRUMP: So conservatives actually do come out of Manhattan, including William F. Buckley and others, just so you understand.
(APPLAUSE)
And just so -- if I could, because he insulted a lot of people. I've had more calls on that statement that Ted made -- New York is a great place. It's got great people, it's got loving people, wonderful people.
When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York. You had two one hundred...
(APPLAUSE)
... you had two 110-story buildings come crashing down. I saw them come down. Thousands of people killed, and the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup, probably in the history of doing this, and in construction. I was down there, and I've never seen anything like it.
And the people in New York fought and fought and fought, and we saw more death, and even the smell of death -- nobody understood it. And it was with us for months, the smell, the air.
TRUMP: And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers. And I have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor bush, for the third time in as many months, the Iranians have provoked us, detaining us, as we've been discussing, with these 10 Navy sailors Tehran had said strayed into their waters. The sailors were released, but only after shown on video apologizing for the incident. This occurring only weeks after Iran fired multiple rockets within 1,500 yards of a U.S. aircraft carrier and then continued to test medium range missiles.
Now you've claimed that such actions indicate Tehran has little to fear from a President Obama. I wonder, sir, what would change if they continued doing this sort of thing under a President Jeb Bush?
BUSH: Well, first of all, under President Jeb Bush, we would restore the strength of the military. Last week, Secretary Carter announced that the Navy's going to be cut again. It's now half the size of what it was prior to Operation Desert Storm.
The deployments are too high for the military personnel. We don't have procurement being done for refreshing the equipment. The B-52 is still operational as the long range bomber; it was inaugurated in the age of Harry Truman. The planes are older than the pilots. We're gutting our military, and so the Iranians and the Chinese and the Russians and many other countries look at the United States not as serious as we once were.
We have to eliminate the sequester, rebuild our military in a way that makes it clear that we're back in the game.
Secondly, as it relates to Iran, we need to confront their ambitions across the board. We should reimpose sanctions, they've already violated sanctions after this agreement was signed by testing medium-range missiles.
Thirdly, we need to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to send a serious signal that we're back in the game with Israel --
(APPLAUSE)
... and sign an agreement that makes sure that the world knows that they will have technological superiority.
We need to get back in the game as it relates to our Arab nations. The rest of the world is moving away from us towards other alliances because we are weak. This president and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all have made it harder for the next president to act, but he must act to confront the ambitions of Iran. We can get back in the game to restore order and security for our own country.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Thank you, Governor. Governor Kasich, while everyone has been focusing on Iran's provocations, I'm wondering what you make of what Saudi Arabia has been doing and its recent moves in the region, including its execution of a well-known Shi'ite cleric and its move to dramatically increase oil production, some say in an effort to drive down oil prices and force a lot of U.S. oil producers out of business.
Sure enough, oil prices have tumbled. One brokerage house is predicting a third or more of American oil producers and those heavily invested in fracking will go bankrupt, and soon Saudi Arabia and OPEC will be back in the driver's seat.
U.S. energy player Harold Hamrie similarly told me with friends like these, who needs enemies? Do you agree?
KASICH: Well, let me -- let me first of all talk a little bit about my experience. I served on the Defense Committee for 18 years, and by the way, one of the members of that committee was Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina. Let em also tell you...
(APPLAUSE)
... that after the 9/11 attacks, Secretary Rumsfeld invited me to the Pentagon with a meeting of the former secretaries of Defense. And in that meeting, I suggested we had a problem with technology, and that I wanted to take people from Silicon Valley into the Pentagon to solve our most significant problems. So I not only had the opportunity to go through the Cold War struggles in Central America, and even after 9/11 to be involved.
With Saudi Arabia and oil production, first of all, it's so critical for us to be energy independent, and we're getting there because of fracking and we ought to explore because, see, energy independence gives us leverage and flexibility, and secondly, if you want to bring jobs back to the United States of America in industry, low prices make the difference.
We're seeing it in my state and we'll see it in this country. And that's why we must make sure we continue to frack.
In terms of Saudi Arabia, look, my biggest problem with them is they're funding radical clerics through their madrasses. That is a bad deal and an evil situation, and presidents have looked the other way. And I was going to tell you, whether I'm president or not, we better make it clear to the Saudis that we're going to support you, we're in relation with you just like we were in the first Gulf War, but you've got to knock off the funding and teaching of radical clerics who are the very people who try to destroy us and will turn around and destroy them.
(APPLAUSE)
KASICH: So look, in foreign policy -- in foreign policy, it's strength, but you've got to be cool. You've got to have a clear vision of where you want to go. And I'm going to tell you, that it -- I'm going to suggest to you here tonight, that you can't do on the job training.
I've seen so much of it - a Soviet Union, the coming down of a wall, the issues that we saw around the world in Central America, the potential spread of communism, and 9/11 and Gulf War. You see what the Saudi's -- deliver them a strong message but at the end of the day we have to keep our cool because most of the time they're going right with us. And they must be part of our coalition to destroy ISIS and I believe we can get that done.
Thank you.
CAVUTO: Thank you John.
BARTIROMO: There's much more ahead including the fight against ISIS. More from Charleston, South Carolina when we come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: We welcome back to the Republican Presidential Debate, right back to the questions.
Candidates, the man who made fighting ISIS the cornerstone of his campaign, South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham is out the race but he joins us tonight in the audience.
(APPLAUSE)
He says, "the air-strike now in their 16th month have been ineffective." Dr. Carson ...
CARSON: Wait a minute, who in their 16th month?
BARTIROMO: The air-strikes.
CARSON: OK.
BARTIROMO: Now in their 16th month are ineffective. Dr. Carson, do you think Senator Graham is right in wanting to send 20,000 troops -- ground troops to Iraq and Syria to take out ISIS?
CARSON: Well, there's no question that ISIS is a very serious problem, and I don't believe that this administration recognizes how serious it is.
I think we need to do a lot more than we're doing. Recognize that the caliphate is what gives them the legitimacy to go out on a jihadist mission, so we need to take that away from them.
The way to take that away from them is to talk to our military officials and ask them, "what do you need in order to accomplish this goal?"
Our decision is, then, do we give them what we need. I say, yes, not only do we give them what they need, but we don't tie their hands behind their backs so that they can go ahead and get the job done.
In addition to that...
(APPLAUSE)
... in addition to that, we go ahead and we take the oil from them, their source of revenue. You know, some of these -- these engagement rules that the administration has -- "we're not going to bomb a tanker that's coming out of there because there might be a person in it" -- give me a break.
Just tell them that, you put people in there, we're going to bomb them. So don't put people in there if you don't want them bombed. You know, that's so simple.
(APPLAUSE)
And then we need to shut down -- we need to shut down their mechanisms of funding and attack their command-and-control centers. Why should we let their people be sitting there smoking their cigars, sitting in their comfortable chairs in Raqqa?
We know (ph) to go ahead and shut off the supply routes, and send in our special ops at 2:00 a.m. and attack them everywhere they go. They should be running all the time, then they won't have time to plan attacks against us.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir. Senator Graham has also said that the U.S. will find Arab support for its coalition if it removes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. And I quote, "The now king of Saudi Arabia told us, 'you can have our army, you just got to deal with Assad.'
"The emir of Qatar said, 'I'll pay for the operation, but they are not going to fight ISIS and let Damascus fall into the hands of the Iranians. Assad has to go.'"
Governor Christie, how important is it to remove Assad from power and how would you do it?
CHRISTIE: Maria, you look at what this president and his secretary of state, Secretary of State Clinton, has done to get us in this spot. You think about it -- this is the president who said, along with his secretary of state -- drew a red line in Syria, said, if Assad uses chemical weapons against his people, that we're going to attack.
He used chemical weapons, he's killed, now, over a quarter of a million of his own people, and this president has done nothing. In fact, he's done worse than nothing.
This president -- and, by the way, Secretary Clinton, who called Assad a reformer -- she called Assad a reformer. Now, the fact is, what this president has done is invited Russia to play an even bigger role, bring in Vladimir Putin to negotiate getting those chemical weapons back from Assad, yet what do we have today?
We have the Russians and the Iranians working together, not to fight ISIS, but to prop up Assad. The fact of the matter is we're not going to have peace -- we are not going to have peace in Syria. We're not going to be able to rebuild it unless we put a no-fly zone there, make it safe for those folks so we don't have to be talking about Syrian refugees anymore.
The Syrians should stay in Syria. They shouldn't be going to Europe. And here's the last piece...
(APPLAUSE)
... you're not going to have peace in Syria with Assad in charge. You're simply not. And so Senator Graham is right about this.
And if we want to try to rebuild the coalition, as Governor Kasich was saying before, then what we better do is to get to the Arab countries that believe that ISIS is a threat, not only to them, but to us and to world peace, and bring them together.
And believe me, Assad is not worth it. And if you're going to leave this to Hillary Clinton, the person who gave us this foreign policy, the architect of it, and you're going to give her another four years, that's why I'm speaking out as strongly as I am about that.
Hillary Clinton cannot be president. It will lead to even greater war in this world. And remember this, after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had nearly 8 years, we have fewer democracies in the world than we had when they started.
That makes the world less peaceful, less safe. In my administration, we will help to make sure we bring people together in the Middle East, and we will fight ISIS and defeat them.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Trump -- Mr. Trump, your comments about banning Muslims from entering the country created a firestorm. According to Facebook, it was the most-talked-about moment online of your entire campaign, with more than 10 million people talking about the issue.
Is there anything you've heard that makes you want to rethink this position?
TRUMP: No.
(LAUGHTER)
No.
(APPLAUSE)
Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that's not going to have the kind of problems that we've had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers, with the -- with the shootings in California, with all the problems all over the world.
TRUMP: I just left Indonesia -- bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.
We have to find out what's going on. I said temporarily. I didn't say permanently. I said temporarily. And I have many great Muslim friends. And some of them, I will say, not all, have called me and said, "Donald, thank you very much; you're exposing an unbelievable problem and we have to get to the bottom of it."
And unlike President Obama, where he refuses even to use the term of what's going on, he can't use the term for whatever reason. And if you can't use the term, you're never going to solve the problem. My Muslim friends, some, said, "thank you very much; we'll get to the bottom of it."
But we have a serious problem. And we can't be the stupid country any more. We're laughed at all over the world.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Donald, Donald -- can I -- I hope you reconsider this, because this policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS. The Kurds are our strongest allies. They're Muslim. You're not going to even allow them to come to our country?
The other Arab countries have a role to play in this. We cannot be the world's policeman. We can't do this unilaterally. We have to do this in unison with the Arab world. And sending that signal makes it impossible for us to be serious about taking out ISIS and restoring democracy in Syria.
(APPLAUSE)
So I hope you'll reconsider. I hope you'll reconsider. The better way of dealing with this -- the better way of dealing with this is recognizing that there are people in, you know, the -- Islamic terrorists inside, embedded in refugee populations.
What we ought to do is tighten up our efforts to deal with the entry visa program so that a citizen from Europe, it's harder if they've been traveling to Syria or traveling to these other places where there is Islamic terrorism, make it harder -- make the screening take place.
We don't have to have refugees come to our country, but all Muslims, seriously? What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world that the United States is a serious player in creating peace and security?
CAVUTO: But you said -- you said that he made those comments and they represented him being unhinged after he made them.
BUSH: Yeah, they are unhinged.
CAVUTO: Well -- well, after he made them...
(APPLAUSE)
... his poll numbers went up eight points in South Carolina. Now -- now, wait...
TRUMP: Eleven points, to be exact.
CAVUTO: Are you -- are you saying -- are you saying that all those people who agree with Mr. Trump are unhinged?
BUSH: No, not at all, absolutely not. I can see why people are angry and scared, because this president has created a condition where our national security has weakened dramatically. I totally get that. But we're running for the presidency of the United States here. This isn't -- this isn't, you know, a different kind of job. You have to lead. You cannot make rash statements and expect the rest of the world to respond as though, well, it's just politics.
Every time we send signals like this, we send a signal of weakness, not strength. And so it was (inaudible) his statement, which is why I'm asking him to consider changing his views.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I want security for this country. OK?
(APPLAUSE)
I want security. I'm tired of seeing what's going on, between the border where the people flow over; people come in; they live; they shoot. I want security for this country. We have a serious problem with, as you know, with radical Islam. We have a tremendous problem. It's not only a problem here. It's a problem all over the world.
I want to find out why those two young people -- those two horrible young people in California when they shot the 14 people, killed them -- people they knew, people that held the wedding reception for them. I want to find out -- many people saw pipe bombs and all sorts of things all over their apartment. Why weren't they vigilant? Why didn't they call? Why didn't they call the police?
And by the way, the police are the most mistreated people in this country. I will tell you that.
(APPLAUSE)
The most mistreated people. In fact, we need to -- wait a minute -- we need vigilance. We have to find out -- many people knew about what was going on. Why didn't they turn those two people in so that you wouldn't have had all the death?
There's something going on and it's bad. And I'm saying we have to get to the bottom of it. That's all I'm saying. We need security.
BARTIROMO: We -- we want to hear from all of you on this. According to Pew Research, the U.S. admits more than 100,000 Muslim immigrants every single year on a permanent lifetime basis. I want to ask the rest of you to comment on this. Do you agree that we should pause Muslim immigration until we get a better handle on our homeland security situation, as Mr. Trump has said?
Beginning with you, Governor Kasich.
KASICH: I -- I've been for pausing on admitting the Syrian refugees. And the reasons why I've done is I don't believe we have a good process of being able to vet them. But you know, we don't want to put everybody in the same category.
KASICH: And I'll go back to something that had been mentioned just a few minutes ago. If we're going to have a coalition, we're going to have to have a coalition not just of people in the western part of the world, our European allies, but we need the Saudis, we need the Egyptians, we need the Jordanians, we need the Gulf states. We need Jordan.
We need all of them to be part of exactly what the first George Bush put together in the first Gulf War.
(BELL RINGS)
It was a coalition made up of Arabs and Americans and westerners and we're going to need it again. And if we try to put everybody in the same -- call everybody the same thing, we can't do it. And that's just not acceptable.
But I think a pause on Syrian refugees has been exactly right for all the governors that have called for it, and also, of course, for me as the governor of Ohio.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir, we want to hear from the rest of you,
Governor Christie, your take.
CHRISTIE: Now Maria, listen. I said right from the beginning that we should take no Syrian refugees of any kind. And the reason I said that is because the FBI director told the American people, told Congress, that he could not guarantee he could vet them and it would be safe. That's the end of the conversation.
I can tell you, after spending seven years as a former federal prosecutor, right after 9/11, dealing with this issue. Here's the way you need to deal with it. You can't just ban all Muslims. You have to ban radical Islamic jihadists. You have to ban the people who are trying to hurt us.
The only way to figure that out is to go back to getting the intelligence community the funding and the tools that it needs to be able to keep America safe.
(BELL RINGS)
And this summer, we didn't do that. We took it away from the NSA, it was a bad decision by the president. Bad by those in the Senate who voted for it and if I'm president, we'll make our intelligence community strong, and won't have to keep everybody out, we're just going to keep the bad folk out and make sure they don't harm us.
BARTIROMO: Senator Rubio, where do you stand?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, let's understand why we are even having this debate and why Donald tapped in to some of that anger that's out there about this whole issue. Because this president has consistently underestimated the threat of ISIS.
If you listen to the State of the Union the other night, he described them as a bunch of guys with long beards on the back of a pickup truck. They are much more than that. This is a group of people that enslaves women and sells them, sells them as brides.
This is a group of people that burns people in cages, that is conducting genocide against Christians and Yazidis and others in the region. This is not some small scale group.
They are radicalizing people in the United States, they are conducting attacks around the world. So you know what needs to happen, it's a very simple equation, and it's going to happen when I'm president. If we do not know who you are, and we do not know why you are coming when I am president, you are not getting into the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, where do you stand? Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: You know I understand why Donald made the comments he did and I understand why Americans are feeling frustrated and scared and angry when we have a president who refuses to acknowledge the threat we face and even worse, who acts as an apologist for radical Islamic terrorism.
I think what we need is a commander in chief who is focused like a laser on keeping this country safe and on defeating radical Islamic terrorism. What should we do? First, we should pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, legislation I've introduced that says if an American goes and joins ISIS and wages jihad against America, that you forfeit your citizenship and you can not come in on a passport.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: And secondly, we should pass the legislation that I've introduced...
(BELL RINGS)
... that suspends all refugees from nations that ISIS or Al Qaida controls significant territory. Just last week, we see saw two Iraqi refugees vetted using the same process the president says will work, that were arrested for being alleged ISIS terrorists.
If I'm elected president, we will not let in refugees from countries controlled by ISIS or Al Qaida. When it comes to ISIS, we will not weaken them, we will not degrade them, we will utterly and completely destroy ISIS
(APPLAUSE).
BARTIROMO: Dr. Carson, where do you stand? Do you agree with Mr. Trump?
CARSON: Well, first of all, recognize it is a substantial problem. But like all of our problems, there isn't a single one that can't be solved with common sense if you remove the ego and the politics. And clearly, what we need to do is get a group of experts together, including people from other countries, some of our friends from Israel, who have had experience screening these people and come up with new guidelines for immigration, and for visas, for people who are coming into this country.
That is the thing that obviously makes sense, we can do that. And as far as the Syrians are concerned, Al-Hasakah province, perfect place. They have infrastructure. All we need to do is protect them, they will be in their own country.
And that is what they told me when I was in Jordan in November. Let's listen to them and let's not listen to our politicians.
BARTIROMO: So, to be clear, the both of you do not agree with Mr. Trump?
BUSH: So, are we going to ban Muslims from India, from Indonesia, from countries that are strong allies -- that we need to build better relationships with? Of course not. What we need to do is destroy ISIS.
I laid out a plan at the Citadel to do just that and it starts with creating a "No Fly Zone" and "Safe Zones" to make sure refugees are there. We need to lead a force, a Sunni led force inside of Syria. We need to embed with -- with the Iraqi military. We need to arm the Kurds the directly. We need to re-establish the relationships with the Sunnis.
We need the lawyers(ph) off the back of the war fighters. That's how you solve the problem. You don't solve it by big talk where you're banning all Muslims and making it harder for us to build the kind of coalition for us to be successful.
BARTIROMO: Thank you governor.
CAVUTO: Mr. Trump, sometimes maybe in the heat of the campaign, you say things and you have to dial them back. Last week, the New York Times editorial board quoted as saying that you would oppose, "up to 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods."
TRUMP: That's wrong. They were wrong. It's the New York Times, they are always wrong.
CAVUTO: Well...
TRUMP: They were wrong.
CAVUTO: You never said because they provided that...
TRUMP: No, I said, " I would use -- " they were asking me what to do about North Korea. China, they don't like to tell us but they have total control -- just about, of North Korea. They can solve the problem of North Korea if they wanted to but they taunt us.
They say, " well, we don't really have control." Without China, North Korea doesn't even eat. China is ripping us on trade. They're devaluing their currency and they're killing our companies. Thousands of thousands -- you look at the number of companies and the number in terms of manufacturing of plans that we've lost -- 50,000 because of China.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: So they've never said to put a tariff on their... TRUMP: We've lost anywhere between four and seven million jobs because of China. What I said then was, "we have very unfair trade with China. We're going to have a trade deficit of 505 billion dollars this year with China." A lot of that is because they devalue their currency.
What I said to the New York Times, is that, "we have great power, economic power over China and if we wanted to use that and the amount -- where the 45 percent comes in, that would be the amount they saw their devaluations that we should get." That we should get.
What I'm saying is this, I'm saying that we do it but if they don't start treating us fairly and stop devaluing and let their currency rise so that our companies can compete and we don't lose all of these millions of jobs that we're losing, I would certainly start taxing goods that come in from China. Who the hell has to lose 505 billion dollars a year?
CAVUTO: I'm sorry, you lost me.
TRUMP: It's not that complicated actually.
CAVUTO: Then I apologize. Then I want to understand, if you don't want a 45 percent tariff, say that wasn't the figure, would you be open -- are you open to slapping a higher tariff on Chinese goods of any sort to go back at them?
TRUMP: OK, just so you understand -- I know so much about trading about with China. Carl Icon today as you know endorsed. Many businessmen want to endorse me.
CAVUTO: I know...
TRUMP: Carl said, "no, no -- " but he's somebody -- these are the kind of people that we should use to negotiate and not the China people that we have who are political hacks who don't know what they're doing and we have problems like this. If these are the kinds of people -- we should use our best and our finest.
Now, on that tariff -- here's what I'm saying, China -- they send their goods and we don't tax it -- they do whatever they want to do. They do whatever what they do, OK. When we do business with China, they tax us. You don't know it, they tax us.
I have many friends that deal with China. They can't -- when they order the product and when they finally get the product it is taxed. If you looking at what happened with Boeing and if you look at what happened with so many companies that deal -- so we don't have an equal playing field. I'm saying, absolutely, we don't have to continue to lose 505 billion dollars as a trade deficit for the privilege of dealing with China.
I'm a free trader. I believe in it but we have to be smart and we have to use smart people to negotiate. I have the largest bank in the world as a tenant of mine. I sell tens' of millions of (inaudible).
I love China. I love the Chinese people but they laugh themselves, they can't believe how stupid the American leadership is.
CAVUTO: So you're open to a tariff?
TRUMP: I'm totally open to a tariff. If they don't treat us fairly, hey, their whole trade is tariffed. You can't deal in China without tariffs. They do it to us, we don't it. It's not fair trade.
KASICH: Neil, Neil -- can I say one thing about this. I'm a free trader. I support NAFTA. I believe in the PTT because it's important those countries in Asia are interfacing against China. And we do need China -- Donald's right about North Korea.
I mean the fact is, is that they need to put the pressure on and frankly we need to intercepts ships coming out of North Korea so they don't proliferate all these dangerous materials. But what he's touching -- talking about, I think has got merit. And I'll allow putting that tariff or whatever he's saying here...
TRUMP: I'm happy to have him tonight...
(LAUGHTER)
KASICH: For too long -- no, for too long, what happens is somebody dumps their product in our country and take our people's jobs, and then we go to an international court and it takes them like a year or two to figure out whether they were cheating us. And guess what? The worker's out of a job.
So when they -- be found against that country that's selling products in here lower than the cost of what it takes to produce them, then what do we tell the worker? Oh, well, you know, it just didn't work out for you.
I think we should be for free trade but I think fair trade. And when countries violate trade agreements or dump product in this country, we need -- we need to stand up against those countries that do that without making them into an enemy.
And I want to just suggest to you. How do I know this? Because so many people in my family worked in steel mills, and they didn't work with a white collar, they worked in a blue collar. And the fact is those jobs are critical, they're hard working members of the middle class and they need to be paid attention to because they're Americans and they carry the load. So let's demand open trade but fair trade in this country. That's what I think we need to do.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: All right.
RUBIO: But on this point, if I may add something on this point. We are all frustrated with what China is doing. I think we need to be very careful with tariffs, and here's why.
China doesn't pay the tariff, the buyer pays the tariff. If you send a tie or a shirt made in China into the United States and an American goes to buy it at the store and there's a tariff on it, it gets passed on in the price to price to the consumer.
So I think the better approach, the best thing we can do to protect ourselves against China economically is to make our economy stronger, which means reversing course from all the damage Barack Obama is doing to this economy.
It begins with tax reform. Let's not have the most expensive business tax rate in the world. Let's allow companies to immediately expense.
(APPLAUSE)
It continues with regulatory reform. Regulations in this country are out of control, especially the Employment Prevention Agency, the EPA, and all of the rules they continue to impose on our economy and hurting us.
How about Obamacare, a certified job killer? It needs to be repealed and replaced. And we need to bring our debt under control, make our economy stronger. That is the way to deal with China at the end of the day.
TRUMP: Neil, the problem...
BARTIROMO: We're getting...
TRUMP: ... with what Marco is saying is that it takes too long, they're sucking us dry and it takes too long. It would just -- you absolutely have to get involved with China, they are taking so much of what we have in terms of jobs in terms of money. We just can't do it any longer.
CAVUTO: He is right. If you put a tariff on a good, it's Americans who pay.
BUSH: Absolutely.
TRUMP: You looking at me?
BUSH: Yeah.
BARTIROMO: Prices go higher for...
TRUMP: Can I tell you what? It will never happen because they'll let their currency go up. They're never going to let it happen.
Japan, the same thing. They are devaluing -- it's so impossible for -- you look at Caterpillar Tractor and what's happening with Caterpillar and Kamatsu (ph). Kamatsu (ph) is a tractor company in Japan. Friends of mine are ordering Kamatsu (ph) tractors now because they've de-valued the yen to such an extent that you can't buy a Caterpillar tractor. And we're letting them get away with it and we can't let them get away with it.
And that's why we have to use Carl (ph) and we have to use our great businesspeople and not political hacks to negotiate with these guys.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Here's -- apart from the -- apart from the higher prices on consumers and people are living paycheck to paycheck, apart from that, there will be retaliation.
BARTIROMO: Yeah.
BUSH: So they soybean sales from Iowa, entire soybean production goes -- the equivalent of it goes to China. Or how about Boeing right here within a mile? Do you think that the Chinese, if they had a 45 percent tariff imposed on all their imports wouldn't retaliate and start buying Airbus? Of course, they would. This would be devastating for the economy. We need someone with a steady hand being president of the United States.
BARTIROMO: Real quick, Senator -- go ahead, Senator Cruz.
(APPLAUSE)
And then we have to get to tax reform.
TRUMP: And we don't need a weak person being president of the United State, OK? Because that's what we'd get if it were Jeb -- I tell you what, we don't need that.
AUDIENCE: Boo.
TRUMP: We don't need that. That's essentially what we have now, and we don't need that. And that's why we're in the trouble that we're in now. And by the way, Jeb you mentioned Boeing, take a look. They order planes, they make Boeing build their plant in China. They don't want them made here. They want those planes made in China.
BUSH: They're a mile away from here.
TRUMP: That's not the way the game is supposed to be played.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Governor Bush. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Very briefly.
BUSH: My name was mentioned. My name was mentioned here. The simple fact is that the plane that's being build here is being sold to China. You can -- if you -- you flew in with your 767, didn't you? Right there, right next to the plant.
TRUMP: No, the new planes. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about in the future they're building massive plants in China because China does not want Boeing building their planes here, they want them built in China, because China happens to be smart the way they do it, not the way we do it.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
BUSH: When you head back to airport tonight, go check and see what the...
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Mr. Trmup. Thank you, Governor.
TRUMP: I'll check for you.
BUSH: Check it out.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: Senator briefly.
CRUZ: Thanks for coming back to me, Maria. Both Donald and Jeb have good points, and there is a middle ground. Donald is right that China is running over President Obama like he is a child, President Obama is not protecting American workers and we are getting hammered.
CRUZ: You know, I sat down with the senior leadership of John Deere. They discussed how -- how hard it is to sell tractors in China, because all the regulatory barriers. They're protectionist.
But Jeb is also right that, if we just impose a tariff, they'll put reciprocal tariffs, which will hurt Iowa farmers and South Carolina producers and 20 percent of the American jobs that depend on exports.
So the way you do it is you pass a tax plan like the tax plan I've introduced: a simple flat tax, 10 percent for individuals, and a 16 percent business flat tax, you abolish the IRS...
(APPLAUSE)
... and here's the critical point, Maria -- the business flat tax enables us to abolish the corporate income tax, the death tax, the Obamacare taxes, the payroll taxes, and they're border-adjustable, so every export pays no taxes whatsoever.
It's tax-free -- a huge advantage for our farmers and ranchers and manufacturers -- and every import pays the 16 percent business flat tax. It's like a tariff, but here's the difference: if we impose a tariff, China responds.
The business flat tax, they already impose their taxes on us, so there's no reciprocal...
(BELL RINGS)
... tariffs that come against us. It puts us on a level, even playing field, which brings jobs here at home...
(UNKNOWN): Maria...
CRUZ: ... and as president, I'm going to fight for the working men and women.
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: We've got to get to tax reform, gentlemen. We've got to get to tax reform, and we've got to get to the...
(UNKNOWN): Yeah, but I want to talk about taxes.
BARTIROMO: ... we've got to get to the national debt as well. Coming up next, the growing national debt, the war on crime, tax reform. More from North Charleston, South Carolina, when we come right back.
COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back to the Republican presidential debate here in North Charleston. Right back to the questions.
(APPLAUSE)
Governor Christie, we have spoken much about cutting spending, given the $19 trillion debt. But according to one report, America needs $3.6 trillion in infrastructure spending by 2020.
Here in South Carolina, 11 percent of bridges are considered structurally deficient, costing drivers a billion dollars a year in auto repairs. What is your plan to fix the ailing roads and bridges without breaking the bank?
CHRISTIE: Well, I'm glad you asked that, Maria. Here's -- here's our plan. We've all been talking about tax reforms tonight, and paying for infrastructure is caught right up in tax reform.
If you reform the corporate tax system in this country, which, as was mentioned before, is the highest rate in the world -- and we double tax, as you know.
And what that's led to over $2 trillion of American companies' monies that are being kept offshore, because they don't want to pay the second tax. And who can blame them? They pay tax once overseas. They don't want to pay 35 percent tax on the way back.
So beside reforming that tax code, bringing it down to 25 percent and eliminating those special-interest loopholes that the lobbyists and the lawyers and the accountants have given -- bring that rate down to 25 percent, but also, a one-time repatriation of that money.
Bring the money -- the $2 trillion -- back to the United States. We'll tax it, that one time, at 8.75 percent, because 35 percent of zero is zero, but 8.75 percent of $2 trillion is a lot of money. And I would then dedicate that money to rebuilding infrastructure here in this country.
It would not necessitate us raising any taxes. It would bring the money back into the United States to help build jobs by American companies and get our economy moving again, and growing as a higher rate, and it would rebuild those roads and bridges and tunnels that you were talking about. And -- and -- and the last piece of this, Maria, is this. You know, the fact is that this president has penalized corporations in America. He's penalized -- and doesn't understand. In fact, what that hurts is hurt hardworking taxpayers.
You've seen middle-class wages go backwards $3,700 during the Obama administration. That's wrong for hardworking taxpayers in this country. We'd rebuild infrastructure that would also create jobs in this country, and we'd work with the states to do it the right way, to do it more efficiently and more effectively.
And remember this -- I'm credible on this for this reason: Americans for Tax Reform says that I've vetoed more tax increases than any governor in American history. We don't need to raise taxes to get this done.
We need to make the government run smarter and better, and reform this corporate tax system, bring that money back to the United States to build jobs and rebuild our infrastructure, and we need to use it also to protect our grid from terrorists.
All of those things are important, and all those things would happen in a Christie administration.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir. Dr. Carson...
(APPLAUSE)
... it is true U.S. companies have $2 trillion in cash sitting overseas right now. That could be used for investment and jobs in America.
Also, several companies right now are pursuing mergers to move their corporate headquarters abroad, and take advantage of much lower taxes. What will you do to stop the flow of companies building cash away from America, and those leaving America altogether?
CARSON: Well, I would suggest a fair tax system, and that's what we have proposed. A flat tax for everybody -- no exemptions, no deductions, no shelters, because some people have a better capability of taking advantage of those than others.
You know, and then the other thing we have to do is stop spending so much money. You know, I -- my -- my mother taught me this. You know, she only had a third-grade education, but -- you know, she knew how to stretch a dollar.
I mean, she would drive a car until it wouldn't make a sound, and then gather up all her coins and buy a new car. In fact, if my mother were secretary of treasury, we would not be in a deficit situation. But...
(LAUGHTER)
... you know, the -- the -- the fact of the matter is -- you know, if we fix the taxation system, make it absolutely fair, and get rid of the incredible regulations -- because every regulation is a tax, it's a -- on goods and services. And it's the most regressive tax there is.
You know, when you go into the store and buy a box of laundry detergent, and the price has up -- you know, 50 cents because of regulations, a poor person notices that. A rich person does not. Middle class may notice it when they get to the cash register.
And everything is costing more money, and we are killing our -- our -- our people like this. And Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will say it's those evil rich people.
It's not the evil rich people. It's the evil government that is -- that is putting all these regulations on us so that we can't survive.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
Senator Rubio...
TRUMP: Maria -- Maria, what you were talking about just now is called corporate inversion. It's one of the biggest problems our country has. Right now, corporations, by the thousands, are thinking of leaving our country with the jobs -- leave them behind.
TRUMP: They're leaving because of taxes, but they are also leaving because they can't get their money back and everybody agrees, Democrats and Republicans, that is should come back in. But they can't get along. They can't even make a deal.
Here is the case, they both agree, they can't make a deal. We have to do something. Corporate inversion is one of the biggest problems we have. So many companies are going to leave our country.
BARTIROMO: Which is why we raised it.
Senator Rubio?
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: One of the biggest fiscal challenges is our entitlement programs, particularly Social Security and Medicare. What policies will you put forward to make sure these programs are more financially secure?
RUBIO: Well, first let me address the tax issue because it's related to the entitlement issue and I want to thank you for holding a substantive debates where we can have debates about these key issues on taxes.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: Here is the one thing I'm not going to do. I'm not going to have something that Ted described in his tax plan. It's called the value added tax. And it's a tax you find in many companies in Europe.
Where basically, businesses now will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees.
And that's why they have it in Europe, because it is a way to blindfolded the people, that's what Ronald Reagan said. Ronald Regan opposed the value tax because he said it was a way to blindfold the people, so the true cost of government was not there there for them.
Now, you can support one now that's very low. But what is to prevent a future liberal president or a liberal Congress from coming back and not just raising the income tax, but also raising that VAT tax, and that vat tax is really bad for seniors. Because seniors, if they are retired, are no longer earning an income from a job. And therefore, they don't get the income tax break, but their prices are going to be higher, because the vat tax is embedded in both the prices that business that are charging and in the wages they pay their employees.
When I am president of the United States, I'm going to side with Ronald Regan on this and not Nancy Pelosi and we are not having a vat tax.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you senator.
CRUZ: Maria, I assume that I can respond to that.
BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, yes. You were meant to. Yes, of course.
CRUZ: Well, Marco has been floating this attack for a few weeks now, but the problem is, the business flat tax in my proposal is not a vat. A vat is imposed as a sales tax when you buy a good.
This is a business flat tax. It is imposed on business and a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. It enables us to eliminate the death tax.
If you're a farmer, if you're a rancher, if you are small business owner, the death tax is gone. We eliminate the payroll tax, we eliminate the Obamacare taxes. And listen, there is a real difference between Marco's tax plan and mine.
Mine gives every American a simple, flat tax of 10 percent. Marco's top tax rate is 35 percent. My tax plan enables you to fill out your taxes on a postcard so we can abolish the IRS. Marco leaves the IRS code in with all of the complexity. We need to break the Washington cartel, and the only way to do it is to end all the subsidies and all...
(BELL RINGS)
... the mandates and have a simple flat tax. The final observation, invoked Ronald Reagan. I would note that Art Laffer, Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser, has written publicly, that my simple flat tax is the best tax plan of any of the individuals on this stage cause it produces economic growth, it raises wages and it helps everyone from the very poorest to the very richest.
BARTIROMO: Thank you senator.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: But that's not an accurate description of the plan. Because, first of all, you may rename the IRS but you are not going to abolishes the IRS, because there has to be some agency that's going to collect your vat tax. Someone's going to be collecting this tax.
In fact, Ronald Reagan's treasury, when Ronald Reagan's treasury looked at the vat tax, you know what they found? That they were going to have to hire 20,000 new IRS agencies to collect it.
The second point, it does not eliminate the corporate tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees.
So there are people watching tonight in business. If you are now hit on a 60 percent tax on both your income and on the wages you pay your employees, where are you going to get that money from? You're going to get it by paying your employees less and charging your customers more, that is a tax, the difference is, you don't see it on the bill.
And that's why Ronald Reagan said that it was a blindfold. You blindfold the American people so that they cannot see the true cost of government. Now 16 percent is what the rate Ted wants it at. But what happens if, God forbid, the next Barack Obama takes over, and the next Nancy Pelosi, and the next Harry Reid...
(BELL RINGS)
and they decide, we're going to raise it to 30 percent, plus we're going to raise the income tax to 30 percent. Now, you've got Europe.
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: Thank you senator. I have to get to a question for Mr. Trump.
CRUZ: Maria...
BARTIROMO: Yes.
CRUZ: Maria, I'd just like to say...
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: Maria, I'd like to interrupt this debate on the floor of the Senate to actually answer the question you asked, which was on entitlements. Do you remember that, everybody? This was a question on entitlements.
And the reason -- and the reason...
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: ... no, you already had your chance, Marco, and you blew it. Here's the thing.
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: The fact is, the reason why...
RUBIO: If you'll answer the (inaudible) core question.
CHRISTIE: ... the fact is -- the fact is the reason why that no one wants to answer entitlements up here is because it's hard. It's a hard problem. And I'm the only one up on this stage who back in April put forward a detailed entitlement reform plan that will save over $1 trillion, save Social Security, save Medicare, and avoid this -- avoid what Hillary Rodham Clinton will do to you.
Because what she will do is come in and she will raise Social Security taxes. Bernie Sanders has already said it. And she is just one or two more poll drops down from even moving further left than she's moved already to get to the left of Bernie on this.
We have seniors out there who are scared to death because this Congress -- this one that we have right now, just stole $150 billion from the Social Security retirement fund to give it to the Social Security disability fund. A Republican Congress did that.
And the fact is it was wrong. And they consorted with Barack Obama to steal from Social Security. We need to reform Social Security. Mine is the only plan that saves over $1 trillion and that's why I'm answering your question.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Governor.
(APPLAUSE) CARSON: Can I just add one very quick thing? And I just want to say, you know, last week we released our tax plan. And multiple reputable journals, including The Wall Street Journal, said ours is the best. Just want to get that out there, just saying.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Dr. Carson.
Coming up, how would the candidates protect America, and another terror attack, if we were to see it. But first, you can join us live on stage during the commercial break right from home. Go to facebook.com/foxbusiness. We'll be streaming live and answering your questions during this break next.
More from South Carolina coming up. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Mr. Trump, your net worth is in the multi-billions of dollars and have an ongoing thriving hotel and real estate business. Are you planning on putting your assets in a blind trust should you become president? With such vast wealth, how difficult will it be for you to disentangle yourself from your business and your money and prioritize America's interest first?
TRUMP: Well, it's an interesting question because I'm very proud of my company. As you too know, I know I built a very great company. But if I become president, I couldn't care less about my company. It's peanuts.
I want to use that same up here, whatever it may be to make America rich again and to make America great again. I have Ivanka, and Eric and Don sitting there. Run the company kids, have a good time. I'm going to do it for America.
So I would -- I would be willing to do that.
BARTIROMO: So you'll put your assets in a blind trust?
TRUMP: I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don't know if it's a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. If that's a blind trust, I don't know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn't ever be involved because I wouldn't care about anything but our country, anything.
BARTIROMO: Thank you sir.
TRUMP: Thank you.
CAVUTO: Governor Christie, going back to your U.S. Attorney days, you had been praised by both parties as certainly a tough law and order guy. So I wonder what you make of recent statistics that showed violent crimes that have been spiking sometimes by double digit ratings in 30 cities across the country. Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said, "most local law enforcement officials feel abandoned by Washington." Former NYC Police Chief Ray Kelly, says that, "police are being less proactive because they're being overly scrutinized and second guessed and they're afraid of being sued or thrown in jail."
What would you do as president to address this?
CHRISTIE: Well, first off, let's face it, the FBI director James Comey was a friend of mine who I worked with as U.S. Attorney of New Jersey. He was the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. He said, "there's a chill wind blowing through law enforcement in this country." Here's why, the president of the United States and both his attorney's general, they give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal, not to the police officers.
That's the truth of the matter and you see it every time with this president. Every time he's got a chance, going all the way back to -- remember that Great Beer Summit he had after he messed up that time. This is a guy who just believes that law enforcement are the bad guys.
Now, I for seven years was the U.S. Attorney of New Jersey. I worked hard with not only federal agents but with police officers and here's the problem, sanctuary cities is part of the problem in this country. That's where crime is happening in these cities where they don't enforce the immigration laws. And this president turns his back -- this president doesn't enforce the marijuana laws in this country because he doesn't agree with them.
And he allows states to go ahead and do whatever they want on a substance that's illegal. This president allows lawlessness throughout this country. Here's what I would do Neil, I would appoint an Attorney General and I would have one very brief conversation with that Attorney General. I'd say, "General, enforce the law against everyone justly, fairly, and aggressively. Make our streets safe again. Make our police officers proud of what they do but more important than that, let them know how proud we are of them."
We do that, this country would be safe and secure again not only from criminals but from the terrorist who threaten us as well. I'm the only person on this stage who's done that and we will get it done as President of the United States.
CAVUTO: Thank you governor.
Governor Kasich, as someone has to deal with controversial police shootings in your own state, what do you make of Chicago's move recently to sort of retrain police? Maybe make them not so quick to use their guns?
KASICH: Well, I created a task force well over a year ago and the purpose was to bring law enforcement, community people, clergy and the person that I named as one of the co-chair was a lady by the name of Nina Turner, a former State Senator, a liberal Democrat. She actually ran against one of my friends and our head of public safety.
KASICH: And they say down as a group trying to make sure that we can begin to heal some of these problems that we see between community and police.
KASICH: And they came back with 23 recommendations. One of them is a statewide use of deadly force. And it is now being put into place everyplace across the state of Ohio. Secondly, a policy on recruiting and hiring, and then more resources for -- for training.
But let me also tell you, one of the issues has got to be the integration of both community and police. Community has to understand that that police officer wants to get home at night, and not -- not to lose their life. Their family is waiting for them.
At the same time, law enforcement understands there are people in the community who not only think that the system doesn't work for them, but works against them.
See, in Ohio, we've had some controversial decisions. But the leaders have come forward to realize that protest is fine, but violence is wrong. And it has been a remarkable situation in our state. And as president of the United States, it's all about communication, folks. It's all about getting people to listen to one another's problems.
And when you do that, you will be amazed at how much progress you can make, and how much healing we can have. Because, folks, at the end of the day, the country needs healed. I've heard a lot of hot rhetoric here tonight, but I've got to tell you, as somebody that actually passed a budget; that paid down a half-a-trillion dollars of our national debt, you can't do it alone. You've got to bring people together. You've got to give people hope.
And together, we can solve these problems that hurt us and heal America. And that is what's so critical for our neighborhoods, our families, our children, and our grandchildren.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Thank you, Governor.
BARTIROMO: Senator Rubio?
(APPLAUSE)
Under current law, the U.S. is on track to issue more new permanent immigrants on green cards over the next five years than the entire population of South Carolina. The CBO says your 2013 immigration bill would have increased green cardholders by another 10 million over 10 years.
Why are you so interested in opening up borders to foreigners when American workers have a hard enough time finding work?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, this is an issue that's been debated now for 30 years. And for 30 years, the issue of immigration has been about someone who's in this country, maybe they're here illegally, but they're looking for a job. This issue is not about that anymore.
First and foremost, this issue has to be now more than anything else about keeping America safe. And here's why. There is a radical jihadist group that is manipulating our immigration system. And not just green cards. They're looking -- they're recruiting people that enter this country as doctors and engineers and even fiances. They understand the vulnerabilities we have on the southern border.
They're looking -- they're looking to manipulate our -- the visa waiver countries to get people into the United States. So our number one priority must now become ensuring that ISIS cannot get killers into the United States. So whether it's green cards or any other form of entry into America, when I'm president if we do not know who you are or why you are coming, you are not going to get into the United States of America.
BARTIROMO: So your thinking has changed?
RUBIO: The issue is a dramatically different issue than it was 24 months ago. Twenty-four months ago, 36 months ago, you did not have a group of radical crazies named ISIS who were burning people in cages and recruiting people to enter our country legally. They have a sophisticated understanding of our legal immigration system and we now have an obligation to ensure that they are not able to use that system against us.
The entire system of legal immigration must now be reexamined for security first and foremost, with an eye on ISIS. Because they're recruiting people to enter this country as engineers, posing as doctors, posing as refugees. We know this for a fact. They've contacted the trafficking networks in the Western Hemisphere to get people in through the southern border. And they got a killer in San Bernardino in posing as a fiance.
This issue now has to be about stopping ISIS entering the United States, and when I'm president we will.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: But Maria, radical Islamic terrorism was not invented 24 months ago; 24 months ago, we had Al Qaida. We had Boko Haram. We had Hamas. We had Hezbollah. We had Iran putting operatives in South America and Central America. It's the reason why I stood with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and led the fight to stop the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, because it was clear then, like it's clear now, that border security is national security.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Senator.
CRUZ: It is also the case that that Rubio-Schumer amnesty bill, one of the things it did is it expanded Barack Obama's power to let in Syrian refugees. It enabled him -- the president to certify them en masse without mandating meaningful background checks.
I think that's a mistake. That's why I've been leading the fight to stop it. And I would note the Senate just a few weeks ago voted to suspend refugees from Middle Eastern countries. I voted yes to suspend that. Marco voted on the other side. So you don't get to say we need to secure the borders, and at the same time try to give Barack Obama more authority to allow Middle Eastern refugees coming in, when the head of the FBI tells us they cannot vet them to determine if they are ISIS terrorists.
RUBIO: Maria, let me clear something up here. This is an interesting point when you talk about immigration.
RUBIO: Ted Cruz, you used to say you supported doubling the number of green cards, now you say that you're against it. You used to support a 500 percent increase in the number of guest workers, now you say that you're against it. You used to support legalizing people that were here illegally, now you say you're against it. You used to say that you were in favor of birthright citizenship, now you say that you are against it.
And by the way, it's not just on immigration, you used to support TPA, now you say you're against it. I saw you on the Senate floor flip your vote on crop insurance because they told you it would help you in Iowa, and last week, we all saw you flip your vote on ethanol in Iowa for the same reason.
(APPLAUSE)
That is not consistent conservatism, that is political calculation. When I am president, I will work consistently every single day to keep this country safe, not call Edward Snowden, as you did, a great public servant. Edward Snowden is a traitor. And if I am president and we get our hands on him, he is standing trial for treason.
(APPLAUSE)
And one more point, one more point. Every single time that there has been a Defense bill in the Senate, three people team up to vote against it. Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. In fact, the only budget you have ever voted for, Ted, in your entire time in the Senate is a budget from Rand Paul that brags about how it cuts defense.
Here's the bottom line, and I'll close with this. If I'm president of the United States and Congress tries to cut the military, I will veto that in a millisecond.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: There's -- look, there's --
CAVUTO: Gentlemen, gentlemen --
CRUZ: I'm going to get a response to that, Neil. There's no way he launches 11 attack --
CAVUTO: Very quick, very quick. CRUZ: I'm going to -- he had no fewer than 11 attacks there. I appreciate your dumping your (inaudible) research folder on the debate stage.
RUBIO: No, it's your record.
CRUZL But I will say --
CAVUTO: Do you think they like each other?
CRUZ: -- at least half of the things Marco said are flat-out false. They're absolutely false.
AUDIENCE: Boo.
CRUZ: So let's start -- let's start with immigration. Let's start with immigration and have a little bit of clarity. Marco stood with Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama on amnesty. I stood with Jeff Sessions and Steve King. Marco stood today, standing on this stage Marco supports legalization and citizenship for 12 million illegals. I opposed and oppose legalization and citizenship.
And by the way, the attack he keeps throwing out on the military budget, Marco knows full well I voted for his amendment to increase military spending to $697 billion. What he said, and he said it in the last debate, it's simply not true. And as president, I will rebuild the military and keep this country safe.
CAVUTO: All right, gentlemen, we've got to stop. I know you are very passionate about that.
(APPLAUSE)
Governor Bush, fears have gripped this country obviously, and you touched on it earlier since the San Bernardino attacks. Since our last debate, the national conversation has changed, according to Facebook data as well.
Now this first graphic shows the issues that were most talked about right before those attacks and now after: the issues of Islam, homeland security and ISIS now loom very large. The FBI says Islamic radicals are using social media to communicate and that it needs better access to communication. Now the CEO of Apple, Governor, Tim Cook said unless served with a warrant private communication is private, period. Do you agree, or would you try to convince him otherwise?
BUSH: I would try to convince him otherwise, but this last back and forth between two senators -- back bench senators, you know, explains why we have the mess in Washington, D.C. We need a president that will fix our immigration laws and stick with it, not bend with the wind.
The simple fact is one of the ways, Maria, to solve the problem you described is narrow the number of people coming by family petitioning to what every other country has so that we have the best and the brightest that come to our country. We need to control the border, we need to do all of this in a comprehensive way, not just going back and forth and talking about stuff --
CAVUTO: Would you answer this question?
BUSH: Oh, I'll talk about that, too. But you haven't asked me a question in a while, Neil, so I thought I'd get that off my chest if you don't mind.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: Fair enough. So Tim Cook -- so Tim Cook says he's going to keep it private.
BUSH: I got that. And the problem today is there's no confidence in Washington, D.C. There needs to be more than one meeting, there needs to complete dialogue with the large technology companies. They understand that there's a national security risk. We ought to give them a little bit of a liability release so that they share data amongst themselves and share data with the federal government, they're not fearful of a lawsuit.
We need to make sure that we keep the country safe. This is the first priority. The cybersecurity challenges that we face, this administration failed us completely, completely. Not just the hacking of OPM, but that is -- that is just shameful. 23 million files in the hands of the Chinese? So it's not just the government -- the private sector companies, it's also our own government that needs to raise the level of our game.
We should put the NSA in charge of the civilian side of this as well. That expertise needs to spread all across the government and there needs to be much more cooperation with our private sector.
CAVUTO: But if Tim cook is telling you no, Mr. President.
BUSH: You've got to keep asking. You've got to keep asking because this is a hugely important issue. If you can encrypt messages, ISIS can, over these platforms, and we have no ability to have a cooperative relationship --
CAVUTO: Do you ask or do you order?
BUSH: Well, if the law would change, yeah. But I think there has to be recognition that if we -- if we are too punitive, then you'll go to other -- other technology companies outside the United States. And what we want to do is to control this.
We also want to dominate this from a commercial side. So there's a lot of balanced interests. But the president leads in this regard. That's what we need. We need leadership, someone who has a backbone and sticks with things, rather than just talks about them as though anything matters when you're talking about amendments that don't even actually are part of a bill that ever passed.
CAVUTO: Governor, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: When we come right back, closing statements. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Candidates, it is time for your closing statements. You get 60 seconds each.
Governor John Kasich, we begin with you.
KASICH: You know, in our country, there are a lot of people who feel as though they just don't have the power. You know, they feel like if they don't have a lobbyist, if they're not wealthy, that somehow they don't get to play.
But all of my career, you know, having been raised in -- by a mailman father whose father was a coal miner, who died of black lung and was losing his eyesight; or a mother whose mother could barely speak English. You see, all of my career, I've fought about giving voice to the people that I grew up with and voice to the people that elected me.
Whether it's welfare reform and getting something back for the hard-earned taxpayers; whether it's engaging in Pentagon reform and taking on the big contractors that were charging thousands of dollars for hammers and screw drivers and ripping us off; or whether it's taking on the special interests in the nursing home industry in Ohio, so that mom and dad can have the ability to stay in their own home, rather than being forced into a nursing home.
KASICH: Look, that's who I stand up for. That's who's in my mind
(BELL RINGS)
And if you really want to believe that you can get your voice back, I will tell you, as I have all my career, I will continue to fight for you, because you're the ones that built this country, and will carry it into the future. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Bush?
BUSH: Who can you count on to keep us safer, stronger and freer? Results count, and as governor, I pushed Florida up to the top in terms of jobs, income and small business growth.
Detailed plans count, and I believe that the plan I've laid out to destroy ISIS before the tragedies of San Bernardino and Paris are the right ones.
Credibility counts. There'll be people here that will talk about what they're going to do. I've done it. I ask for your support to build, together, a safer and stronger America.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Governor Chris Christie?
CHRISTIE: Maria, Neil, thank you for a great debate tonight.
When I think about the folks who are out there at home tonight watching, and I think about what they had to watch this week -- the spectacle they had to watch on the floor of the House of Representatives, with the president of the United States, who talked a fantasy land about the way they're feeling.
They know that this country is not respected around the world anymore. They know that this country is pushing the middle class, the hardworking taxpayers, backwards, and they saw a president who doesn't understand their pain, and doesn't have any plan for getting away from it.
I love this country. It's the most exceptional country the world has ever known. We need someone to fight for the people. We need a fighter for this country again.
I've lived my whole life fighting -- fighting for things that I believe in, fighting for justice and to protect people from crime and terrorism, fighting to stand up for folks who have not had enough and need an opportunity to get more, and to stand up and fight against the special interests.
But here's the best way that we're going to make America much more exceptional: it is to make sure we put someone on that stage in September who will fight Hillary Clinton and make sure she never, ever gets in the White House again.
I am the man who can bring us together to do that, and I ask for your vote.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Dr. Ben Carson?
CARSON: You know, in recent travels around this country, I've encountered so many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch our freedom, our security and the American dream slipping away under an unresponsive government that is populated by bureaucrats and special interest groups.
We're not going to solve this problem with traditional politics. The only way we're going to solve this problem is with we, the people. And I ask you to join me in truth and honesty and integrity. Bencarson.com -- we will heal, inspire and revive America for our children.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator Marco Rubio?
RUBIO: You know, 200 years ago, America was founded on this powerful principle that our rights don't come from government. Our rights come from God.
That's why we embraced free enterprise, and it made us the most prosperous people in the history of the world. That's why we embraced individual liberty, and we became the freest people ever, and the result was the American miracle.
But now as I travel the country, people say what I feel. This country is changing. It feels different. We feel like we're being left behind and left out.
And the reason is simple: because in 2008, we elected as president someone who wasn't interested in fixing America. We elected someone as president who wants to change America, who wants to make it more like the rest of the world.
And so he undermines the Constitution, and he undermines free enterprise by expanding government, and he betrays our allies and cuts deals with our enemies and guts our military. And that's why 2016 is a turning point in our history. If we elect Hillary Clinton, the next four years will be worse than the last eight, and our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a diminished country.
But if we elect the right person -- if you elect me -- we will turn this country around, we will reclaim the American dream and this nation will be stronger and greater than it has ever been.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Senator Ted Cruz?
CRUZ: "13 Hours" -- tomorrow morning, a new movie will debut about the incredible bravery of the men fighting for their lives in Benghazi and the politicians that abandoned them. I want to speak to all our fighting men and women.
I want to speak to all the moms and dads whose sons and daughters are fighting for this country, and the incredible sense of betrayal when you have a commander-in-chief who will not even speak the name of our enemy, radical Islamic terrorism, when you have a commander-in- chief who sends $150 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who's responsible for murdering hundreds of our servicemen and women.
I want to speak to all of those maddened by political correctness, where Hillary Clinton apologizes for saying all lives matter. This will end. It will end on January 2017.
CRUZ: And if I am elected president, to every soldier and sailor and airman and marine, and to every police officer and firefighter and first responder who risk their lives to keep us safe, I will have your back.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Mr. Donald Trump?
TRUMP: I stood yesterday with 75 construction workers. They're tough, they're strong, they're great people. Half of them had tears pouring down their face. They were watching the humiliation of our young ten sailors, sitting on the floor with their knees in a begging position, their hands up.
And Iranian wise guys having guns to their heads. It was a terrible sight. A terrible sight. And the only reason we got them back is because we owed them with a stupid deal, $150 billion. If I'm president, there won't be stupid deals anymore.
We will make America great again. We will win on everything we do. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Candidates, thank you.
CAVUTO: Gentlemen, thank you all. All of you. That wraps up our debate. We went a little bit over here. But we wanted to make sure everyone was able to say their due. He's upset. All right. Thank you for joining us. Much more to come in the Spin Room ahead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/6th-republican-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/ [with embedded annotations and video clip, and comments] [other transcripts at http://time.com/4182096/republican-debate-charleston-transcript-full-text/ (no comments yet), and http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/us/politics/transcript-of-republican-presidential-debate.html ]
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwHtZnqn0o [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRNatN0oGXk [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQb-Q4vdCAo [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKNw8NYayoU [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp18Rqr25Uk [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VYlHL5cHgc [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5tB4icYFso [no comments yet]
--
NBC News-YouTube Democratic Debate (Full)
Streamed live on Jan 17, 2016 by NBC News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeY0bbntWzzVIaj2z3QigXg / http://www.youtube.com/user/NBCNews , http://www.youtube.com/user/NBCNews/videos ]
Join NBC News' Lester Holt, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and YouTube creators Connor Franta, Marques Brownlee, MinuteEarth and Franchesca Ramsey as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley debate in Charleston, South Carolina.
*
The 4th Democratic debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant [annotations viewable at the source, linked at the end of this transcript]
January 17, 2016
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley participated in Sunday's NBC/YouTube Democratic primary debate in Charleston, S.C.
The complete transcript:
NBC News' Lester Holt introduced the candidates and the debate began.
HOLT: We'll begin with 45 second opening statements from each candidate, starting with Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, good evening. And I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and the people of Charleston for hosting us here on the eve of Martin Luther King Day tomorrow.
You know, I remember well when my youth minister took me to hear Dr. King. I was a teenager. And his moral clarity, the message that he conveyed that evening really stayed with me and helped to set me on a path to service. I also remember that he spent the last day of his life in Memphis, fighting for dignity and higher pay for working people.
And that is our fight still. We have to get the economy working and incomes rising for everyone, including those who have been left out and left behind. We have to keep our communities and our country safe. We need a president who can do all aspects of the job.
I understand that this is the hardest job in the world. I'm prepared and ready to take it on and I hope to earn your support to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and the next president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Thank you. Senator Sanders, your opening statement, sir.
SANDERS: Thank you. As we honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it's important not only that we remember what he stood for, but that we pledge to continue his vision to transform our country. As we look out at our country today, what the American people understand is we have an economy that's rigged, that ordinary Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, 47 million people living in poverty, and almost all of the new income and wealth going to the top one percent.
SANDERS: And then, to make a bad situation worse, we have a corrupt campaign finance system where millionaires and billionaires are spending extraordinary amounts of money to buy elections.
This campaign is about a political revolution to not only elect the president, but to transform this country.
HOLT: Senator, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
And Governor O'Malley, your opening statement, sir.
O'MALLEY: Thank you. My name is Martin O'Malley, I was born the year Dr. King delivered his "I Have A Dream" speech.
And I want to thank the people of South Carolina, not only for hosting our debate here tonight, but also for what you taught all of us in the aftermath of the tragic shooting at Mother Emanuel Church.
You taught us, in fact, in keeping with Dr. King's teaching, that love would have the final word when you took down the Confederate flag from your state house; let go of the past and move forward.
Eight years ago, you brought forward a new leader in Barack Obama to save our country from the second Great Depression. And that's what he's done. Our country's doing better, we're creating jobs again.
But in order to make good on the promise of equal opportunity and equal justice under the law, and we have urgent work to do, and the voices of anger and fear and division that we've heard coming off of the Republican presidential podiums are pretty loud.
We need new leadership. We need to come together as a people and build on the good things that President Obama has done.
That's why I'm running for president. I need your help, I ask for your vote, and I look forward to moving our country forward once again.
Thank you.
HOLT: All right. And Governor, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: All right, to our first question, now. The first question, I'll be addressing to all of the candidates.
President Obama came to office determined to swing for the fences on health care reform. Voters want to know how you would define your presidency? How would you think big? So complete this sentence: in my first 100 days in office, my top three priorities will be -- fill in the blank.
Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: Well, that's what our campaign is about. It is thinking big. It is understanding that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we should have health care for every man, woman, and child as a right that we should raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour; that we have got to create millions of decent- paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
So, what my first days are about is bringing America together, to end the decline of the middle class, to tell the wealthiest people in this country that yes, they are going to start paying their fair share of taxes, and that we are going to have a government that works for all of us, and not just big campaign contributors.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, same question, my first 100 days in office, my top three priorities will be.
CLINTON: I would work quickly to present to the Congress my plans for creating more good jobs in manufacturing, infrastructure, clean and renewable energy, raising the minimum wage, and guaranteeing, finally, equal pay for women's work.
I would also...
(APPLAUSE)
I would also be presenting my plans to build on the Affordable Care Act and to improve it by decreasing the out-of-pocket costs by putting a cap on prescription drug costs; by looking for ways that we can put the prescription drug business and the health insurance company business on a more stable platform that doesn't take too much money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans.
And third, I would be working, in every way that I knew, to bring our country together. We do have too much division, too much mean- spiritedness. There's a lot we have to do on immigration reform, on voting rights, on campaign finance reform, but we need to do it together. That's how we'll have the kind of country for the 21st century that we know will guarantee our children and grandchildren the kind of future they deserve.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Governor O'Malley, same question.
O'MALLEY: Thank you. First of all, I would lay out an agenda to make wages go up again for all Americans, rather than down. Equal pay for equal work, making it easier rather than harder for people to join labor unions and bargain collectively for better wages; getting 11 million of our neighbors out of the underground shadow economy by passing comprehensive immigration reform, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, however we can, wherever we can.
Secondly, I believe the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years is climate change. And I put forward a plan to move us to a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create 5 million jobs along the way.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Thank you. You've all...
O'MALLEY: Finally -- I'm sorry, that was second, Lester.
O'MALLEY: And third and finally, we need a new agenda for America's cities. We have not had a new agenda for America's cities since Jimmy Carter. We need a new agenda for America cities that will invest in the talents and skills in our people, that will invest in CBVG transportation, infrastructure and transit options, and make our cities the leading edge in this move to a redesigned built clean green energy future that will employ our people.
HOLT: All right governor thank you.
We've all laid out large visions and we're going to cover a lot of the ground you talked about as we continue in the evening. The last couple of weeks of this campaign have featured some of the sharpest exchanges in the race. Let's start with one of them, the issue of guns.
Senator Sanders, last week Secretary Clinton called you quote, "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." Right before the debate you changed your position on immunity from lawsuits for gun manufacturers, can you tell us why?
SANDERS: Well, I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous. I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA. I was in 1988, there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military style assault weapons.
I have supported from day one an instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable. I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loopholes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as strawmen.
We have seen in this city a horrendous tragedy of a crazed person praying with people in the coming up and shooting nine people. This should not be a political issue. What we should be doing is working together.
And by the way, as a senator from a rural state that has virtually no gun control, I believe that I am in an excellent position to bring people together to fight the sensible...
HOLT: Senator, but you didn't answer the question that you did change your position on immunity from gun manufacturers. So can you...
SANDERS: What I have said, is that gun manufacturer's liability bill has some good provisions among other things, we've prohibited ammunition that would've killed cops who had protection on. We have child safety protection work on guns in that legislation. And what we also said, "is a small mom and pop gun shop who sells a gun legally to somebody should not be held liable if somebody does something terrible with that gun."
So what I said is, " I would re-look at it." We are going to re- look at it and I will support stronger provisions.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond to Senator Sanders.
CLINTON: Yes look, I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times. He voted against the Brady Bill five times. He voted for what we call, the Charleston Loophole. He voted for immunity from gunmakers and sellers which the NRA said, "was the most important piece of gun legislation in 20 years. "
He voted to let guns go onto the Amtrak, guns go into National Parks. He voted against doing research to figure out how we can save lives. Let's not forget what this is about, 90 people a day die from gun violence in our country. That's 33,000 people a year.
One of the most horrific examples not a block from here where we had nine people murdered. Now, I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation. There is no other industry in America that was given the total pass that the gun makers and dealers were and that needs to be reversed.
HOLT: All right, Governor O'Malley, you signed tough gun control measures as governor of Maryland and there are a lot Democrats in the audience here in South Carolina who own guns. This conversation might be worrying many of them. They may be hearing, "you want to take my guns. What would you say to them?
O'MALLEY: This is what I would say Lester, look see, I've listened to Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders go back and forth on which of them has the most inconsistent record on gun safety legislation and I would have to agree with both of them. They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue.
O'MALLEY: I'm the one candidate on this stage that actually brought people together to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation. This is very personal to me being from Baltimore. I will never forget one occasion visiting a little boy in Johns' Hopkins Hospital, he was getting a birthday haircut, the age of three when drug dealers turned that barbershop into a shooting gallery and that boy's head was pierced with a bullet. And I remember visiting him, it did not kill him - I remember visiting him and his mother in Johns Hopkins Hospital. He was getting a birthday haircut, the age of three when drug dealers turned that barbershop into a shooting gallery, and that boys head was pierced with a bullet.
And, I remember visiting him, it did not kill him. I remember visiting him and his mother in Johns Hopkins Hospital. In his diapers (ph) with tubes running in and out of his head, same age as my little boy.
So, after the slaughter of the kids in Connecticut last year, we brought people together. We did pass in our state comprehensive gun safety legislation. It did have a ban on combat assault weapons, universal background checks, and you know what? We did not interrupt a single person's hunting season.
I've never met a self respecting deer hunter that needed an AR-15 to down a deer. And, so...
(APPLAUSE)
... we're able to actually do these things.
HOLT: Alright, Governor, thank you.
Secretary Clinton, this is a community that has suffered a lot of heartache in the last year. Of course, as you mentioned, the church shootings. We won't forget the video of Walter Scott being shot in the back while running from police.
We understand that a jury will decide whether that police officer was justified, but it plays straight to the fears of many African American men that their lives are cheap. Is that perception, or in your view, is it reality?
CLINTON: Well, sadly it's reality, and it has been heartbreaking, and incredibly outraging to see the constant stories of young men like Walter Scott, as you said, who have been killed by police officers. Their needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system.
And, that requires a very clear, agenda for retraining police officers, looking at ways to end racial profiling, finding more ways to really bring the disparities that stalk our country into high relief.
One out of three African American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic. I want people hear to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men, and very often, the black men are arrested, convicted and incarcerated ...
(APPLAUSE)
...for offensive that do not lead to the same results for white men.
So, we have a very serious problem that we can no longer ignore.
HOLT: You time is up.
Senator Sanders, my next question is...
SANDERS: ...Well, I -- look...
HOLT: ... It's actually -- actually my next question is to you...
SANDERS: ... Let me respond to what the secretary said. We have a criminal justice system which is broken. Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China? Disproportionately African American, and Latino. Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed? Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEO's of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: ... We need to take a very hard look at our...
HOLT: Senator. Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: ... criminal justice system, investing in jobs, and education not in jails and incarceration .
HOLT: ... Just over a week ago the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Secretary Clinton, not you. He said that choosing her over you was not a hard decision. In fact, our polling shows she's beating you more than two to one among minority voters. How can you be the nominee if you don't have that support?
SANDERS: Well, let me talk about polling.
(LAUGHTER) SANDERS: As Secretary Clinton well knows, when this campaign began she was 50 points ahead of me. We were all of three percentage points. Guess what?
In Iowa, New Hampshire, the race is very, very close. Maybe we're ahead New Hampshire.
(CHEERING)
SANDERS: In terms of polling, guess what? We are running ahead of Secretary Clinton. In terms of taking on my taking on my good friend, Donald Trump, beating him by 19 points in New Hampshire, 13 points in the last national poll that we saw.
To answer your question. When the African American community becomes familiar with my Congressional record and with our agenda, and with our views on the economy, and criminal justice -- just as the general population has become more supportive, so will the African American community, so will the Latino community. We have the momentum, we're on a path to a victory.
(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
O'MALLEY: Lester, I (inaudible)
HOLT: Governor, I'm going to come to you in a second.
Google searches for the words, "Black Lives Matter" surpassed, "civil rights movement". And, here in South Carolina, "black lives matter" was the number one trending political issue.
HOLT: Governor O'Malley, you've campaigned on your record as governor of Maryland, and before that, the mayor of Baltimore. Last year, of course, Baltimore was rocked by violent unrest in the wake of the death of Freddie Gray.
And right from the start of your campaign, you've been dogged by those who blame your tough-on-crime, so-called zero tolerance policies as mayor for contributing to that unrest. What responsibility do you bear?
O'MALLEY: Yes, let's talk about this. When I ran for mayor in 1999, Lester, it was not because our city was doing well. It was because we were burying over 300 young, poor black men every single year.
And that's why I ran, because, yes, black lives matter. And we did a number of things. We weren't able to make our city immune from setbacks as the Freddie Gray unrest and tragic death showed.
But we were able to save a lot of lives doing things that actually worked to improve police and community relations. The truth of the matter is, we created a civilian review board. And many of these things are in the new agenda for criminal justice reform that I've put forward.
We created a civilian review board, gave them their own detectives. We required the reporting of discourtesy, use of excessive force, lethal force. I repealed the possession of marijuana as a crime in our state.
I drove our incarceration rate down to 20-year lows, and drove violent crime down to 30-year lows, and became the first governor south of the Mason-Dixon line to repeal the death penalty.
I feel a responsibility every day to find things that work...
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: All right. Let's talk...
O'MALLEY: ... and to do more of them to reform our criminal justice system.
HOLT: Let's talk more about policing and the criminal justice system. Senator Sanders, a few times tonight we're going to hear from some of the most prominent voices on YouTube, starting with Franchesca Ramsey, who tackles racial stereotypes through her videos. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANCHESCA RAMSEY: Hey, I'm Franchesca Ramsey. I believe there's a huge conflict of interest when local prosecutors investigate cases of police violence within their own communities.
For example, last month, the officers involved in the case of 12- year-old Tamir Rice weren't indicted. How would your presidency ensure that incidents of police violence are investigated and prosecuted fairly?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLT: Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: I apologize for not hearing all of that question.
HOLT: Would you like me to read it back to you?
SANDERS: Yes.
HOLT: Prosecutors -- "I believe there's a huge conflict of interest when local prosecutors investigate cases of police violence within their communities. Most recently, we saw this with a non- indictment of the officers involved in the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice. How would you presidency ensure incidents of police violence are investigated and prosecuted fairly?"
SANDERS: Absolutely. This is a responsibility for the U.S. Justice Department to get involved. Whenever anybody in this country is killed while in police custody, it should automatically trigger a U.S. attorney general's investigation.
(APPLAUSE)
Second of all, and I speak as a mayor who worked very closely and well with police officers, the vast majority of whom are honest, hard- working people trying to do a difficult job, but let us be clear.
If a police officer breaks the law, like any public official, that officer must be held accountable.
(APPLAUSE)
And thirdly, we have got to de-militarize our police departments so they don't look like occupying armies. We've got to move toward community policing.
And fourthly, we have got to make our police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, this question is for you. Tonight parts of America are in the grip of a deadly heroin epidemic, spanning race and class, hitting small towns and cities alike. It has become a major issue in this race.
In a lot of places where you've been campaigning, despite an estimated trillion dollars spent, many say the war on drugs has failed. So what would you do?
CLINTON: Well, Lester, you're right. Everywhere I go to campaign, I'm meeting families who are affected by the drug problem that mostly is opioids and heroin now, and lives are being lost and children are being orphaned. And I've met a lot of grandparents who are now taking care of grandchildren.
So I have tried to come out with a comprehensive approach that, number one, does tell the states that we will work with you from the federal government putting more money, about a billion dollars a year, to help states have a different approach to dealing with this epidemic.
The policing needs to change. Police officers must be equipped with the antidote to a heroin overdose or an opioid overdose, known as Narcan. They should be able to administer it. So should firefighters and others.
We have to move away from treating the use of drugs as a crime and instead, move it to where it belongs, as a health issue. And we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system into drug courts, into treatment, and recovery.
HOLT: And that's time.
CLINTON: So this is the kind of approach that we should take in dealing with what is now...
HOLT: Senator...
CLINTON: ... a growing epidemic.
HOLT: Senator Sanders, would you like to respond?
SANDERS: Sure. I agree...
(APPLAUSE)
I agree with everything the Secretary said, but let me just add this, there is a responsibility on the part of the pharmaceutical industry and the drug companies who are producing all of these drugs and not looking at the consequence of it.
And second of all, when we talk about addiction being a disease, the Secretary is right, what that means is we need a revolution in this country in terms of mental health treatment. People should be able to get the treatment that they need when they need it, not two months from now, which is why I believe in universal...
HOLT: That's...
SANDERS: ... healthcare with mental health...
HOLT: ... time.
SANDERS: ... a part of that.
HOLT: We're going to get into all that coming up.
O'MALLEY (?): Lester, just ten seconds.
HOLT: But we're going to take a break and we need to take a break...
O'MALLEY (?): Just 10 seconds. All of the things...
HOLT: ... and when we come back, the anger brewing in America.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Welcome back to Charleston. Let's turn to another area where there has been fierce disagreement -- that would be health care.
Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, you both mentioned it in your 100-day priorities.
Let's turn to my colleague, Andrea Mitchell now to lead that questioning.
MITCHELL: Thank you, Lester.
Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders favors what he calls "Medicare for all." Now, you said that what he is proposing would tear up Obamacare and replace it.
Secretary Clinton, is it fair to say to say that Bernie Sanders wants to kill Obamacare?
CLINTON: Well, Andrea, I am absolutely committed to universal health care. I have worked on this for a long time, people may remember that I took on the health insurance industry back in the '90s, and I didn't quit until we got the children's health insurance program that ensures eight million kids.
And I certainly respect Senator Sanders' intentions, but when you're talking about health care, the details really matter. And therefore, we have been raising questions about the nine bills that he introduced over 20 years, as to how they would work and what would be the impact on people's health care?
He didn't like that, his campaign didn't like it either. And tonight, he's come out with a new health care plan. And again, we need to get into the details. But here's what I believe, the Democratic Party and the United States worked since Harry Truman to get the Affordable Care Act passed.
We finally have a path to universal health care. We have accomplished so much already. I do not to want see the Republicans repeal it, and I don't to want see us start over again with a contentious debate. I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act and improve it.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: OK.
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders?
SANDERS: Secretary -- Secretary Clinton didn't answer your question.
(LAUGHTER)
Because what her campaign was saying -- Bernie Sanders, who has fought for universal health care for my entire life, he wants to end Medicare, end Medicaid, end the children's health insurance program. That is nonsense.
What a Medicare-for-all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman and child as a right. Now, the truth is, that Frank Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, do you know what they believed in? They believed that health care should be available to all of our people.
I'm on the committee that wrote the Affordable Care Act. I made the Affordable Care Act along with Jim Clyburn a better piece of legislation. I voted for it, but right now, what we have to deal with is the fact that 29 million people still have no health insurance. We are paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, getting ripped off.
And here's the important point, we are spending far more per person on health care than the people of any other country. My proposal, provide health care to all people, get private insurance out of health insurance, lower the cost of health care for middle class families by 5,000 bucks.
That's the vision we need to take.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: But -- Senator Sanders, if I can...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I have to say I'm not sure whether we're talking about the plan you just introduced tonight, or we're talking about the plan you introduced nine times in the Congress. But the fact is, we have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of our country.
(APPLAUSE)
And we have already seen 19 million Americans get insurance. We have seen the end of pre-existing conditions keeping people from getting insurance.
(APPLAUSE)
We have seen women no longer paying more for our insurance than men. And we have seen young people, up to the age of 26, being able to stay on their parent's policy.
SANDERS: But -- what if we have...
CLINTON: Now, there are things we can do to improve it, but to tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate, I think is the wrong direction.
SANDERS: It is -- it is absolutely inaccurate.
O'MALLEY: I have to talk about something that's actually working in our state.
MITCHELL: Governor -- Governor Sanders...
SANDERS: No one is tearing this up, we're going to go forward. But with the secretary neglected to mention, not just the 29 million still have no health insurance, that even more are underinsured with huge copayments and deductibles.
Tell me why we are spending almost three times more than the British, who guarantee health care to all of their people? Fifty percent more than the French, more than the Canadians. The vision from FDR and Harry Truman was health care for all people as a right in a cost-effective way.
We're not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it. But we are going to move on top of that to a Medicaid-for- all system.
O'MALLEY: Andrea -- Andrea -- Andrea.
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: Instead of -- Andrea, I think, instead of attacking one another on health care, we should be talking about the things that are actually working.
In our state, we have moved to an all-payer system. With the Affordable Care Act, we now have moved all of our acute care hospitals, that driver of cost at the center, away from fee-for- service.
And actually to pay, we pay them based on how well they keep patients out of the hospital. How well they keep their patients. That's the future. We need to build on the Affordable Care Act, do the things that work, and reduce costs and increase access.
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: And that's exactly what we are able to do based on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act -- what Governor O'Malley just said is one of the models that we will be looking at to make sure we do get costs down, we do limit a lot of the unnecessary costs that we still have in the system.
But, with all due respect, to start over again with a whole new debate is something that I think would set us back. The Republicans just voted last week to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and thank goodness, President Obama vetoed it and saved Obamacare for the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders, let me ask you this, though...
SANDERS: Yeah.
MITCHELL: ... you've talked about Medicare for all...
SANDERS: Yes.
MITCHELL: .. and tonight you've released a very detailed plan, just two... SANDERS: Not all that detailed.
MITCHELL: ... well, two hours before the debate, you did.
SANDERS: Well.
MITCHELL: But let me ask you about Vermont. Because in Vermont -- you tried in the state of Vermont, and Vermont walked away from this kind of idea, of -- of Medicare for all, single-payer, because they concluded it would require major tax increases...
SANDERS: Well, that's -- you might want to ask...
MITCHELL: ... and by some estimates, it would double the budget. If you couldn't sell it in Vermont, Senator...
SANDERS: Andrea, let me just say this.
MITCHELL: ... how can you sell it to the country?
SANDERS: Let me just say that you might want to ask the governor of the state of Vermont why he could not do it. I'm not the governor. I'm the senator from the state of Vermont.
(LAUGHTER)
But second of all -- second of all...
(APPLAUSE)
... here is what the real point is, in terms of all of the issues you've raised -- the good questions you've raised. You know what it all comes down to?
Do you know why we can't do what every other country -- major country on Earth is doing? It's because we have a campaign finance system that is corrupt, we have super PACs, we have the pharmaceutical industry pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying, and the private insurance companies as well.
What this is really about is not the rational way to go forward -- it's Medicare for all -- it is whether we have the guts to stand up to the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That's what this debate should be about.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, as someone who -- as someone who has a little bit of experience standing up to the health insurance industry, that spent, you know...
(APPLAUSE)
... many, many millions of dollars attacking me, and probably will so again, because of what I believe we can do building on the Affordable Care Act, I think it's important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health care system we have today.
I know how much money influences the political decision-making. That's why I'm for huge campaign finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance.
And even during the Affordable Care Act debate, there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy in to Medicare, and even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn't get the votes for that.
So, what I'm saying is really simple. This has been the fight of the Democratic Party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let's make it work.
Let's take the models that states are doing. We now have driven costs down to the lowest they've been in 50 years. Now we've got to get individual costs down. That's what I'm planning to do.
HOLT: And that's time (ph). We're gonna take a turn now.
Secretary Clinton, in his final State of the Union address, President Obama said his biggest regret was his inability to bring the country together. If President Obama couldn't do it, how will you?
O'MALLEY: Great question.
CLINTON: Well, I think it's an important point the president made in his State of the Union. And here's what I would say. I will go anywhere, to meet with anyone, at any time to find common ground.
That's what I did as a first lady, when I worked with both Democrats and Republicans to get the Children's Health Insurance Program, when I worked with Tom DeLay, one of the most partisan of Republicans, to reform the adoption and foster care system.
What I did, working in the Senate, where I crossed the aisle often, working even with the senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, to get Tricare for national guardsmen and women.
And it's what I did as Secretary of State, on numerous occasions, and most particularly, rounding up two-thirds votes in order to pass a treaty that lowered the nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States.
CLINTON: So I know it's hard, but I also know you've got to work at it every single day. I look out here, I see a lot of my friends from the Congress. And I know that they work at it every single day.
Because maybe you can't only find a little sliver of common ground to cooperate with somebody from the other party, but who knows. If you're successful there, maybe you can build even more. That's what I would do.
HOLT: That's time. Senator Sanders, response.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: A couple of years ago, when we understood that veterans were not getting the quality care they needed in the timely manner, I worked with folks like John McCain and others to pass the most comprehensive veteran's health care legislation in modern history.
But let me rephrase your question because I think, in all do respect, you're expression. In all do respect, you're missing the main point. And the main point in the Congress, it's not the Republicans and Democrats hate each other.
That's a mythology from the media. The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: The real issue is that in area after area, raising the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour. The American people want it. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, creating 13 million jobs, the American people want it. The pay equity for women, the American people want it. Demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes. The American people want it.
HOLT: That's time. But let me continue with the...
SANDERS: The point is, we have to make Congress respond to the needs of the people, not big money.
HOLT: Senator Sanders, let me continue, you call yourself a Democratic socialist...
SANDERS: I do. HOLT: And throughout your career in politics, you've been critical of the Democratic party, you've been saying in a book you wrote, quote, "There wasn't a hell of a big difference between the the two major parties." How would you will a general election...
SANDERS: Did I say that?
HOLT: How will you win a general election labeling yourself a democratic socialist?
SANDERS: Because of what I believe in what I was just saying. The Democratic party needs major reform. To those of you in South Carolina, you know what, in Mississippi, we need a 50-state strategy so that people in South Carolina and Mississippi can get the resources that they need.
Instead of being dependent on super PACs, what we need is to be dependent on small, individual campaign contributors. We need an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families and low-income people. Not wealthy campaign contributors.
HOLT: Yes, but senator, you can...
SANDERS: We need to expand what the input into the Democratic party. I am very proud that in this campaign, we have seen an enormous amount of excitement from young people, from working people. We have received more individual contributions than any candidate in the history of this country up to this point.
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: Yes, but senator you never came to campaign for Vincent Sheheen when he was running for governor. In fact, neither of you came to campaign for Vincent Sheheen when he was running for governor.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: We can talk all we want about wanting to build a stronger Democratic party, but Lester, the question you answered, it's no laughing matter.
The most recurring question I get when I stand on the chair all across Iowa and talk with my neighbors is, how are you going to heal the divisions and the wounds in our country? This is the biggest challenge we face as a people.
All my life, I brought people together over deep divides and very old wounds, and that's what we need now in a new leader. We cannot keep talking past each other, declaring all Republicans are our enemies or the war is all about being against millionaires or billionaires, or it's all against American Muslims, all against immigrants.
Look, as Frederick Douglas said, we are one, our cause is one, and we must help each other if we are going to succeed. HOLT: And that is right.
SANDERS: And I respectfully disagree.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, our next question is for you. Here's another quantitative problem.
SANDERS: And I respectfully disagree with my friend over here. And that is, you are right. All of us have denounced Trump's attempts to divide this country: the anti-Latino rhetoric, the racist rhetoric, he anti-Muslim rhetoric.
But where I disagree with you, Governor O'Malley, is I do believe we have to deal with the fundamental issues of a handful of billionaires...
O'MALLEY: I agree with that.
SANDERS: ... who control economic and political life of this country.
O'MALLEY: I agree.
SANDERS: Nothing real will get happened. Unless we have a political revolution. Where millions of people finally stand up.
HOLT: And we're going to get into that coming up. But Secretary Clinton, here's a question from YouTube. It's from a young video blogger who has over 5 million subscribers. He has a question about the importance of younger voters.
FRANTA: Hi, I'm Connor Franta, I'm 23 and my audience is around the same age. Getting my generation to vote should be a priority for any presidential candidate.
Now I know Senator Sanders is pretty popular among my peers, but what I want to know is, how are all of you planning on engaging us further in this election?
HOLT: Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well thanks for the question and congratulations on five million viewers on YouTube, that's quite an accomplishment. Look, this election is mostly about the future and therefore it is of greatest urgency for young people.
I've laid out my ideas about what we can do to make college affordable; how we can help people pay off their student debts and save thousands of dollars, how we can create more good jobs because a lot of the young people that I talk with are pretty disappointed the economic prospects they feel their facing. So making community college free, making it possible to attend a public college or university with debt free tuition, looking for ways to protect our rights especially from the concerted Republican assault; on voting rights, on women's rights, on gay rights, on civil rights, on workers rights.
And I know how much young people value their independence, their autonomy, and their rights. So I think this is an election where we have to pull young people and older people together to have a strategy about how we're going to encourage even more American's to vote because it absolutely clear to me...
HOLT: That's time...
CLINTON: That turning over our White House to the Republicans would be bad for everybody especially young people.
HOLT: A quick follow up -- a thirty second follow up.
Why is Senator Sanders beating you to 2 to 1 among younger votes?
CLINTON: Look, I have the greatest respect for Senator Sanders and for his supports and I'm going to keep working as hard as I can to reach as many people of all ages about what I will do, what the experience and the ideas that I have that I will bring to the White House and I hope to have their support when I'm the Democratic nominee.
HOLT: We're going to take...
SANDERS: Is that your strategy...
HOLT: We're going to take a break. When we come back; big banks, big business and big differences among the three candidates on the American Economy. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Welcome back from Charleston. Let's turn now to the economy.
Senator Sanders, you released a tough new ad last week in which without mentioning Secretary Clinton by name, you talk about two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street. "One says it's OK to take millions from big banks and tell them what to do. My plan, break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes and make them pay their fair share."
What do you see as the difference between what you would do about the banks and what Secretary Clinton would do?
SANDERS: Well, the first difference is I don't take money from big banks. I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. What I would do...
(APPLAUSE)
What I would do is understand that when you have three out of the four largest banks today, bigger than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, when you have the six largest financial institutions having assets of 60 percent of the GDP of America, it is very clear to me what you have to do.
You've got to bring back the 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation and you've got to break up these huge financial institutions. They have too much economic power and they have too much financial power over our entire economy. If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, the old Republican trust buster, what he would say is these guys are too powerful. Break them up. I believe that's what the American people to want see. That's my view.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, help the voter understand the daylight between the two of you here.
CLINTON: Well, there's no daylight on the basic premise that there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that. But where we disagree is the comments that Senator Sanders has made that don't just affect me, I can take that, but he's criticized President Obama for taking donations from Wall Street, and President Obama has led our country out of the great recession.
Senator Sanders called him weak, disappointing. He even, in 2011, publicly sought someone to run in a primary against President Obama. Now, I personally believe that President Obama's work to push through the Dodd- Frank...
(LAUGHTER)
The Dodd-Frank bill and then to sign it was one of the most important regulatory schemes we've had since the 1930s. So I'm going to defend Dodd- Frank and I'm going to defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street, taking on the financial industry and getting results.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: OK. First of all...
HOLT: Senator Sanders, your response.
SANDERS: Set the record right. In 2006 when I ran for the Senate, Senator Barack Obama was kind enough to campaign for me, 2008, I did my best to see that he was elected and in 2012, I worked as hard as I could to see that he was reelected. He and I are friends. We've worked together on many issues. We have some differences of opinion.
But here is the issue, Secretary touched on it, can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions and when they are providing speaker fees to individuals? So it's easy to say, well, I'm going to do this and do that, but I have doubts when people receive huge amounts of money from Wall Street.
SANDERS: I am very proud, I do not have a super PAC. I do not want Wall Street's money. I'll rely on the middle class and working families...
HOLT: That's time.
Governor O'Malley...
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: ... campaign contributions.
HOLT: I have a question for you...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I think since -- since Senator Standers followed up on this...
HOLT: Thirty-second response.
CLINTON: Your profusion of comments about your feelings towards President Obama are a little strange given what you said about him in 2011.
But look, I have a plan that most commentators have said is tougher, more effective, and more comprehensive.
O'MALLEY: That's not true.
CLINTON: It builds on the Dodd-Frank -- yes, it is. It builds on the Dodd-Frank, regulatory scheme...
O'MALLEY: It's just not true.
CLINTON: ... but it goes much further, because...
O'MALLEY: Oh, come on.
CLINTON: ... both the governor and the senator have focused only on the big banks. Lehman Brothers, AIG, the shadow banking sector were as big a problem in what caused the Great Recession, I go after them.
And I can tell you that the hedge fund billionaires who are running ads against me right now, and Karl Rove, who started running an ad against me right now, funded by money from the financial services sector, sure thing, I'm the one they don't want to be up against.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Yes, thank you. Yes, Lester, what Secretary Clinton just said is actually not true. What -- I have put forward a plan that would actually put cops back on the beat of Wall Street. I have put forward a plan that was heralded as very comprehensive and realistic.
Look, if a bank robber robs a bank and all you do is slap him on the wrist, he's just going to keep robbing banks again. The same thing is true with people in suits.
Secretary Clinton, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but for you to say there's no daylight on this between the three of us is also not true. I support reinstituting a modern version of Glass- Steagall that would include going after the shadow banks, requiring capital requirements that would force them to no longer put us on the hook for these sorts of things.
In prior debates I've heard you even bring up -- I mean, now you bring up President Obama here in South Carolina in defense of the fact of your cozy relationship with Wall Street.
In an earlier debate, I heard you bring up even the 9/11 victims to defend it. The truth of the matter is, Secretary Clinton, you do not go as far as reining in Wall Street as I would.
And the fact of the matter is, the people of America deserve to have a president that's on their side, protecting the main street economy from excesses on Wall Street. And we're just as vulnerable today.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, 30-second response.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Yes, well, first of all -- first of all, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, others have all endorsed my plan. Secondly, we have Dodd-Frank. It gives us the authority already to break up big banks that pose...
O'MALLEY: And we have never used it.
CLINTON: That pose a risk to the financial sector. I want to go further and add to that.
And, you know, Governor, you have raised money on Wall Street. You raised a lot of money on Wall Street when you were the head of the Democratic Governor's Association...
O'MALLEY: Yes, but I haven't gotten a penny this year... CLINTON: And you were...
O'MALLEY: ... so somebody please, go on to martinomalley.com...
(LAUGHTER)
O'MALLEY: Go on to martinomalley.com, send me your checks. They're not giving me -- zero.
CLINTON: Yes, well, the point is that if we're going to be serious about this and not just try to score political points, we should know what's in Dodd-Frank, and what's in Dodd-Frank already gives the president the authority...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: ... with his regulators to make those decisions.
SANDERS: Let me give you an example of how corrupt -- how corrupt this system is. Goldman Sachs recently fined $5 billion. Goldman Sachs has given this country two secretaries of treasury, one on the Republicans, one under Democrats.
O'MALLEY: Say it.
SANDERS: The leader of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire who comes to Congress and tells us we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Secretary Clinton -- and you're not the only one, so I don't mean to just point the finger at you, you've received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year.
I find it very strange that a major financial institution that pays $5 billion in fines for breaking the law, not one of their executives is prosecuted, while kids who smoke marijuana get a jail sentence.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: That's time.
Andrea.
CLINTON: Well, the last point on this is, Senator Sanders, you're the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial market in 2000, to take the cops off the street, to use Governor O'Malley's phrase, to make the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission no longer able to regulate swaps and derivatives, which were one of the main cause of the collapse in '08.
So there's plenty...
SANDERS: If you want to...
CLINTON: There's plenty of problems that we all have to face together.
And the final thing I would say, we're at least having a vigorous debate about reining in Wall Street...
HOLT: ... Senator...
CLINTON: ... The Republicans want to give them more power, and repeal Dodd-Frank. That's what we need to stop...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Anyone who wants to check my record in taking on Wall Street, in fighting against the deregulation of Wall Street when Wall Street put billions of dollars in lobbying, in campaign contributions to get the government off their backs. They got the government off their backs.
Turns out that they were crooks, and they destroyed our economy. I think it's time to put the government back on their backs.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, you've talked a lot about things you want to do. You want free education for everyone, you want the Federal Minimum Wage raised to $15 an hour. You want to expand Social Security...
SANDERS: ... Yeah...
MITCHELL: ... benefits. You've been specific about what you want, but let's talk about how to pay for all this. You now said that you would raise taxes today, two hours or so ago, you said you would raise taxes to pay for your health care plan. You haven't been specific about how to pay for the other things...
SANDERS: ... That's true.
MITCHELL: ... Will you tell us tonight?
SANDERS: Good. You're right. I want to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create 13 million jobs. We do that by doing away with the absurd loophole that now allows major profitable corporations to stash their money in the Cayman (ph) Islands, and not in some years, pay a nickel in taxes. Yes, I do. I plead guilty. I want every kid in this country who has the ability to be able to go to a public college, or university, tuition free. And, by the way, I want to substantially lower student debt interest rates in this country as well.
How do I pay for it?
(APPLAUSE)
I pay for it through a tax on Wall Street speculation. This country, and the middle class, bailed out Wall Street. Now, it is Wall Street's time to help the middle class. In fact...
O'MALLEY: (inaudible)
SANDERS: ... we have documented, unlike Secretary Clinton, I have documented exactly how I would pay for our ambitious agenda.
O'MALLEY: Andrea...
MITCHELL: ... OK...
O'MALLEY: ... The only person on this stage who has...
MITCHELL: ... Secretary Clinton, you mentioned earlier -- Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?
CLINTON: Well, I have actually documented every way that I'm going to pay for what I'm doing because I think the American public deserves to know. And, you can go to my website and actually see that.
But, there are serious questions about how we're going to pay for what we want to see our country do. And, I'm the only candidate standing here tonight who has said I will not raise taxes on the middle class. I want to raise incomes, not taxes, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that the wealthy pay for debt free tuition, for child care, for paid family leave. To help us bring down student debt we're going to refinance that student debt, saving kids thousands of dollars.
Yeah, and that will also come out of the -- some of the pockets of people in the financial services industry...
MITCHELL: OK, we're out of time. Senator Sanders,
CLINTON: But I will tell you exactly how I pay for everything I've proposed...
(CROSSTALK)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: ... Here is the main two points...
MITCHELL: ... Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question about taxes. SANDERS: Yeah.
MITCHELL: The most googled political issue...
SANDERS: ... I got it.
MITCHELL: In the last month was taxes. Now, in your healthcare plan, the plan you released tonight, you would not only raise taxes on the wealthy, but the details you released indicate you would raise taxes on the middle class also. Is that correct?
SANDERS: What is correct, and I'm disappointed that Secretary Clinton's campaign has made this criticism. It's a Republican criticism. Secretary Clinton does know a lot about healthcare, and she understands, I believe, that a medicare for all, single payer program will substantially lower the cost of healthcare for middle class families. So, what we have got to acknowledge, and I hope the Secretary does, is we are doing away with private health insurance premiums.
SANDERS: So, if I save you $10,000 in private health insurance, and you pay a little bit more in taxes in total, there are huge savings in what your family is spending.
O'MALLEY: Senator, I'm the only person on this stage that's actually balanced a budget every year for 15 years.
SANDERS: I was mayor for eight years, I did that as well.
(LAUGHTER)
O'MALLEY: OK. So, that was eight years. Yes. And Senator, but I actually did it during a budget down time -- I mean, during a recession.
And Andrea, the -- I had to make more cuts than any governor in the history of Maryland, but we invested more in infrastructure, more in transportation. We made our public schools more in America more than five years in a row, and went four years in a row without a penny's increase to college tuition.
The things that we need to do in our country, like debt-free college in the next five years, like making universal -- like making national service a universal option in order to cut youth unemployment in half in the next three years, all these things can be done if we eliminate one entitlement we can no longer afford as a nation.
And that is the wealthy among us, those making more than a million dollars, feel that they are entitled to paying a much lower marginal tax rate than was usual for the better part of these 80 years.
And if we tax earnings from investments on money -- namely capital gains -- at the same rate as we tax sweat and hard work and toil, we can make the investments we need to make to make our country better.
HOLT: We have got a lot to ground to cover here.
Many Democratic voters are passionate about the need to do something to combat the threat of climate change, including the team of scientists from Youtube's MinuteEarth channel.
Here's their take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Hello from MinuteEarth. Fossil fuels have long kept our cars moving and our light bulbs lit.
But we know that burning these fuels releases heat-trapping gases that are warming the planet, causing seas to rise and contributing to extreme weather events, like South Carolina's devastating flooding last year.
Fighting human-caused climate change means giving up our global addiction to fossil fuels and shifting the bulk of the world's energy supply to alternative sources.
Some countries have acted decisively to make this transition. But here at home, we still get a whooping 82 percent of our energy from coal, oil, and natural gas.
In the U.S., political gridlock, pressure from industry lobbyists and insufficient R&D have made an already tough battle against climate change even tougher.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLT: Senator Sanders, Americans love their SUVs, which spiked in sales last year as gas prices plummeted.
How do you convince Americans that the problem of climate change is so urgent that they need to change their behavior?
SANDERS: I think we already are. Younger generation understands it instinctively.
I was home in Burlington, Vermont, on Christmas Eve, the temperature was 65 degrees. People in Vermont know what's going on. People who did ice fishing, where their ice is no longer there on the lake understand what's going on.
I'm on both the Environmental and Energy Committees. The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is already causing major problems. And if we do not act boldly and decisively, a bad situation will become worse.
It is amazing to me, and I think we'll have agreement on this up here, that we have a major party, called the Republican Party that is so owned by the fossil fuel industry and their campaign contributions that they don't even have the courage, the decency to listen to the scientists.
(APPLAUSE)
It is beyond my comprehension how we can elect a president of the United States, somebody like Trump, who believes that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.
(LAUGHTER)
Bottom line is, we need to be bold and decisive, we can create millions of jobs. We must, for the sake of our kids and grandchildren, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
I've got the most comprehensive legislation in the Senate to do that. And as president, I will fight to make that happen.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Governor O'Malley, 30 seconds.
O'MALLEY: Thank you.
Lester, on this stage tonight, this Democratic stage, where we actually believe in science.
(LAUGHTER)
I would like to challenge and invite my colleagues here on this stage to join me in putting forward a plan to move us to a 100 percent clean, electric energy grid by 2050. It can be done.
(APPLAUSE)
With solar, with wind, with new technologies, with green buildings, this can happen, but in all -- President Obama made us more energy independent, but in all of the above strategy didn't land us on the moon, we need American ingenuity and we need to reach by 2050 for the sake of our kids.
HOLT: That's time. We're going to take a break.
CLINTON: And let me...
HOLT: When we return, the late-breaking developments regarding Iran. The threat of ISIS now more real than ever on U.S. soil. Americans in fear and hearing few good answers.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TODD: And we are back. I'm Chuck Todd. We are just past the halfway mark in our NBC News YouTube Democratic Candidates Debate. Boy, this is one that has actually lived up to the billing.
We've seen some sharp exchanges on guns, health care and Wall Street -- the debate, you could argue, that has been largely focused on all things Bernie Sanders.
He was on the defensive early, Hillary Clinton getting, I think, some control on the gun issue. But on health care and on Wall Street reform, it was Hillary Clinton on the defensive, and was a very aggressive Bernie Sanders.
One thing of note here: Bernie Sanders very much being the sort of revolutionary candidate, major change, and you've heard a lot of Hillary Clinton saying things like she wants to build on the things that President Obama did, wrapping herself in President Obama.
Let's go back downstairs and check in with our moderators, Lester and Andrea. So what's coming up next, guys?
HOLT: Well, we've covered a lot of ground already, but we're gonna be talking about ISIS. A threat to America, it's -- always polls as one of the top concerns of Americans. And also some more late-breaking news.
MITCHELL: We have all the news that has happened from Iran and the president's comments today, as well as what this means going forward for the War on Terror. What do we expect from Iran, and also what's happening in Syria? So a lot of foreign policy coming up.
HOLT: A lot of debate to come. We'll be back in Charleston after this.
TODD: You've got it. Well, it's the commander-in-chief test -- that's what's next. Stay with us -- the debate resumes right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Charleston, Andrea Mitchell has questions now starting with Iran.
MITCHELL: Thank you Lester.
Senator Sanders, the nuclear deal is now enforced. Iran is getting it's billions of dollars, several Americans who have been held are now going to be heading home. The president said today, "it's a good day. It's a good day for diplomacy. It's a time now to restore diplomatic relations for the first time since 1979 and actually re- opened a U.S. Embassy in Tehran."
SANDERS: I think what we've got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran. Understanding that Iran's behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with; their support terrorism, the anti-American rhetoric that we're hearing from of their leadership is something that is not acceptable.
On the other hand, the fact that we've managed to reach an agreement, something that I've very strongly supported that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we did that without going to war. And that I believe we're seeing a fall in our relationships with Iran is a very positive step. So if your question is, do I want to see that relationship become more positive in the future? Yes.
Can I tell that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don't think we should. But I think the goal has go to be as we've done with Cuba, to move in warm relations with a very powerful and important country in this world.
MITCHELL: Your response Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I'm very proud of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I was very pleased to be part of what the president put into action when he took office. I was responsible for getting those sanctions imposed which put the pressure on Iran. It brought them to the negotiating table which resulted in this agreement.
And so, they have been so far, following their requirements under the agreement. But I think we still have to carefully watch them. We've had one good day over 36 year and I think we need more good days before we move more rapidly toward any kind of normalization. And we have to be sure that they are truly going to implement the agreement. And then, we have to go after them on a lot of their other bad behavior in the region which is causing enormous problems in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere.
MITCHELL: You mentioned Syria. Let me ask you about Syria, all of you. Let's turn to Syria and the civil war that has been raging there. Are there any circumstances in which you could see deploying significant numbers of ground forces in Syria, not just specials forces but significant ground forces to combat ISIS in a direct combat role?
Let me start with you Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Absolutely not.
I have a three point plan that does not include American Ground forces. It includes the United States leading an air coalition which is what we're doing, supporting fighters on the ground; the Iraqi Army which is beginning to show more ability, the Sunni fighters that we are now helping to reconstitute and Kurdish on both sides of the border.
I think we also have try to disrupt their supply chain of foreign fighters and foreign money and we do have to contest them in online space. So I'm very committed to both going after ISIS but also supporting what Secretary Kerry is doing to try to move on a political diplomatic to try to begin to slow down and hopefully end the carnage in Syria which is the root of so many of the problems that we seen in the region and beyond.
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders, ground forces yes or no?
SANDERS: As everybody you know, this is incredibly complicated and difficult issue and I applaud. I know President Obama's been getting a lot of criticism on this. I think he is doing the right thing.
What the nightmare is, which many of my Republican colleagues appear to want is to not have learned the lesson of Iraq. To get American young men and women involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of Syria and the Middle East would be an unmitigated disaster that as president, I will do everything in my power to avoid.
O'MALLEY: Andrea...
MITCHELL: Governor O'Malley?
SANDERS: We should -- we should learn -- we should learn from King Abdullah of Jordan, one of the few heroes in a very unheroic place. And what Abdullah said is this is a war with a soul of Islam and that Muslim troops should be on the ground with our support and the support of other major countries. That is how we destroy ISIS, not with American troops in perpetual warfare.
MITCHELL: Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Andrea, governors have led us to victory in two world wars by doing what America does best, and that is by joining forces with others by acting in coalition. And I believe that President Obama is doing the right thing in this case.
We need to learn the lessons from the past. We do need to provide the special -- special ops advisers, we need -- do need to provide the technical support, but over the long-term, we need to develop new alliances. We need a much more proactive national security strategy that reduces these threats before they rise to a level where it feels like we need to pull for a division of marines.
And I also want to add one other thing here. I appreciate the fact that in our debate, we don't use the term you hear Republicans throwing around trying to look all vibrato (ph) and macho sending other kids -- kids into combat, they keep using the term boots on the ground. A woman in Burlington, Iowa said to me, "Governor, when you're with your colleagues, please don't refer to my son who has served two tours of duty in Iraq as a pair of boots on the ground." Now, we need to be mindful of learning the lessons of the past.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: I have a question. I have a question for Senator Sanders. Did the policies of the Obama administration, in which Secretary Clinton of course was a part, create a vacuum in Iraq and Syria that helped ISIS grow?
SANDERS: No. I think the vacuum was created by the disastrous war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Not only did I vote against it, I helped lead the opposition. And what happened there is yes, it's easy to get rid of a two-bit dictator like Saddam Hussein, but there wasn't the kind of thought as to what happens the day after you get him and what kind of political vacuum occurs. And who rises up? Groups like ISIS.
So I think that President Obama made a promise to the American people when he ran, and he said you know what, I'm going to do my best to bring American troops home. And I supported what he did. Our job is to train and provide military support for Muslim countries in the area who are prepared to take on ISIS.
And one point I want to make here that is not made very often, you have incredibly wealthy countries in that region, countries like Saudi Arabia, countries like Qatar. Qatar happens to be the largest -- wealthiest country per capita in the world. They have got to start putting in some skin in the game and not just ask the United States to do it.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: Secretary Clinton, I want to talk to you about red lines, because former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a recent interview that President Obama's decision to stand down on planned missile strikes against Damascus after Assad had used chemical weapons hurt the president's credibility. Should the president have stuck to his red line once he drew it?
CLINTON: Look, I think that the president's decision to go after the chemical weapons once there was a potential opportunity to build on when the Russians opened that door resulted in a very positive outcome. We were able to get the chemical weapons out.
I know from my own experience as secretary of State that we were deeply worried about Assad's forces using chemical weapons because it would have had not only a horrific affect on people in Syria, but it could very well have affected the surrounding states, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey. So getting those chemical weapons out was a big deal, but...
MITCHELL: But should he -- should he have stuck to his...
CLINTON: Well -- but -- but...
MITCHELL: ... line? Did it hurt U.S. credibility?
CLINTON: I think, as commander in chief, you've got to constantly be evaluating the decisions you have to make. I know a little bit about this, having spent many hours in the situation room, advising President Obama.
And I want to just add to something that Senator Sanders said, the United States had a very big interest in trying to help stabilize the region. If there is any blame to be spread around, it starts with the prime minister of Iraq, who sectarianized his military, setting Shia against Sunni.
It is amplified by Assad, who has waged one of the bloodiest, most terrible attacks on his own people: 250,000-plus dead, millions fleeing. Causing this vacuum that has been filled unfortunately, by terrorist groups, including ISIS.
So, I think we are in the midst of great turmoil in this region. We have a proxy conflict going on between Saudi Arabia and Iran. You know, one of the criticisms I've had of Senator Sanders is his suggestion that, you know, Iranian troops be used to try to end the war in Syria...
MITCHELL: Your time is up.
CLINTON: ... and go after ISIS, which I don't think would be a good idea.
SANDERS: Let me just...
MITCHELL: Senator....
CLINTON: But overall, a lot of the forces at work in the region are ones that we cannot directly influence, but we can...
MITCHELL: You're out of time.
SANDERS: OK. Let me suggest...
(CROSSTALK)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: Where Secretary Clinton and I think, I agree with most of what she said. But where I think we do have an honest disagreement, is that in the incredible quagmire of Syria, where it's hard to know who's fighting who and if you give arms to this guy, it may end up in ISIS' hand the next day. We all know that.
And we all know, no argument, the secretary is absolutely right, Assad is a butcher of his own people, man using chemical weapons against his own people. This is beyond disgusting.
But I think in terms of our priorities in the region, our first priority must be the destruction of ISIS. Our second priority must be getting rid of Assad, through some political settlement, working with Iran, working with Russia.
But the immediate task is to bring all interests together who want to destroy ISIS, including Russia, including Iran, including our Muslim allies to make that the major priority.
O'MALLEY: But in all of that senator and secretary, I think we're leaving out something very important here. And that is that we still don't have the human intelligence: overt, in terms of diplomatic intelligence or covert, to understand even what the heck happens as the secondary and tertiary effects of some of these things.
We are walking through this region, Andrea, without the human intelligence that we need. And we need to make a renewed investment as a country in bringing up a new generation of foreign service officers, and bringing up a new generation of business people and actually understanding and having relationships in these places.
So we have a better sense of what the heck happens after a dictator topples and can take action to prevent another safe haven and another iteration of terror.
MITCHELL: Your time is us. Lester.
HOLT: Senator Sanders mentioned Russia a moment ago. Secretary Clinton, you famously handed Russia's foreign minister a reset button in 2009. Since then, Russia has annexed Crimea, fomented a war in Ukraine, provided weapons that downed an airliner and launched operations, as we just did discuss, to support Assad in Syria. As president, would you hand Vladimir Putin a reset button?
CLINTON: Well, it would depend on what I got for it and I can tell you what we got in the first term, we got a new start treaty to reduce nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia. We got permission to resupply our troops in Afghanistan by traveling across Russia.
We got Russia to sign on to our sanctions against Iran and other very important commitments. So look, in diplomacy, you are always trying to see how you can figure out the interest of the other to see if there isn't some way you can advance your security and your values.
When Putin came back in the fall of 2011, it was very clear he came back with a mission. And I began speaking out as soon as that happened because there were some fraudulent elections held, and Russians poured out into the streets to demand their freedom, and he cracked down. And in fact, accused me of fomenting it. So we now know that he has a mixed record to say the least and we have to figure out how to deal with him.
HOLT: What's your relationship with him?
CLINTON: Well, my relationship with him, it's -- it's interesting.
(LAUGHTER)
It's one, I think, of respect. We've had some very tough dealings with one another. And I know that he's someone that you have to continuingly stand up to because, like many bullies, he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can unless you do.
And we need to get the Europeans to be more willing to stand up, I was pleased they put sanctions on after Crimea and eastern Ukraine and the downing of the airliner, but we've got to be more united in preventing Putin from taking a more aggressive stance in Europe and the Middle East.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: We to want turn right now to the issue of balancing national security concerns with the privacy rights of Americans. That brings us to YouTube and this question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BROWNLEE: Hi, my name Marques Brownlee, and I've been making YouTube videos about electronics and gadgets for the past seven years.
I think America's future success is tied to getting all kinds of tech right. Tech companies are responsible for the encryption technology to protect personal data, but the government wants a back door into that information.
So do you think it's possible to find common ground? And where do you stand on privacy versus security?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLT: So, Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Thank you.
I believe whether it's a back door or a front door that the American principle of law should still hold that our federal government should have to get a warrant, whether they want to come through the back door or your front door.
(APPLAUSE)
And I also agree, Lester, with Benjamin Franklin, who said, no people should ever give up their privacy or their freedoms in a promise for security.
So we're a collaborative people. We need collaborative leadership here with Silicon Valley and other bright people in my own state of Maryland and around the NSA that can actually figure this out.
But there are certain immutable principles that will not become antique things in our country so long as we defend our country and its values and its freedoms. And one of those things is our right to be secure in our homes, and our right to expect that our federal government should have to get a warrant.
I also want to the say that while we've made some progress on the Patriot Act, I do believe that we need an adversarial court system there. We need a public advocate. We need to develop jurisprudence so that we can develop a body of law that protects the privacy of Americans in the information and digital age.
HOLT: That's time.
You have all talked about what you would do fighting ISIS over there, but we've been hit in this country by home-grown terrorists, from Chattanooga to San Bernardino, the recent shooting of a police officer in Philadelphia. How are you going to fight the lone wolves here, Senator Sanders?
O'MALLEY: Yes, Lester, year in and year out I was the leader of the U.S. ...
HOLT: That's a question to Senator Sanders. I wasn't clear, I apologize.
SANDERS: OK. I just wanted to add, in the previous question, I voted against the USA Patriot Act for many of the reasons that Governor O'Malley mentioned. But it is not only the government that we have to worry about, it is private corporations.
You would all be amazed, or maybe not, about the amount of information private companies and the government has in terms of the Web sites that you access, the products that you buy, where you are this very moment.
And it is very clear to me that public policy has not caught up with the explosion of technology. So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley to make sure that we do not allow ISIS to transmit information...
HOLT: But in terms of lone wolves, the threat, how would you do it?
SANDERS: Right. What we have got to do there is, among other things, as I was just saying, have Silicon Valley help us to make sure that information being transmitted through the Internet or in other ways by ISIS is, in fact, discovered.
But I do believe we can do that without violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people.
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: We have to go to a -- we have to go to a break, and when we come back, we're going to get to some of the burning questions these candidates have yet to answer and are totally eager to talk about.
CLINTON: Oh, we're breaking? OK.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: And welcome back to Charleston.
As we were going to a break, Secretary Clinton, I cut you off. I'll give you 30 seconds to respond on the issue of lone wolves.
O'MALLEY: Can I get 30 seconds, too?
(LAUGHTER)
SANDERS: Can I get 50 seconds?
HOLT: Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, I wanted to say, and I'll do it quickly, I was very pleased that leaders of President Obama's administration went out to Silicon Valley last week and began exactly this conversation about what we can do, consistent with privacy and security.
We need better intelligence cooperation, we need to be sure that we are getting the best intelligence that we can from friends and allies around the world. And then, we've got to recognize our first line of defense against lone wolf attacks is among Muslim Americans.
And it is not only shameful, it is dangerous for the kinds of comments you're hearing from the Republican side.
We need to be reaching out and unifying our country against terrorist attacks and lone wolves, and working with Muslim Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: And Andrea has a follow-up.
O'MALLEY: And Andrea -- Andrea -- Andrea...
MITCHELL: Just a -- just a quick follow-up, though, Secretary Clinton. Just a moment, Governor.
O'MALLEY: Andrea, when can I get my 30 seconds?
MITCHELL: But -- but -- Secretary Clinton, you said that the leaders from the intelligence community went to Silicon Valley, they were flatly turned down. They got nowhere.
CLINTON: That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that.
O'MALLEY: Andrea, I need to talk about homeland security and preparedness.
Ever since the attacks of September 11th -- 30 seconds.
(LAUGHTER)
Ever since the attacks of September 11th, my colleagues, Democratic and Republican mayors, Democratic and Republican governors, made me their leader on homeland security and preparedness.
Ever since the attacks of September 11th -- 30 seconds.
(LAUGHTER)
Ever since the attacks of September 11th, my colleagues, Democratic and Republican mayors, Democratic and Republican governors, made me their leader on homeland security and preparedness.
O'MALLEY: Here in the homeland, unlike combating ISIL abroad, we're almost like it's -- your body's immune system. It's able to protect your body against bad bugs, not necessarily because it outnumbers them, but it's better connected -- the fusion centers, the biosurveillance systems, better prepared first responders.
But there's another front in this battle, and it is this. That's the political front, and if Donald Trump wants to start a registry in our country of people by faith, he can start with me, and I will sign up as one who is totally opposed to his fascist appeals that wants to vilify American Muslims. That can do more damage to our democracy than any...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: All right, that's time, and -- and we do...
(APPLAUSE)
... we do have to move on.
Secretary Clinton, this is the first time...
SANDERS: Can I get a -- can I just get a very brief response? Very brief.
HOLT: Thirty -- 30 -- 30 seconds, Senator.
SANDERS: OK. One -- and I agree with what the secretary said, and what Governor O'Malley said. But here's an issue that we also should talk about. We have a $600 billion military budget. It is a budget larger than the next eight countries'.
Unfortunately, much of that budget continues to fight the old Cold War with the Soviet Union. Very little of that budget -- less than 10 percent -- actually goes into fighting ISIS and international terrorism. We need to be thinking hard about making fundamental changes in the priorities of the Defense Department.
HOLT: All right. Secretary Clinton...
(APPLAUSE)
... this is the first time that a spouse of a former president could be elected president. You have said that President Clinton would advise you on economic issues, but be specific, if you can. Are you talking about a kitchen-table role on economics, or will he have a real policy role?
CLINTON: Well, it'll start at the kitchen table, we'll see how it goes from there. And I...
(APPLAUSE)
... I'm going to have the very best advisers that I can possibly have, and when it comes to the economy and what was accomplished under my husband's leadership and the '90s -- especially when it came to raising incomes for everybody and lifting more people out of poverty than at any time in recent history -- you bet.
I'm going to ask for his ideas, I'm going ask for his advice, and I'm going use him as a goodwill emissary to go around the country to find the best ideas we've got, because I do believe, as he said, everything that's wrong with America has been solved somewhere in America.
We just have to do more of it, and we have to reach out, especially into poor communities and communities of color, to give more people their own chance to get ahead.
HOLT: Senator sanders, a 30 second response, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Great ideas, Governor O'Malley, Secretary Clinton, but here's the truth. If you have an administration stacked with Wall Street appointees, it ain't going to accomplish very much.
So here's a promise that I make -- and I mentioned a moment ago how corrupt the system is -- Goldman Sachs, paying a $5 billion fine, gives this country, in recent history, a Republican secretary of treasury, a Democratic secretary of treasury.
Here's a promise. If elected president, Goldman Sachs is not going to have -- bring forth a secretary of treasury for a Sanders administration.
(APPLAUSE)
MILLER: Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question. You called Bill Clinton's past transgressions, quote, "totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable." Senator, do you regret saying that?
SANDERS: I was asked a question. You know, one of the things, Andrea, and I -- that question annoys me. I cannot walk down the street -- Secretary Clinton knows this -- without being told how much I have to attack secretary Clinton, want to get me on the front pages of the paper, I'd make some vicious attack.
I have avoided doing that. Trying to run an issue-oriented campaign.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: I was asked a question.
MILLER: You didn't have to answer it that way, though. Why did you?
SANDERS: Well -- then if I don't answer it, then there's another front page, so it's yes (ph).
(LAUGHTER)
And I mean this seriously. You know that. We've been through this. Yes, his behavior was deplorable. Have I ever once said a word about that issue? No, I have not. I'm going to debate Secretary Clinton, Governor O'Malley, on the issues facing the American people, not Bill Clinton's personal behavior.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: We will take a break. We'll continue from Charleston right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Welcome back everybody. Finally, before we go tonight, we set out here to understand points of differences between you. We believe we've learned a lot here, but before we leave, is there anything that you really wanted to say tonight that you haven't gotten a chance to say.
And, we'll start with Governor O'Malley.
(LAUGHTER)
HOLT: Didn't see that coming, did you?
O'MALLEY: Yes, but we're going to have to get 20 minutes to do it, so.
(LAUGHTER)
MITCHELL: ...too long (ph).
O'MALLEY: I believe there are many issues. I have 60 seconds for this?
HOLT: Sixty seconds, we'd appreciate it.
O'MALLEY: There are so many issues that we haven't been able to discuss here. We have not fully discussed immigration reform, and the deplorable number of immigrant detention camps that our nation's now maintaining. We haven't discussed the shameful treatment that the people of Puerto Rico, our fellow Americans, are getting treated with by these hedge funds that are working them over.
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: We haven't discussed the fact that in our hemisphere we have the danger of nation-state failures because of drug traffickers; and Honduras, and Guatemala and El Salvador.
I guess the bottom line is this, look we are a great people the way we act at home and abroad based on the beliefs that unite us. Our belief in the dignity of every person, our belief in our own common good. There is now challenge that is too great for us to overcome provided we bring forward in these divided times, new leadership that can heal our divides here at home and bring our principles into alignment abroad.
We're on the threshold of a new era of American progress and I believe we have only need to join forces together and cross that threshold into a new era of American prosperity.
HOLT: And that's time.
O'MALLEY: Thanks a lot.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well Lester, I spent a lot of time last week being outraged by what's happening in Flint, Michigan and I think every single American should be outraged. We've had a city in the United States of America where the population which is poor in many ways and majority African American has been drinking and bathing in lead contaminated water. And the governor of that state acted as though he didn't really care.
He had requests for help that he basically stonewalled. I'll tell you what, if the kids in a rich suburb of Detroit had been drinking contaminated water and being bathed in it, there would've been action.
So I sent my top campaign aide down there to talk to the mayor of Flint to see what I could do to help. I issued a statement about what we needed to do and then I went on a TV show and I said, "it was outrageous that the governor hadn't acted and within two hours he had."
HOLT: And that's time.
CLINTON: I want to be a president who takes care of the big problems and the problems that are affecting the people of our country everyday.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Thank you.
Senator Sanders?
SANDERS: Well, Secretary Clinton was right and what I did which I think is also right, is demanded the resignation of governor. A man who acts that irresponsibly should not stay in power.
Now, we are a great nation -- and we've heard a lot of great ideas here tonight. Let's be honest and let's be truthful. Very little is going to be done to transform our economy and to create the kind of middle class we need unless we end a corrupt campaign finance system which is undermining American democracy.
We've got to get rid of Super PACs, we've got to get rid of Citizens' United and what we've got to do is create a political revolution which revitalizes American democracy; which brings millions of young people and working people into the political process. To say loudly and clearly," that the government of the United States of America belongs to all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors."
HOLT: All right. Well thank you and thanks to all of you for being here tonight shedding light on some of the differences as Americans get ready to vote.
I also want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and certainly my friend and colleague, Andrea Mitchell. This has been great. It's been a great spirited conversation and American people appreciate it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/17/the-4th-democratic-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/ [with embedded annotations and video clip, and comments]
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4 [with (over 102,000) comments]
--
Donald Trump - Liberty University Convocation
Published on Jan 18, 2016 by Liberty University [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzibtqE6MFp4Z2gxi2_Acjw / http://www.youtube.com/user/libertyuniversity , http://www.youtube.com/user/libertyuniversity/videos ]
January 18, 2016: GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke at Liberty University’s first convocation of 2016 in front of a record crowd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSAyOlQuVX4 [comments disabled] [also at/text taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E32ZPa4LGkM (with comments), and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAUhSTagmjM (with comment)] [Trump's appearance alone at http://www.c-span.org/video/?403331-1/donald-trump-remarks-liberty-university ]
--
Donald Trump holds rally in Iowa with Sarah Palin and receives Palin’s endorsement
Streamed live on Jan 19, 2016 by Washington Post [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHd62-u_v4DvJ8TCFtpi4GA / http://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost , http://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost/videos ]
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump attends a campaign rally in Ames, Iowa.
Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Which Could Bolster Him in Iowa
JAN. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html [with embedded video clip, and comments]
Palin’s endorsement the latest prize as Trump, Cruz battle for conservatives
January 19, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/palins-endorsement-the-latest-prize-as-trump-cruz-battle-for-conservatives/2016/01/19/c243b326-bede-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html [with embedded video clips, and comments]
Sarah Palin Backs Donald Trump, Murders Irony
She dazzled in sequins. He smirked. She declared an end to ‘pussyfooting around.’ Tuesday’s Palin announcement may have been surreal, but it can only benefit The Donald.
01.19.16
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-backs-donald-trump-murders-irony.html
12 Things Sarah Palin Just Said, In What We Can Only Assume Is Real Life
We keep pinching ourselves and it's not working.
Sarah Palin endorsed GOP front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday, and quickly reminded the nation that she really has a way with words.
01/19/2016 | Updated 01/20/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-palin-quotes-trump_us_569ed3b5e4b04c813761f583 [with embedded video, and comments]
Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign, Gets In A 'Squirmish' With Coherence
19/01/2016 Updated: 21/01/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-endorses-donal-trump_n_9020106.html [with embedded video clip, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPx0OOIM6W0 [Trump's appearance begins at c. the 49:35 mark, and, including Trump's brief introduction, Palin's performance, itself c. 20 minutes long, begins at c. the 1:15:05 mark; with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb0qIZD9g7M (with {over 7,000} comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tif6xm4_ysA (with {over 19,000} comments)] [Palin's performance alone at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvlm3LKSlpU (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5TfD8KEbf4 (with comments)]
*
Palin's take: The Trump phenomenon
Published on Aug 19, 2015 by Fox News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIJgqnII2ZOINSWNOGFThA / http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel , http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel/videos ]
Former governor and vice presidential candidate on why Donald Trump has struck a chord and his lead his widening over GOP hopefuls and his immigration plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f4GmK17QVY [with comments] [also at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116598729 and preceding and following]
*
'On Point' with Gov. Sarah Palin & Donald Trump
Published on Aug 28, 2015 by One America News Network [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNbIDJNNgaRrXOD7VllIMRQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/1americanews , http://www.youtube.com/user/1americanews/videos ]
One America News Network’s “On Point with guest host Sarah Palin” interviews real estate mogul and 2016 Presidential candidate Donald Trump. The exclusive One America News Network interview was conducted live from the Trump Bar in New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeju2SG7UMA [with (over 11,000) comments] [also at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116623042 and preceding and following]
*
Sarah Palin To Be Trump's Secretary Of Stupid
Published on Sep 8, 2015 by The Young Turks [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks , http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/videos ]
Recently Sarah Palin was interviewing Donald Trump. They got along famously. She has since been asked about a potential cabinet position in the Trump Administration. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"Sarah Palin is already picking out a job for herself in the forthcoming Donald Trump administration. She'd like to run the Department of Energy for a brief period, before abolishing it.
Sounds promising! Except for one tiny little catch — it's not clear she even knows what the department does. Here's what she told CNN:
"I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby: oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations."
"I'd get rid of it. And I'd let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries and the people who are affected by the developments within their states. If I were in charge of that, it would be a short-term job, but it would be really great to have someone who knows energy and is pro-responsible development to be in charge.””*
*Read more here: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/7/9272275/palin-trump-energy-secretary
The Young Turks September 8, 2015 Hour 1
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTpcK80irdQixrQsWEqWqVawWc-cMXHyx
Teenage Trump Sent To Military School For Assaulting Teacher
Is Demonization Of Minorities Fueling Hate Crimes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJF0gZEeNc
Anti-Gay Bully Kim Davis Throws Post-Prison Pity Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6dgV-uuMI
Muslim Flight Attendant Refuses To Serve Alcohol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxdx0PeBawA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1yAEHc6AlA [with comments]
*
The Original Material Girl Is Back
Published on Jan 21, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig/videos ]
Sarah Palin's linguistically acrobatic endorsement of Donald Trump wasn't fair to the rest of the candidates. So Stephen's got a Palin endorsement for everyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LPR7DktumA [with comments] [also at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119993019 and following]
*
Palin Endorsement Cold Open
Published on Jan 24, 2016 by Saturday Night Live [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqFzWxSCi39LnW1JKFR3efg / http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive , http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive/videos ]
Sarah Palin (Tina Fey) endorses Donald Trump (Darrell Hammond) for president at an Iowa campaign stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pinZNYxQeo [with comments] [original at http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/palin-endorsement-cold-open/2973575 ] [also at/see (linked in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0pinZNYxQeo any following]
--
Full Speech: Donald Trump campaign Event With Sarah Palin in Tulsa, OK Jan. 20th 2016
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by FOX 10 Phoenix
WED, JAN 20, 2016 AT 12:00 PM
Donald J. Trump in Tulsa, OK
Mabee Center, Tulsa, OK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNdLKwV5W4 [with comments] [also at e.g. and title and text taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdChrHVwRDU (with {over 4,000} comments), and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ix5D8FissM (with {over 17,000} comments)] [Palin's performance alone, again c. 20 minutes long and this time as the warm-up act, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuF11kUukrQ (with comments)]
--
Ted Cruz Welcomes Endorsement Of Mike Bickle, Who Believes Oprah Is A Forerunner To The Antichrist
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 1/22/2016 11:02 am
Back in 2011, when Texas governor Rick Perry [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/rick-perry ] was planning his first run for the presidency, he kicked off his campaign with a massive prayer rally [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html ] in Houston called "The Response [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/the-response-prayer-rally ]." The event was the source of considerable controversy because Perry organized it in partnership with a whole host [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-sheet-gov-rick-perry%E2%80%99s-extremist-allies ] of radical Religious Right activists, including several members of the New Apostolic Reformation [ http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/new-apostolic-reformation ], a collection [ https://www.texasobserver.org/rick-perrys-army-of-god/ ] of self-proclaimed modern day apostles and prophets who believe that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, they are capable of performing greater miracles than even Jesus himself [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/new-prophets-we-can-do-same-or-greater-things-jesus ].
One of the key leaders in the NAR movement is Mike Bickle [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/longform/inside-the-international-house-of-prayer--2 , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/mike-bickle ], who also played a central role in organizing Perry's [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/perry-prayer-politics-and-presidency ] prayer rally [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/response-bickle-rails-against-redefining-love-and-false-religions ]. Bickle is the founder of the International House of Prayer [ http://www.ihopkc.org/about/ , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/international-house-prayer ], a controversial missionary organization in Kansas City, Missouri, that some critics [ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/the-seven-signs-youre-in-a-cult/361400/ ] have labeled a cult [ https://carm.org/ihop ] and which is best known for engaging [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ihop-classes-canceled-due-holy-spirit ] in nonstop 24-hour-a-day prayer in preparation for the End Times [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ihop-preparing-thousands-students-end-world , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/end-times ] and for its anti-gay activism in Uganda [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/new-york-times-investigates-relationship-between-american-dominionists-and-uganda , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/uganda ].
Bickle, unsurprisingly is a demon-fighting [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-bickle-exercising-dominion-casting-out-demons ] radical who believes that gay marriage is "rooted in the depths of hell [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-ally-bickle-says-marriage-equality-rooted-depths-hell ]," that homosexuality "opens the door to the demonic realm [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-bickle-warns-homosexuality-opens-door-demonic-realm ]" and that Oprah Winfrey is a forerunner of the Antichrist [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-pastor-who-thinks-oprah-precursor-antichrist , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pFcFldh8lo (next below, as embedded; with comments)]:
Back in 2004, Bickle declared [ http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/10/18/15172/771/Front_Page/IHOP_Head_Mike_Bickle_Predicts_Coming_quot_Prison_Camps_quot_For_Jews_ ] that as the End Times approach, all Jews will be given a chance to accept Jesus, warning [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRV0spflIE (below, as embedded; with comments)] that if they do not accept "the grace" of Christ, God will then "raise up a hunter" who will kill two-thirds of them "and the most famous hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler":
Yesterday, Ted Cruz [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/ted-cruz ] proudly announced [ https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-for-president-announces-endorsement-of-mike-bickle/ ] that Bickle had endorsed his presidential campaign [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/election-2016 ]:
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz today announced the endorsement of Mike Bickle, Founder and Director of the International House of Prayer of Kansas City, an evangelical missions organization based on prayer.
“Our nation is in a great crisis in this hour,” Bickle said. “We need a president who will first be faithful to honor God’s Word. We need a president who will work to defend religious liberty, uphold our Constitution, keep our country safe and our economy sound, and speak truth to the nation. We have been praying for righteous leaders, and Ted Cruz is such a leader. I am enthusiastically endorsing Ted Cruz.”
The International House of Prayer is engaged in many outreaches, justice initiatives, and mission projects. For the last 16 years, their prayer room has continued nonstop in 24/7 prayer led by worship teams. 800 staff members work at the IHOPKC Mission Base in Kansas City, and 800 full-time students and interns attend the International House of Prayer University, which consists of three full-time ministry schools— a Bible school, music school, and media school. About 20,000 people attend One Thing annually, IHOPKC’s year-end young adult conference
“Through prayer, the Lord has changed my life and altered my family’s story,” said Cruz. “I am grateful for Mike’s dedication to call a generation of young people to prayer and spiritual commitment. Heidi and I are grateful to have his prayers and support. With the support of Mike and many other people of faith, we will fight the good fight, finish the course, and keep the faith.”
Bickle is just the latest in a long [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-endorsed-anti-lgbt-national-organization-marriage ] list [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cruz-touts-endorsements-anti-feminist-eagle-forum ] of [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/michael-brown-joins-list-religious-right-endorsements-ted-cruz ] radical [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-touts-endorsement-extreme-anti-gay-anti-choice-activist-flip-benham ] Religious [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-pastor-who-linked-ebola-gay-rights ] Right [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-nabs-another-anti-lgbt-endorsement ] activists [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-anti-gay-hate-group-official-and-radio-host-sandy-rios ] who [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-touts-endorsement-anti-gay-extremist-paul-blair ] have publicly [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/people-who-hate-gays-sure-do-love-ted-cruz ] endorsed [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-leader-james-dobson-endorse-ted-cruz ] Cruz for president, many of whom Cruz's campaign has eagerly embraced.
It is also worth noting that back in 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/john-mccain ] was forced to reject the endorsement [ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/mccain.hagee/ ] of John Hagee [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/john-hagee , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/john-hagee-0 ] after it was revealed that Hagee had made comments similar to Bickle's about God having used Hitler as a "hunter" to force the Jews to return to Israel.
Rick Perry Endorses Ted Cruz For President
Jan 25, 2016
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rick-perry-endorses-ted-cruz-president/story?id=36497065 [with embedded video report, and comments]
© 2016 People For the American Way
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-mike-bickle-who-believes-oprah-forerunner-antichrist
*
The key to the GOP in 2016 is... Oprah??
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/22/16
Rachel Maddow shows how Oprah is an unexpected point of overlap between the Trump and Cruz campaigns as Ted Cruz welcomes the endorsement of a preacher who thinks Oprah is the antichrist and Donald Trump has repeatedly said he would like Oprah as a running mate. Duration: 16:10
The Apocalypse Is Upon Us, Ted Cruz Endorsement Edition
January 22, 2016
http://religiondispatches.org/the-apocalypse-is-upon-us-ted-cruz-endorsement-edition/ [with comments]
Fanning the Flames of Dominionism: Ted Cruz Officially Endorsed by Mike Bickle
January 22, 2016
http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/01/22/fanning-the-flames-of-dominionism-ted-cruz-officially-endorsed-by-mike-bickle/ [no comments yet]
Cruz Endorsed by Mike Bickle
January 24, 2016
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/01/24/cruz-endorsed-by-mike-bickle/ [with comments]
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/the-key-to-the-gop-in-2016-is-oprah-607206467790 [with comments; also embedded at/see related article http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/week-god-12316 (with comments)] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-22-2015-trms (with comments)] [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pTjl5P_mUg (no comments yet)]
*
Glenn Beck Endorses Ted Cruz for President
Glenn Beck speaks at a rally for Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz in Iowa on Saturday, Jan. 23, 2016.
(Image source: Facebook)
(Image source: Facebook)
Dave Urbanski
Jan. 23, 2016 4:12pm
This story has been updated.
Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican Ted Cruz for president of the United States during a rally for the Texas senator in Iowa.
“I am here to announce that I am endorsing Senator Ted Cruz as the next President of the United States!” Beck said to wild cheers from crowd at Faith Bible College in Ankeny.
Beck said Cruz is the candidate who will “repoint the cornerstones” in Washington.
Beck also highlighted Cruz’s many accomplishments — from winning landmark court cases to standing on principles grounded by the U.S. Constitution.
The iconic radio talk-show host recalled a moment after he became acquainted with Cruz: “If you’re not who you say you are, I’m going to be your worst nightmare,” Beck said he told Cruz, adding that he’s watched the conservative candidate “relentlessly” and that Cruz is indeed who he says he is.
Just before Beck officially made his endorsement, he brought Cruz onstage and handed him his George Washington compass, a symbol of radio host’s pursuit of truth.
Beck said Cruz will fight for religious liberty, citizens’ Second Amendment rights and nominating Supreme Court justices who won’t tilt the balance toward liberalism.
“Iowa, I beg you,” Beck said as the state’s caucus approaches. “My children’s future depends on what you do a week from Monday.”
Beck underscored that it’s a “two-person race” with Cruz locked in a battle for votes with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.
“We have to start raising the bar,” Beck said.
Cruz Commander
http://www.cruzcommander.com [ https://www.tedcruz.org/l/cruz-commander/ ]
*
Phil Robertson Endorses Ted Cruz for President
Cruz News | January 13, 2016
Duck Commander says Cruz is “the man for the job”
HOUSTON, Texas – Today, the Cruz for President campaign announced the endorsement of Phil Robertson, a professional hunter, businessman, Christian minister, and reality television star on the popular television series Duck Dynasty. Robertson believes Ted Cruz is the man for the job.
“My qualifications for President of the United States are rather narrow: Is he or she Godly, does he or she love us, can he or she do the job, and finally would they kill a duck and put him in a pot and make him a good duck gumbo?,” Robertson said. “[Cruz] fits the bill.”
Robertson attended Louisiana Tech University, where he played football and received a master’s degree in education and spent several years teaching. However, his true passion was hunting, fishing and duck calling. Robertson started a commercial fishing company, which he expanded into a duck calling business that launched the family into success.
“I am thrilled to have Phil’s support for our campaign,” said Cruz. “The Robertson’s are a strong family of great Christian faith and conservative values. Phil’s story of starting off with something small and working hard to achieve the American dream is inspiring. Much like my parents, and many other Americans, who started a small business and worked hard to provide for our family. If we as conservatives come together in 2016 and fight for the values that have made this country exceptional, we will win the White House and turn this country around.”
SCRIPT:
PHIL ROBERTSON: My qualifications for President of the United States are rather narrow. Is he or she Godly, does he or she love us, can he or she do the job, and finally would they kill a duck and put him in a pot and make him a good duck gumbo? I’ve looked at the candidates, Ted Cruz is my man. He fits the bill. He’s Godly, he loves us, he’s the man for the job, and he will go duck hunting because today we’re going.
Ted Cruz is my man, I’m voting for him.
Cruz the reason we’re going to vote for you, all of us, is because you‘re one of us my man.
TED CRUZ: Thank you.
ROBERTSON: That’s why we’re voting for you.
It’s now or never.
https://www.tedcruz.org/news/phil-robertson-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/ [with this YouTube embedded], via https://www.tedcruz.org/news/ [with many more such]
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i-9D92bzu8 [with comments] [the 'TV Ad' version, with the 'I'm Ted Cruz, and I approve this ...' added at the start and finish, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG9V_ePjcX0 (with comments)]
further:
The short, weird history of the ‘Duck Dynasty’ political endorsement
January 13, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/the-short-weird-history-of-the-duck-dynasty-political-endorsement/ [with embedded videos, and comments]
Glenn Beck Joins Ted Cruz's Horror Show Of Extremist Media Endorsers
January 19, 2016
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/19/glenn-beck-joins-ted-cruzs-horror-show-of-extre/208046 [with comments]
Ted Cruz’s Career in Private Practice Complicates His Legal Record
Republican presidential candidate represented a Chinese company and personal-injury plaintiffs
Jan. 21, 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-private-practice-ted-cruz-often-left-his-conservatism-at-the-door-1453405929 [with comments]
The aspirations of 18 [sic - 17]-year-old Ted Cruz
In 1988, high school senior Ted Cruz reflected on his life's ambitions while attending Second Baptist School in Houston, TX [when he was still 17 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz )]. Now, he is a Republican Senator running for the office of the President of the United States of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt-vG_TdOT4 [with comments] [embedded at and more at/via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-18-world-domination_us_56a5080ae4b0d8cc109a6bc4 (with comments), and http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-teen-world-domination-218148 (with comments)]
Glenn Beck endorses Cruz: Trump win is 'snowball to hell'
January 23, 2016
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/23/media/glenn-beck-ted-cruz-president/ [with comments]
In Iowa, Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck hit Trump as “Mounties” pass out Canadian birth certificate
Glenn Beck walks Sen. Ted Cruz through the presidential oath of office as he endorses the senator at a rally at Faith Bible College in Ankeny, Iowa, on Jan. 23, 2016.
January 23, 2016
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-rallies-with-glenn-beck-in-iowa.html/ [with comments]
Glenn Beck Administers ‘Presidential Oath of Office’ to Ted Cruz In Iowa
Media personality Glenn Beck administered a mock presidential “oath of office” to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he endorsed him on stage—and Cruz got the oath wrong when he took it.
23 Jan 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-administers-presidential-oath-of-office-to-ted-cruz-in-iowa/ [with (over 10,000) comments]
Trump Welcomes a Senator, Bashes Beck's Support of Cruz
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Dordt College, on Saturday, Jan. 23, 2016, in Sioux Center, Iowa.
Jan 23, 2016
Donald Trump is so confident about the loyalty of his supporters that he predicted Saturday they would stick with him even if he shot someone.
The Republican presidential front-runner bashed conservative commentator Glenn Beck's support of rival Ted Cruz and welcomed a figure from the GOP establishment, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, in rallies nine days before the Iowa caucuses open voting in the 2016 campaign.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump told an enthusiastic audience at a Christian school, Dordt College. "It's like incredible."
Beck campaigned for Ted Cruz and held little back in going after Trump. "The time for silliness and reality show tactics has passed," Beck charged at a Cruz rally. He warned that a Trump victory in the Feb. 1 caucuses could have lasting consequences: "If Donald Trump wins, it's going to be a snowball to hell."
[...]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-supporters-stick-shooting-36474598 [with comments]
‘We Are the Lifeboat of The World’: Beck Pleads Cruz Rally To Accept Even ‘Marxist Atheists’ Because ‘They Renew Us ‘
24 Jan 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/24/lifeboat-of-the-world-beck-beseeches-cruz-rally-to-allow-immigration/ [with comments]
Poll: Donald Trump gained 15 points on Ted Cruz in Iowa in two weeks
January 24, 2016
Earlier this month, Fox News released a poll [ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/08/fox-news-poll-iowa-polls-trump-vs-cruz-obama-ratings/ ] showing Ted Cruz leading Donald Trump by four points. The two had a sizable lead over everyone else in the state, and the poll was confirming what others were showing [ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html ]: Cruz had an advantage.
On Sunday, Fox released another Iowa poll [ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/22/fox-news-poll-iowa-presidential-primary/ ], with substantially different results. Now, Trump is up by 11 points, a 15-point swing in the two weeks between surveys. This poll, too, mirrors the recent trend: Trump has regained the advantage.
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/24/poll-donald-trump-gained-15-points-on-ted-cruz-in-iowa-in-two-weeks/ [with embedded video report, and comments]
Cruz Presidential Bid Aided by Billionaire Donors
Jan 25, 2016
Four of America's wealthiest businessmen laid the foundation for Ted Cruz's now-surging Republican presidential campaign and have redefined the role of political donors.
With just over a week until voters get their first say, the 45-year-old Texas senator known as a conservative warrior has been ascendant. The $36 million committed last year by these donor families is now going toward television, radio and online advertisements, along with direct mailings and get-out-the-vote efforts in early primary states.
The donors' super political action committees sponsored rallies Saturday in Iowa featuring Cruz and conservative personality Glenn Beck. The state holds the leadoff caucuses on Feb. 1.
The long-believing benefactors are New York hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, Texas natural gas billionaires Farris and Dan Wilks, and private-equity partner Toby Neugebauer. They honed their plan to help Cruz before he began his steady rise in polls — even before he announced his presidential bid in March.
"No one wants to lose," Neugebauer told The Associated Press when asked why he and others bet big on Cruz. "We didn't miss that an outsider would win. I think we've nailed it."
Voters will soon start determining whether he is right.
[...]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/cruz-presidential-bid-aided-billionaire-donors-36495897 [no comments yet]
further:
Cruz mega-donors’ path to ‘kingdom building’
The religious billionaire Dan Wilks had run-ins with the law.
Dan Wilks' desire to infuse American politics with his brand of morality last year drove him to join with his family to donate $15 million to support Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, making the billionaire one of the biggest donors in American politics.
01/14/16
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-dan-wilks-criminal-charges-217724 [with comments]
© 2016 TheBlaze Inc
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/ [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bOGNnWdNoE [with comments] [a pertinent excerpt at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt24T3vclh4 (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7vRVr3v_vU (no comments yet); Beck's comments along with his shared time on stage with Cruz at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmAt9tAiJLA (with comments)]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4501084 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4564232 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4644188 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=22198662 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=23094786 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=24074072 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=24778873 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=27317565 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32495173 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32560058 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33021774 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33123315 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33317293 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33317320 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33290830 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36332552 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36883853 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=38708998 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39252802 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39394970 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=40792689 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41666282 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43125574 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45826748 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46888982 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46972940 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47185263 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47185484 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48179158 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49837649 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52147306 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53837793 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53887297 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54350566 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55375076 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56245473 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56547799 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57045610 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57928259 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57930418 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58638252 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59055212 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59669924 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59670703 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61623333 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61715942 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63352633 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64771214 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65893563 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66390519 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66643520 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66689085 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67016836 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69305422 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69915729 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70444302 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73207417 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78913997 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81000795 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87878099 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88485649 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93870098 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95279189 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95666631 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=97217659 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107210424 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114206263 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116201583 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116598729 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116623042 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116812777 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=117320914 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118394550 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119569236 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119571039 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119715752 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119569277 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119575402 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119575960 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119601500 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119585452 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119586649 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119587198 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119594355 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119595240 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119675325 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119595725 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119596079 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119597512 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119598628 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119598697 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119601954 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119603422 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119606662 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119608203 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119613613 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119622828 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119624220 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119624818 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119626792 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119627060 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119627408 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119631679 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119634814 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119640269 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119649444 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119650038 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119687324 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119653399 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119653699 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119654421 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119659830 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119667667 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119672409 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119676427 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119677734 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119680626 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119684973 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119692930 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119693446 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119695012 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119712806 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119804484 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119698245 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119701976 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119708506 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119717193 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119709859 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119711932 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713043 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713169 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713248 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713866 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119714108 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119715629 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119716614 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119720673 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119720999 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119721699 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119722255 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119723658 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119723753 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119735979 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119745220 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119736210 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119736963 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119737109 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119737174 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119740583 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119746538 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119748205 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119753434 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119756034 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119760224 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119760704 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119761214 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119761518 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119763464 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119764595 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119765835 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119772586 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119776280 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119789775 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119791116 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119791200 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119791314 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119793950 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119796331 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119815319 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119820000 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119825225 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119824856 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119830149 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119830746 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119835628 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119838720 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119850065 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119853495 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119896015 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119854500 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119855616 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119855658 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119889236 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119889808 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940183 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119893797 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900133 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900751 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119894396 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119896769 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119896897 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119899873 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900568 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119901112 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900929 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119901436 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119904541 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119929171 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119904607 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119908244 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119908282 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119908971 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119911939 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119912408 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119913038 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119913179 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119913940 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120027977 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119915464 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119916080 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119918183 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119918436 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119919411 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119974049 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119976630 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119920845 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119924883 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120047785 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119920993 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119923006 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119925082 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119932050 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940032 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940050 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940261 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940862 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940922 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119943960 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119944339 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945332 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945467 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945754 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945794 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119955887 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119970069 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119971909 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119972709 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119975532 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119975761 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119984228 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119993019 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999367 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999520 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999824 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999955 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120000167 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120002208 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120002617 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120006994 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120005206 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120014285 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120020769 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120028028 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120028093 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120031416 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120031581 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120031663 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120037098 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120037654 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120038541 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120039120 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120041216 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120041968 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120056782 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120042114 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120052038 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120066171 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120066705 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120068194 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120043673 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120047379 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120048714 (and any future following)
(referencing http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120045315 and preceding and following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120049044 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120049688 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120052224 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120052458 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120064572 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120069277 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120053200 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120069377 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120069676 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120070011 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120070751 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120070772 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120073545 (and any future following)
Posted by David Neiwert at 1:08 PM
Saturday, November 28, 2015
People who have studied the extremist right as a historical and sociopolitical phenomenon in depth are acutely aware of a simple truth: America has been very, very lucky so far when it comes to fascistic political movements.
And now, with the arrival of the Donald Trump 2016 phenomenon, that luck may be about to run out.
Nor is this phenomenon just a flash in the pan. Trump is the logical end result of an endless series of assaults on not just American liberalism, but on democratic institutions themselves, by the American right for many years. It is the long-term creep of radicalization of the right come home to roost.
Fascistic elements and tendencies have always been part of America’s DNA. Indeed, it can be said that some of the worst traits of fascism in Europe were borrowed from their American exemplars – particularly the eliminationist tendencies, manifested first in the form of racial and ethnic segregation, and ultimately in genocidal violence.
Hitler acknowledged at various times his admiration for the American genocide against Native Americans [ http://www.jewishjournal.com/sacredintentions/item/hitlers_inspiration_and_guide_the_native_american_holocaust ], as well as the segregationist policies of the Jim Crow regime in the South (on which the Nuremberg Race Laws [ http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007695 ] were modeled [ http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/332-the-presence-of-the-past-confronting-the-nazi-state-and-jim-crow ]) and the threat of the lynch mob embodied in the Ku Klux Klan. According to Ernst Hanfstaengl [ http://www.celebritytypes.com/quotes/adolf-hitler.php ], Hitler was “passionately interested in the Ku Klux Klan. ... He seemed to think it was a political movement similar to his own." And indeed it was.
Despite the long-running presence of these elements, though, America has never yet given way to fascism. No doubt some of this, in the past half-century at least, was primarily fueled by the natural human recoil that occurred when we got to witness the end result of these tendencies when given the chance to rule by someone like Hitler – namely, the Holocaust. We learned to be appalled by racial and ethnic hatred, by segregation and eliminationism, because we saw the pile of corpses that they produced, and fled in terror.
Those of us who study fascism not just as a historical phenomenon, but as a living and breathing phenomenon that has always previously maintained a kind of half-life on the fringes of the American right, have come to understand that it is both a complex and a simple phenomenon: in one sense, it resembles a dynamic human psychological pathology in that it’s comprised of a complex constellation of traits that are interconnected and whose presence and importance rise and fall according to the stages of development it goes through; and in another, it can in many ways be boiled down to the raw, almost feral imposition of the organized violent will of an angry and fear-ridden human id upon the rest of humankind.
That’s where Donald Trump comes in.
In many ways, Trump’s fascistic-seeming presidential campaign fills in many of the components of that complex constellation of traits that comprises real fascism. Perhaps the most significant of these is the one component that has been utterly missing previously in American forms of fascism: the charismatic leader around whom the fascist troops can rally, the one who voices their frustrations and garners followers like flies.
Scholars of fascist politics have remarked previously that America has been fortunate for most of its history not to have had such a figure rise out of the ranks of their fascist movements. And in the case of Donald Trump, that remains true – he has no background or history as a white supremacist or proto-fascist, nor does he actually express their ideologies.
Rather, what he is doing is mustering the latent fascist tendencies in American politics – some of it overtly white supremacist, while the majority of it is the structural racism and white privilege that springs from the nation’s extensive white-supremacist historical foundations – on his own behalf. He is merrily leading us down the path towards a fascist state even without being himself an overt fascist.
The reality that Trump is not a bona fide fascist himself does not make him any less dangerous. In some ways, it makes him more so, because it disguises the swastika looming in the shadow of the flamboyant orange hair. It camouflages the throng of ravening wolves he’s riding in upon.
There is little doubt that Trump is tapping into fascistic sentiments, which is why so many observers are now beginning to finally use the word in describing Trump’s campaign. From Rick Perlstein [ http://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/donald_trump_american_hustler_the_frightening_fascist_tendencies_of_his_gop_rise/ ] and Digby [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/the_unprecedented_nightmare_of_donald_trumps_campaign_weve_openly_begun_using_the_f_word_in_american_politics/ ] and Chauncey deVega [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/23/donald_trumps_white_fascist_brigade_his_rallies_are_now_a_safe_space_for_racism/ ] (as well as a number of other writers [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/donald_trump_might_actually_be_invincible_his_hateful_message_has_taken_a_fascist_turn_and_the_press_is_letting_him_get_away_with_it/ ] at Salon) to Thom Hartmann at AlterNet [ http://www.salon.com/2015/11/04/it_can_still_happen_here_donald_trump_ben_carson_and_the_american_facists_among_us_partner/ ] to the typically staid Seattle Times [ http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/donald-trumps-creeping-fascism-needs-to-be-rejected/ ], “fascism” is the word more and more people are using in relation to the campaign that Trump is running. Even some of his fellow conservatives [ http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/politics/donald-trump-fascism/ ] are beginning to use the word.
And they have a valid point, because Trump fills out so many of the key components that collectively create genuine fascism. And while it’s true that, as Josh Marshall suggests [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-matters ], there really is no single, agreed-upon definition of fascism, there’s also no doubt that we can grasp the idea of fascism not just by studying its history, but also by examining the various attempts at understanding and defining just what comprises fascism. And in doing so, we can recognize exactly what it is that Trump is doing.
What it’s decidedly not, no matter what you might have read, is the simple-minded definition you’ll see in Internet memes attributed to Benito Mussolini: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” As Chip Berlet has explained [ http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html ] ad nauseam, not only did Mussolini never say or write such a thing, neither did the fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile [ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/02/07/fake-quote-files-mussolini-on-fascism-and-corporatism/ ], to whom it is also often attributed [ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini ].
For one thing, as Berlet explains: “When Mussolini wrote about corporatism, he was not writing about modern commercial corporations. He was writing about a form of vertical syndicalist corporatism based on early guilds.” The Skeptical Libertarian [ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/02/07/fake-quote-files-mussolini-on-fascism-and-corporatism/ ] explains that the term “corporatism” and “corporate” meant an entirely different thing in 1920s Italy than it means today:
“Corporations” were not individual businesses. Under fascist corporatism, sectors of the economy were divided into corporate groups, whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated by the government. The idea was to split the difference between socialism and laissez faire capitalism, letting the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production.
… The bottom line is that corporate groups meant classes of people in the economy, which were allegedly represented through appointments to the Council. The system was not about welfare for private companies, but rather about totalitarian central planning of the whole economy through legislation and regulation. Corporatism meant formally “incorporating” divergent interests under the state, which would resolve their differences through regulatory mechanisms.
Moreover, as Berlet explains, this fake definition of fascism directly contradicts many of the things that Mussolini himself did in fact write about the nature of fascism. If he or Gentile ever did actually say it, it’s likely it was a bit of propaganda intended to ease and mislead business-minded followers.
Another thing that fascism decidedly is NOT is the grotesque distortion made by Jonah Goldberg [ http://www.hnn.us/articles/122469.html ], to wit, that fascism is a kind of socialism and therefore “properly understood as a phenomenon of the left.” This claim, in fact, is such a travesty of the idea of fascism that it functionally negates its meaning, rendering it, as George Orwell might describe it, a form of Newspeak. Indeed, it was Orwell himself [ http://books.google.com/books?id=mEgxAJr1REUC&pg=PR5&sig=SX6Gvd8macmsjHsY1H5Z7I3XLHI#PPA80,M1 ] who wrote that “the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite.”
Fascism, in reality, is a much more complex phenomenon than either of these definitions. Let’s look, by way of example, at some of the more recent efforts at defining it:
Stanley Payne, in Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980):
A. The Fascist Negations:
-- Antiliberalism
-- Anticommunism
-- Anticonservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)
B. Ideology and Goals:
-- Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models
-- Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
-- The goal of empire or a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other powers
-- Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture
C. Style and Organization:
-- Emphasis on esthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects
-- Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia
-- Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence
-- Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing the organic view of society
-- Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
-- Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective
Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, p. 218:
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Paxton's nine "mobilizing passions" of fascism:
-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;
-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external;
-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;
-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;
-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;
-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;
-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle.
Roger Griffin [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Griffin ]:
Fascism: modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.
To these I would add one other important component, taken from Harald Oftstad’s Our Contempt for Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values – And Our Own (1989), namely, the logical extension of the Darwinian struggle against the “lesser” that pervades so much fascist literature: the deep-seated hatred and contempt in which all persons deemed “weaker” (be this ethnic, racial, medical, genetic, or otherwise) are held, and the desire to eliminate them entirely that it fuels.
In Hitler’s own words:
The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
… [We will try to] “save” even the weakest and most sickly at any price, and this plants the seed of a future generation which must inevitably grow more and more deplorable the longer this mockery of Nature and her will continues. [Mein Kampf]
Taking a careful look at Trump’s campaign, the fascist traits immediately emerge:
• 1. Eliminationist rhetoric is the backbone of Trump’s appeal. His opening salvo in the campaign – the one that first skyrocketed him to the forefront in the race, poll-wise, and proved wildly popular with Republican voters [ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/25/fox-news-poll-trumps-deportation-plan-smart-silly-or-wrong.html ] – was his vow (and subsequent proposed program) to deport all 12 million of the United States’ undocumented immigrants [ https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform ] (using, of course, the deprecatory term “illegal alien”) and to erect a gigantic wall on the nation’s southern border. Significantly, the language he used [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b ] to justify such plans – labeling those immigrants “criminals,” “killers,” and “rapists,” contending that they bring crime and disease – is classic rhetoric designed to demonize an entire class of people by reducing them to objects fit only for elimination.
Trump’s appeal in this regard ultimately is about forming a “purer” community, and it has been relentless and expansive: When an audience member asked him at a town-hall-style appearance [ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/when-do-we-get-rid-muslims ] when and how he was going to “get rid of all the Muslims,” he responded that “we’re going to be looking at a lot of different things.” He now also claims that if elected, he will send back all the refugees from Syria who have arrived in the United States: “If I win, they’re going back [ http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-new-hampshire-syrian-refugees-are-going-back-n436616 ],” he told one of his approval-roaring campaign crowds. And shortly before he encouraged a crowd [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/22/3724879/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-beating/ ] that “maybe should have roughed up” a Black Lives Matter protester, he told an interviewer that the movement is “looking for trouble [ http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-says-black-lives-matter-movement-looking-trouble ].” Most recently, he tweeted out a graphic taken from a neo-Nazi website [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/22/3724965/donald-trump-tweets-fake-racist-and-wildly-inaccurate-murder-statistics/ ] purporting to demonstrate (falsely) that black people commit most murders in America (though he later claimed that he hadn’t endorsed the graphic [ http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261169-trump-pushes-back-on-black-murder-stats-retweets-arent ]).
• 2. The palingenetic ultranationalism. After the race-baiting and the ethnic fearmongering, this is the most obviously fascistic component of Trump’s presidential election effort, embodied in those trucker hats proclaiming: “Make America Great Again.” (Trump himself puts it this way: "The silent majority is back, and we’re going to take the country back. We're going to make America great again."
That’s almost the letter-perfect embodiment of palingenesis – that is, the myth of the phoenix-like rebirth from the ashes of an entire society in its “golden age.” In the meantime, Trump’s nationalism is evident not just in these statement but are the entire context of his rants against Latino immigrants and Syrian refugees.
• 3. Trump’s deep contempt not just for liberalism (which provides most of the fuel for his xenophobic rants, particularly against the media) but also for establishment conservatism [ http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/limbaugh-why-trump-is-clobbering-establishment-gop/ ]. Trump’s biggest fan, Rush Limbaugh, boasts: “In parlaying this outsider status of his, he’s better at playing the insiders’ game than they are, and they are insiders. He’s running rings around all of these seasoned, lifelong, highly acclaimed professionals in both the consultant class, the adviser class, the strategist class, and the candidate class. And he’s doing it simply by being himself.”
• 4. Trump constantly proclaims America to be in a state of crisis [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKqCEuv5c6M (next below; comments disabled)]
that has made it “the laughingstock” of the rest of the world, and proclaims that this has occurred because of the failures of (primarily liberal) politicianss.
• 5. He himself embodies the fascist insistence upon male leadership by a man of destiny, and his refusal to acknowledge factual evidence of the falsity of many of his proclamations and comments embodies the fascistic notion that the leader’s instincts trump logic and reason in any event.
• 6. Trump’s contempt for weakness is manifested practically every day on the campaign trail, ranging from his dissing of former GOP presidential candidate John McCain [ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317 ] (a former prisoner of war) as “not a hero” because “I like people who weren’t captured,” to his recent mockery [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/25/trump-blasted-by-new-york-times-after-mocking-reporter-with-disability/ ] of a New York Times reporter with a disability.
This list could probably go on all day. But eventually, as we consider the attributes of real fascism, we also can begin to discern the difference between that phenomenon and the Trump candidacy.
Fascists have, in the past, always relied upon an independent, movement-driven paramilitary force capable of enacting various forms of thuggery on their opponents (as in the Italian Blackshirts, aka the Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milizia_Volontaria_per_la_Sicurezza_Nazionale ], and the German Brownshirts, the Sturmabteilung [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung ]). Trump, however, has no such force at his disposal.
What Trump does have is the avid support not only of various white-supremacist organizations [ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated ], as well as that of very real paramilitary organizations in the form of the Oath Keepers [ http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/the_gops_secret_oath_keeper_sickness_why_donald_trump_is_just_a_symptom_of_a_much_bigger_problem/ ] and the “III Percent [ http://iiipercent.blogspot.com/2015/10/for-anti-interventionists-trump-vs.html ]” movement, many of whose members are avid Trump backers, but neither of which have explicitly endorsed him. Moreover, Trump has never referenced any desire to form an alliance or to make use of such paramilitary forces.
What Trump has done is wink, nudge, and generally encouraged spontaneous violence as a response to his critics. This includes his winking and nudging at those “enthusiastic supporters [ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-trump-inspired-hate-crime-in-boston/401906/ ]” who committed anti-Latino hate crimes, his encouragement of the people at a campaign appearance who assaulted a Latino protester [ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/watch-trump-supporter-assaults-latino-protester-while-others-chant-usa-usa/ ], and most recently, his endorsement of the people who “maybe should have roughed up [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/22/3724879/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-beating/ ]” the “disgusting” Black Lives Matter protester who interrupted his speech.
That’s a clearly fascistic response. It also helps us understand why Trump is an extraordinarily dangerous right-wing populist demagogue, and not a genuine, in-the-flesh fascist.
A serious fascist would have called upon not just the crowd to respond with violence, but also his paramilitary allies to respond with retaliatory strikes. Trump didn’t do that.
That, in a tiny nutshell, is an example of the problem with Trump’s fascism: He is not really an ideologue, acting out of a rigid adherence to a consistent worldview, as all fascists are. Trump’s only real ideology is the Worship of the Donald, and he will do and say anything that appeals to the lowest common denominator of the American body politic in order to attract their support – the nation’s id, the near-feral segment that breathes and lives on fear and paranoia and hatred.
There’s no question these supporters bring a singular, visceral energy to the limited universe of the GOP primary, though I don’t know anyone who expects that such a campaign can survive the oxygen and exposure of a general election. Indeed, it is in many signs an indication of the doom that is descending upon a Republican Party in freefall, flailing about in a death spiral, that it is finally resorting to a campaign as nakedly fascistic as Trump’s in its attempts to secure the presidency.
This is why Trump has never called upon the shock troops of a paramilitary wing for support, and why he has always kept an arm’s-length distance from the white nationalists and neo-Nazis who have become some of his most enthusiastic backers [ https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/05/trump-2016-white-nationalists-throw-their-support-behind-donald ]. He isn’t really one of them.
What he is, as Berlet has explained elsewhere, is a classic right-wing nativist populist demagogue [ http://www.politicalresearch.org/2015/10/13/not-fascism-trump-is-a-right-wing-nativist-populist/ ]: “His ideology and rhetoric are much more comparable to the European populist radical right, akin to Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front, the Danish People’s Party or Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. All of them use the common radical right rhetoric of nativism, authoritarianism and populism.”
Of course, it’s also important to understand that fascism, in fact, is a subspecies of right-wing populism, very similar to the Klan in nature – that is, its malignant, metastasized version, crazed in its insatiable lust for power, fueled by fear and hatred, and fed by the blood of its vulnerable targets.
Trump is not fascist primarily because he lacks any kind of coherent, or even semi-coherent, ideology. What he represents instead is the kind of id-driven feral politics common to the radical right, a sort of gut-level reactionarism that lacks the rigor and absolutism, the demand for ideological purity, that are characteristic of full-bore fascism.
That does not, however, mean he is any less dangerous to American democracy. Indeed, he may be more dangerous than an outright fascist, who would in reality be far less appealing and far less likely to succeed in the current milieu. What Trump is doing, by exploiting the strands of right-wing populism in the country, is making the large and growing body of proto-fascists in America larger and even more vicious – that is, he is creating the conditions that could easily lead to a genuine and potentially irrevocable outbreak of fascism.
Recall, if you will, the lessons of Milton Mayer in his book, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945 – namely, the way these changes happen not overnight, but incrementally, like the legendary slow boiling of frogs:
"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
… "But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.”
It is by small steps of incremental meanness and viciousness that we lose our humanity. The Nazis, in the end, embodied the ascension of utter demonic inhumanity, but they didn't get that way overnight. They got that way through, day after day, attacking and demonizing and urging the elimination of those they deemed their enemies.
And this is what has been happening to America – in particular, to the conservative movement and the Republican Party – for a very long time. Donald Trump represents the apotheosis of this, the culmination of a very long-growing trend that really began in the 1990s.
That was when we first saw the popular rise of eliminationist hate talk [ http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982/orcinus-20/ ], wielded with thoughtless glee and great regularity by an increasingly rabid set of right-wing pundits led by Rush Limbaugh [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush%20Newspeak%20%20Fascism.pdf ], and then deeply codified by the talking heads who have subsequently marched across the sound stages at Fox News. It rose to the surface with the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin in 2008 [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-right-wing-populist.html ], followed immediately, in reaction to the election of Barack Obama, by the birth of the Tea Party [ http://www.amazon.com/Over-Cliff-Obamas-Election-American-ebook/dp/B00NUQJXQS ], which is perhaps the single most significant manifestation of right-wing populism in the nation’s history.
Trump aligned himself very early with the Tea Party elements, remarking in 2011 [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2011/04/donald-trump-claims-to-be-ideal-tea.html ] that “I represent a lot of the ingredients of the Tea Party.” And indeed he does – in particular, with its obeisance to the captains of industry and their untrammeled right to make profits at the expense of everyone else.
This is a phenomenon known as Producerism, and it is one of the hallmarks of right-wing populism. It's accurately defined in Wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism ] as:
a syncretic ideology of populist economic nationalism which holds that the productive forces of society - the ordinary worker, the small businessman, and the entrepreneur, are being held back by parasitical elements at both the top and bottom of the social structure.
... Producerism sees society's strength being "drained from both ends"--from the top by the machinations of globalized financial capital and the large, politically connected corporations which together conspire to restrict free enterprise, avoid taxes and destroy the fortunes of the honest businessman, and from the bottom by members of the underclass and illegal immigrants whose reliance on welfare and government benefits drains the strength of the nation. Consequently, nativist rhetoric is central to modern Producerism. Illegal immigrants are viewed as a threat to the prosperity of the middle class, a drain on social services, and as a vanguard of globalization that threatens to destroy national identities and sovereignty. Some advocates of producerism go further, taking a similar position on legal immigration.
In the United States, Producerists are distrustful of both major political parties. The Republican Party is rejected for its support of corrupt Big Business and the Democratic Party for its advocacy of the unproductive lazy waiting for their entitlement handouts (Kazin, Stock, Berlet & Lyons).
Berlet has written extensively [ http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/producerism.html ] about the long historical association of producerism with oppressive right-wing movements and regimes:
Producerism begins in the U.S. with the Jacksonians, who wove together intra-elite factionalism and lower-class Whites’ double-edged resentments. Producerism became a staple of repressive populist ideology. Producerism sought to rally the middle strata together with certain sections of the elite. Specifically, it championed the so-called producing classes (including White farmers, laborers, artisans, slaveowning planters, and “productive” capitalists) against “unproductive” bankers, speculators, and monopolists above—and people of color below. After the Jacksonian era, producerism was a central tenet of the anti-Chinese crusade in the late nineteenth century. In the 1920s industrial philosophy of Henry Ford, and Father Coughlin’s fascist doctrine in the 1930s, producerism fused with antisemitic attacks against “parasitic” Jews.
The Producerist narrative is why Henry Ford – who, as the ostensible author of The International Jew, a 1920 conspiracist tome that inspired Hitler’s paranoia, and whose capital later helped build the Nazi war machine in the 1930s, was also (and not coincidentally) perhaps the ultimate American enabler of fascism – is such a seminal figure for American right-wing populists, both as a leader in the 1920s and ‘30s, as well as a figure of reverence today. (Glenn Beck, in fact, on several occasions on his old Fox News show referenced Ford as something of a holy figure [ http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/attack-obamas-new-deal-beck-invokes- ] for his efforts to resist FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s.) The same narrative is also why, in today’s context, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged – a tendentious novel speculating on the disasters that would befall the world if its great industrial leaders suddenly chose to stop producing – are so important in their mythology.
Right-wing populism is essentially predicated on what today we might call the psychology of celebrity-worship: convincing working-class schlubs that they too can someday become rich and famous -- because when they do, would they want to be taxed heavily? It's all about dangling that lottery carrot out there for the poor stiffs who were never any good at math to begin with, and more than eager to delude themselves about their chances of hitting the jackpot.
The thing about right-wing populism is that it’s manifestly self-defeating: those who stand to primarily benefit from this ideology are the wealthy, which is why they so willingly underwrite it. It might, in fact, more accurately be called "sucker populism."
Nonetheless, right-wing populists have long been part of the larger conservative movement – though largely relegated to its fringes. Some of the more virulent expressions of this populism, including the Posse Comitatus movement, Willis Carto’s Populist Party, and the “Patriot”/militia movement of the 1990s, have been largely relegated to fringe status. However, there have been periods in America’s past when right-wing populism was not thoroughly mainstream but also politically ascendant. Probably the most exemplary of these was during the wave of Ku Klux Klan revival between 1915 and 1930.
This Klan crumbled in the late 1920s under the weight of internal political warfare and corruption; many of its field organizers later turned up in William Dudley Pelley’s overtly fascist Silver Shirts organization of the 1930s. After World War II, most of these groups – as well as the renowned anti-Semite radio preacher Father Charles Coughlin, and lingering American fascist groups like George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party – were fully relegated to fringe status. So, too, were subsequent attempts at reviving right-wing populism, embodied by Willis Carto and his Populist Party, as well as other forms of right-wing populism that cropped up in the latter half of the century, from Robert DePugh’s vigilante/domestic terrorist organization The Minutemen in the 1960s, to the Posse Comitatus and “constitutionalist” tax protesters in the 1970s and ‘80s, to the “militia”/Patriot movement of the 1990s. As it had been since at least the 1920s, this brand of populism was riddled with conspiracist paranoia, xenophobic white tribalism, and a propensity for extreme violence.
Yet beginning in the 1990s, as mainstream conservatives built more and more ideological bridges with this sector – reflected in the increasing adoption of far-right rhetoric within the mainstream – the strands of populism became more and more imbedded in mainstream-conservative dogma, particularly the deep, visceral, and often irrational hatred of the federal government. One of the more popular "mainstream" figures among this bloc in the 1990s was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. And so when he created something of a sensation with his campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, it meant that these ideas and agendas started receiving widespread circulation among the mainstream Right -- and with it, an increasing number of conservatives who called themselves "libertarians", when what they really meant was "populists."
But if Ron Paul opened the door for right-wing populism, though, he scarcely could have anticipated the overnight political star who would, in short order, come waltzing through it to great fanfare – namely, Sarah Palin [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-right-wing-populist.html ]. Hers is a somewhat different, more mainstream-friendly brand of right-wing populism – and as a result, it was embraced by a significantly greater portion of the American electorate.
Her populism emerged for national view shortly after John McCain announced her as his running mate. It was more than just the aggressive, McCarthyite attacks on Obama as a “radical” who “palled around with terrorists” and the paranoid bashing of “liberal elites” -- most of all, there was the incessant suggestion that she and McCain represented “real Americans” and were all about standing up for “the people.”
Populism, yes, but indisputably right-wing, too: socially and fiscally conservative, business-friendly, and hostile to progressive causes. The Producerist narrative was a constant current in Palin’s speeches, particularly when she would get the crowd chanting, “Drill, baby, drill!”
The populism whipped up by Palin’s candidacy became manifest as a national movement in short order with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. Indeed, not only was the Tea Party overtly a right-wing populist movement [ http://www.irehr.org/2009/09/14/tea-parties-race-republicans-and-the-opposition-to-obama/ ], it soon became a major conduit for a revival of the 1990s version of this populism, the “Patriot”/militia movement [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2010/02/getting-inside-tea-party-at-its-core.html ]. Many of these Tea Partiers are now the same Oath Keepers and “III Percenters” whose members widely support Trump’s candidacy.
Of course, most of these extremists are only one step removed, ideologically speaking, from the neo-Nazis and other white supremacists of the racist right, and both of those segments of the right lean heavily on nativist and authoritarian rhetoric. And there really is no other good word for Trump’s rhetoric, and the behavior of many of his followers, than “fascistic.” So it’s only somewhat natural that Trump’s right-wing populism would be mistaken for fascism – they are, after all, not just kissing cousins, but more akin to siblings. Not every right-wing populist is a fascist, but every fascist is a right-wing populist.
All of which underscores the central fact: Donald Trump may not be a fascist, but his vicious brand of right-wing populism is not just empowering the latent fascist elements in America, he is leading a whole nation of followers merrily down a path that leads directly to fascism.
Consider, if you will, what did occur in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s remarks about “roughing up” Black Lives Matter protesters: Two nights later, a trio of white supremacists in Minneapolis [ https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/25/three-men-who-shot-black-lives-matter-protesters-emerged-internet%E2%80%99s-racist-swamps ] invaded a Black Lives Matter protest there and shot five people, in an act that had been carefully planned and networked through the Internet.
What this powerfully implies is that Trump has achieved that kind of twilight-zone level of influence where he can simply demonize a target with rhetoric suggestive of violent retribution and his admirers will act out that very suggestion. It’s only a step removed from the fascist leader who calls out his paramilitary thugs to engage in violence.
America, thanks to Trump, has now reached that fork in the road where it must choose down which path its future lies – with democracy and its often fumbling ministrations, or with the appealing rule of plutocratic authoritarianism, ushered in on a tide of fascistic populism. For myself, I remain confident that Americans will choose the former and demolish the latter – that Trump’s candidacy will founder, and the tide of right-wing populism will reach its high-water mark under him and then recede with him.
What is most troubling, though, is the momentum that Trump’s candidacy has given that tide. He may not himself lack any real ideological footing, but he has laid the groundwork for a fascist groundswell that could someday be ridden to power by a similarly charismatic successor who is himself more in the mold of an ideological fascist. And it doesn’t take a very long look down the roll of 2016 Republican candidates to find a couple of candidates who might fit that mold.
Trump may not be fascist, but he is empowering their existing elements in American society; even more dangerously, his Tea Party brand of right-wing populism is helping them grow their ranks, along with their potential to recruit, by leaps and bounds. Not only that, he is making all this thuggery and ugliness seem normal. And that IS a serious problem.
Copyright 2015 David Neiwert (emphasis in original)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2015/11/donald-trump-may-not-be-fascist-but-he.html [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JKkcpAzg0 [as embedded; no comments yet] [also at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-neiwert/trump-may-not-be-a-fascist-but_b_8973768.html (with comments)]
--
Trump takes mainstream tone, no longer too fringey for GOP
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/4/16
Rachel Maddow looks back at the 2012 Republican primary in which Donald Trump had a strong start but was ultimately too embarrassingly fringey for mainstream Republicans, compared to 2016 when Trump, still of-the-fringe, is the Republican front-runner and redefining the party's mainstream. Duration: 15:35
'No Shit': Trump Campaign Admits 'Mexican Immigrants' in Ad Are Moroccans
Trump's first TV ad shows immigrants streaming "across our Southern border," using footage from North Africa
The Trump campaign's first TV ad includes b-roll of Moroccans trying to enter the Spanish city of Melil to argue against Mexican immigration.
January 4, 2016
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/no-shit-trump-campaign-admits-mexican-border-footage-is-of-morocco-20160104 [with non-YouTube version of the ad embedded; with comments] [the included YouTube of the ad at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itsSDhgKwhw (with comments), another at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoQff8MMVM (with comments)]
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/gop-no-longer-embarrassed-to-mainstream-trump-595814979956 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-4-2016-trms (with comment)] [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6JCGHBXWSs (with comments)]
*
Trump campaign style harkens back to George Wallace in 1968
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/5/16
Rachel Maddow compares video and news accounts of the combative George Wallace campaign of 1968 with the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump. Duration: 19:08
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/trump-campaign-style-recalls-wallace-in-1968-596500547585 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-5-2015-trms-0 (no comments yet)]
*
Trump's combative style has echoes in history
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/5/16
Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, talks with Rachel Maddow about the parallels between the George Wallace campaign in 1968 and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, in particular their aggressive posturing against protesters and the media. Duration: 4:32
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trumps-combative-style-has-echoes-in-history-596494403699 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-5-2015-trms-0 (no comments yet)]
*
Fmr. George Wallace staffers on Trump
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
1/7/16
Tom Turnipseed, the executive director of segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign, and his wife Judy, who is also a former staffer, joins Lawrence O'Donnell to discuss why Donald Trump's campaign is like George Wallace's. Duration: 7:51
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/fmr-george-wallace-staffers-on-trump-598155331976 [with comments] [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOk8MUTiby4 (no comments yet), another for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrksAc1Q8MI (no comments yet)]
--
FULL Donald Trump Rally Rock Hill, SC - Jan 8, 2016
Streamed live on Jan 8, 2016 by FOX 46 Charlotte [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6YN4FNhAKN3MDO5DbJSnOA / http://www.youtube.com/user/WJZY46 , http://www.youtube.com/user/WJZY46/videos ]
Watch Donald Trump's FULL Rally in Rock Hill, South Carolina on January 8, 2016.
David Cameron Lambasts Donald Trump For Making 'Fundamental Mistake' Of Blaming All Muslims For ISIS
23/01/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/22/david-cameron-donald-trump-isis_n_9057942.html [with embedded video report, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21ycSh2kItI [Trump's appearance begins at c. the 17:30 mark; no comments yet] [also at e.g. and title/text adapted from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV1t3Ppa9dw (with comments)]
*
Muslim ejected from Trump rally speaks out
10 January 2016
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2016/01/10/Muslim-woman-thrown-out-of-Trump-rally-speaks-out-.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PecHVj3OROs [embedded; with comments] [original of the article at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0UN0X120160110 ]
*
CAIR Asks Donald Trump to Apologize to Muslim Woman Abused by Crowd, Kicked Out of Rally
Last Updated: January 11, 2016
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/8/16) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump to offer a public apology to a Muslim woman verbally abused by the crowd and kicked out of one of his campaign rallies tonight in South Carolina.
Video: Muslim Woman Abused by Crowd, Kicked Out of Donald Trump Rally Interviewed by CNN [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0YBt_6HfbM (next below, as embedded; comments disabled) (also, minus the first c. 2 minutes of introductory material, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj0y9CDTezA {with comments} and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wJ3gDF85k {with comments}, from/non-YouTube version embedded at http://www.mediaite.com/tv/muslim-woman-kicked-out-of-trump-rally-speaks-out-they-were-saying-ugly-things/ {with comments})]
“The image of a Muslim woman being abused and ejected from a political rally sends a chilling message to American Muslims and to all those who value our nation’s traditions of religious diversity and civic participation,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “Donald Trump should issue a public apology to the Muslim woman kicked out of his rally and make a clear statement that American Muslims are welcome as fellow citizens and as participants in the nation’s political process.”
Awad also called on Trump to meet with American Muslim leaders to help stem the anti-Muslim hysteria resulting from his rhetoric and that of other GOP presidential candidates.
Last month, CAIR joined other national American Muslim organizations in condemning a Trump policy statement “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Video: CAIR, USCMO News Conference to Condemn Donald Trump's Call to Ban Muslims from U.S. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewf3JWbsBIU (next below, as embedded; comments disabled)]
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
- END -
CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, ihooper@cair.com
Copyright 2016 CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations
http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/13342-cair-asks-donald-trump-to-apologize-to-muslim-woman-abused-by-crowd-kicked-out-of-rally.html
--
White Supremacists Robocalling for Trump
“The American National Super PAC makes this call to support Donald Trump.
‘My name is Reverend Ronald Tan, host of the Christian radio talk show program For God and Country. First Corinthians states: God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise and God chose the weak things of this world to shame the strong. For the Iowa caucuses, please support Donald Trump. He is courageous and he speaks his mind. God Bless.’
‘I’m Jared Taylor with American Renaissance. I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America. We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.’
‘I am William Johnson, a farmer and a white nationalist. Support Donald Trump. I paid for this through the super PAC. [Telephone] (213) 718-3908. This call is not authorized by Donald Trump.'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUQKZEFmaOI [no comments yet] [also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSD1CYT0yG4 (with comments], original video at https://www.facebook.com/david.dwyer.501/videos/10205589938852221 [with comments], transcript of the call from http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-robocalls-white-nationalists-iowa [with comments]
Chris Keane/Reuters
The Daily Beast
01.10.16
One of America’s most prominent white supremacists is making robocalls in Iowa imploring voters to support Donald Trump. Jared Taylor, the publisher of the white-nationalist American Renaissance website and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century, is making the calls on behalf of the American National Super PAC, which filed a statement of organization with the Federal Elections Commission late last week.
“I’m Jared Taylor with American Renaissance,” he says on the call, which was first flagged by Talking Points Memo [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-robocalls-white-nationalists-iowa ]. “I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should support immigrants who are good for America.
“We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”
Rev. Donald Tan, who TPM identifies as a Filipino-American pastor and talk-show host, also endorses Trump on the call. A press release announcing the robocall effort refers to Trump as the “Great White Hope” and says Tan decided to team up with white nationalists to support Trump because he had been “called of God to make America great again.”
At the end of the Iowa robocall, the group’s treasurer, William Johnson, who filed the statement with the FEC, identifies himself as a “farmer and white nationalist” and says the call has not been authorized by Trump.
Taylor has been a major player in white-nationalist circles since the 1990s and is a spokesman for the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, the ideological heir of the White Citizens Councils, which fought desegregation during the civil-rights era. The CCC was prominently cited in the manifesto of Dylann Roof [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/06/20/dylann-roof-s-racist-manifesto-is-ignorant-and-chilling.html ], who massacred nine people at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last June. Speaking for the CCC, Taylor denounced the killings while insisting Roof had “legitimate grievances.”
Trump has become an extremely popular figure among white nationalists, who tend to believe that the United States should be dissolved in favor of “ethnostates” and the creation of a white homeland. At a white-nationalist conference held on Halloween in Washington, D.C., Richard Spencer, another leading figure on the far right, praised Trump as an ideological “icebreaker.”
“[W]hat I think he’s done is that he’s delegitimized—and I think he’s to a degree he’s humiliated—mainstream conservatives [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/25/white-supremacists-are-glad-boehner-s-leaving.html ], the elite of the GOP, and certainly the kind of fuddy-duddy conservative movement types, the National Review,” Spencer told The Daily Beast [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/inside-the-white-supremacists-halloween-bash.html ] at the time. “He’s delegitimized them, he’s humiliated them, and I think that opens a space for someone else… it’s not so much Trump per se. It’s not like we think he’s going to save the world. It’s like we finally felt like we’re breaking through, that something’s breaking out, and what comes after Trump is going to be interesting.”
So far, Trump has been reluctant to offer a full-throated condemnation [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/31/behind-trump-the-gop-really-is-becoming-the-racist-party.html] ] of his white-supremacist fans such as Taylor and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. The robocall, however, may put the Republican frontrunner in a tough position, as it shows some white nationalists are now actively campaigning on his behalf. As Taylor himself told The New Yorker [ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated ] over the summer: “I’m sure he would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit.”
Related
White Supremacists for Trump
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/10/white-supremacists-for-donald-trump-the-positions-made-me-a-convert.html
Anti-Immigration Extremists Love Trump
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/anti-immigration-extremists-heart-trump.html
© 2014 The Daily Beast Company LLC
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/10/white-nationalists-campaigning-for-trump.html
*
'Against Trump' Writer Surprised By 'Openly Racist And Anti-Semitic' Response
National Review
'That did nothing to make me reconsider my deep concerns about the damage Trump is doing.'
By David Boaz | Cato Institute
Cato.org
01/22/2016 06:36 pm ET
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute.
Today I join some 20 other writers in making the case against Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy [ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination ]. The venerable National Review, founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., assembled a group of diverse critics to argue that Trump is not a conservative, not an advocate of limited government, but rather (as the editorial asserts [ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace ]) “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.”
The symposium is understandably being described in the media as “conservative thought leaders take on Trump.” I of course consider myself a libertarian, as my book The Libertarian Mind [ http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind ] would indicate, and not a conservative [ http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/thinking-about-french-revolution ]. But part of the impact of this symposium is that people of such widely varying views – I have a lot of disagreements with religious rightist Cal Thomas [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-boaz/post_3162_b_1372827.html ] and neoconservative Bill Kristol [ http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cuba-rand-paul-21st-century-republican-foreign-policy ] – nevertheless regard Trump as dangerous.
In my own contribution I emphasize two points:
From a libertarian point of view — and I think serious conservatives and liberals would share this view—Trump’s greatest offenses against American tradition and our founding principles are his nativism and his promise of one-man rule.
Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign. Trump launched his campaign talking about Mexican rapists and has gone on to rant about mass deportation, bans on Muslim immigration, shutting down mosques, and building a wall around America. America is an exceptional nation in large part because we’ve aspired to rise above such prejudices and guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone. Equally troubling is his idea of the presidency—his promise that he’s the guy, the man on a white horse, who can ride into Washington, fire the stupid people, hire the best people, and fix everything. He doesn’t talk about policy or working with Congress. He’s effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat. It’s a vision to make the last 16 years of executive abuse of power seem modest.
This isn’t my first sally against Trump. After hearing him in person at FreedomFest in July, I wrote about his nationalism, protectionism, and megalomania in the Washington Times [ http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-real-problem ]. And in August I reviewed his support for and use of eminent domain at the Guardian [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house ].
The National Review symposium was posted last night at 10 p.m., and I took note of it on Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153271609457341 ] and Twitter [ https://twitter.com/David_Boaz/status/690372585071190016 ]. It drew a lot of reaction. And I must say, I was surprised by how many of the responses, especially on Twitter, were openly racist and anti-Semitic. That did nothing to make me reconsider my deep concerns about the damage Trump is doing, and could do, to America’s libertarian heritage.
This story was originally published [ http://www.cato.org/blog/conservatives-lone-libertarian-take-donald-trump ] by Cato.org [ http://www.cato.org/ ].
Related:
National Review Stands Athwart Donald Trump, Even If It Can't Stop Him
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-review-donald-trump-debate_us_56a24a3ce4b0404eb8f14410
Copyright 2016 Cato Institute
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-national-review-david-boaz_us_56a29955e4b076aadcc6a253 [with comments]
--
New Book Claims Koch Brother’s Bircher Daddy Built Oil Refinery For Hitler! (Stalin Wants His Money Back)
January 11, 2016
http://wonkville.net/2016/01/11/new-book-claims-koch-brothers-bircher-daddy-built-oil-refinery-for-hitler-stalin-wants-his-money-back/ [with comments] [links to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/politics/father-of-koch-brothers-helped-build-nazi-oil-refinery-book-says.html ]
*
Bae Talese
@elongreen
7:11 PM - 11 Jan 2016
Oh my, Charles Koch was literally toilet-trained by a Nazi. (via @lhfang) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/11/new-book-father-of-politically-active-koch-brothers-built-a-refinery-for-the-nazis/ …
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/686747182502920192 [with comments]
*
The Kochs & the Nazis: Book Reveals Billionaires' Father Built Key Oil Refinery for the Third Reich
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by Democracy Now! [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw / http://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow , http://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow/videos ]
In her new book, "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right [ http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597 ]," New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer explores how the Koch brothers and fellow right-wing billionaires have funded a political machine aimed at shaping elections and public policy. The book contains a number of revelations and new details. Mayer begins with revealing that the Kochs’ father, industrialist Fred Koch, helped build an oil refinery in Nazi Germany—a project approved personally by Adolf Hitler. The refinery was critical to the Nazi war effort, fueling German warplanes. Mayer joins us to discuss.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/the_kochs_the_nazis_book_reveals
full show at http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/1/20
http://democracynow.org/
Hitler Kickstarted The Koch Empire. Also Stalin.
Published on Jan 16, 2016 by The Young Turks [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks , http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/videos ]
The new book “Dark Money” tells how Fred Koch, the father of the Koch brothers, earned a lot of his money from Hitler. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"The father of the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch helped construct a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was personally approved by Adolf Hitler, according to a new history of the Kochs and other wealthy families.
The book, “Dark Money,” by Jane Mayer, traces the rise of the modern conservative movement through the activism and money of a handful of rich donors: among them Richard Mellon Scaife, an heir to the Mellon banking fortune, and Harry and Lynde Bradley, brothers who became wealthy in part from military contracts but poured millions into anti-government philanthropy.
But the book is largely focused on the Koch family, stretching back to its involvement in the far-right John Birch Society and the political and business activities of the father, Fred C. Koch, who found some of his earliest business success overseas in the years leading up to World War II. One venture was a partnership with the American Nazi sympathizer William Rhodes Davis, who, according to Ms. Mayer, hired Mr. Koch to help build the third-largest oil refinery in the Third Reich, a critical industrial cog in Hitler’s war machine.”*
*Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/politics/father-of-koch-brothers-helped-build-nazi-oil-refinery-book-says.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWdRYpRbgI [with comments]
Concentration Camp Inmates Had To Rebuild A Nazi Refinery The Koch Brothers' Dad Helped Construct
The fascist regime used slave labor from Auschwitz.
The EuroTank oil refinery site, partially constructed by Fred Koch's Winkler-Koch company, is pictured in a confidential military document detailing the U.S. bombing of the facility in 1944 and 1945.
01/19/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-refinery-nazis_us_569e9870e4b00f3e9863266c [with comments]
‘Dark Money,’ by Jane Mayer
Sunday Book Review
JAN. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html
6 Years of Citizens United
01/21/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/six-years-of-citizens-uni_b_9038654.html [with comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv7_Hx9QY-Y [with comments]
*
Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded Rise of the Far Right
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by Democracy Now!
Democrats and Republicans are expected to spend about $1 billion getting their 2016 nominee elected. There’s a third group that will spend almost as much. It’s not a political party, and it doesn’t have any candidates. It’s the right-wing political network backed by the billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch, expected to spend nearly $900 million in 2016. The Kochs’ 2016 plans come as part of an effort to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to conservative candidates and causes over the last four decades. The story of the Koch brothers and an allied group of billionaire donors is told in a new book by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right." Mayer traces how the Kochs and other billionaires have leveraged their business empires to shape the political system in the mold of their right-wing agenda.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how
full show at http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/1/20
http://democracynow.org/
The Koch Effect - Scholars Strategy Network
https://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/the_koch_effect_for_spsa_w_apps_skocpol_and_hertel-fernandez-corrected_1-4-16_1.pdf
New Koch
The billionaire brothers are championing criminal-justice reform. Has their formula changed?
By Jane Mayer
January 25, 2016 Issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch
Report: The Kochs, A Nazi Past, Oil & The Foundation of The Right
10/06/2010
https://unknownjournal.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/%E2%96%BC-report-the-kochs-their-nazi-past-american-oil-the-foundation-of-republican-ideology/ [with comments]
related notes:
Notes on the Koch's, Their Nazi Past, American Oil & The Foundation of Republican Ideology
Oct 7, 2010
https://www.facebook.com/notes/damien-j-crisp/notes-on-the-kochs-their-nazi-past-american-oil-the-foundation-of-republican-ide/447649612431/ [with comments]
Charles Koch Pines For More Influence In Republican Presidential Primary
Billionaire libertarian Charles Koch told the Financial Times [ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3a5c5d40-b4a3-11e5-b147-e5e5bba42e51.html ] that with the hundreds of millions his political network has spent to support Republicans, "You’d think we could have more influence.”
01/08/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charles-koch-2016_us_568fe8bbe4b0a2b6fb6fc674 [with comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jm6_WdQIe8 [with comments].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbYUXlGGQlU [with comments].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZ9At_LNL8 [with comments]
*
How the Kochs Tried (and Failed) to Discredit Reporter Jane Mayer After She Exposed their Empire
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by Democracy Now!
In 2010, Jane Mayer published an extensive profile of the billionaire Koch brothers in The New Yorker, exploring their quiet effort to funnel more than $100 million to right-wing causes and undermine President Obama’s policy agenda. Six years later, Mayer reveals her subjects responded by hiring a private firm to discredit her reporting. Mayer details the episode in her new book on the Kochs and their right-wing, ultra-rich allies, "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right."
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/how_the_kochs_tried_and_failed
full show at http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/1/20
http://democracynow.org/
Covert Operations
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.
By Jane Mayer
August 30, 2010 Issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations
A Word from Our Sponsor
Public television’s attempts to placate David Koch.
By Jane Mayer
May 27, 2013 Issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-our-sponsor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cB7aTt5nNc [with comments]
*
Sudden exit leaves Koch-funded VA privatization group leaderless
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/22/16
Rachel Maddow reports on the Koch-funded group that has led the conservative effort to privatize the Veterans' Administration, and the questioned raised by the expected departure of the group's leader. Duration: 6:03
How the Koch Network Exploited the Veterans Affairs Crisis
From the beginning, the Koch brothers were exploiting troubles at VA hospitals to weaken Obamacare and attack Democrats.
Captain Pete Hegseth, right, and Captain Flagg Youngblood, testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 1, 2010, before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
September 23, 2014
http://www.thenation.com/article/how-koch-network-exploited-veterans-affairs-crisis/ , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VQW-QUw6zo [embedded; with comments]
Conservative-backed veterans group restructures after leader quits
January 20, 2016
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2016/01/20/cva-hegseth-leadership-changes/79055814/ [with comments]
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/surprise-exit-at-koch-group-raises-questions-607218755652 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-22-2015-trms (with comments)]
*
The Koch Brothers Have Gotten Much, Much Richer Under Obama
Their net worth has more than doubled since the president was elected.
By Sam Levine
01/23/2016 12:22 pm ET
Charles and David Koch [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/koch-brothers/ ], the billionaire brothers who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a conservative network to oppose Democrats, have actually done very well for themselves since President Barack Obama took office.
The Koch brothers, who believe strongly in a market-based libertarian philosophy, each had a net worth of $19 billion in 2008, the year Obama was elected to office, according to Forbes [ http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html ]. The fortune dipped slightly in 2009 to $16 billion amid a financial crisis that was caused, in part, by the kind of limited government oversight they believe in.
But the Kochs have rebounded nicely. According to Forbes, the brothers are now worth $41 billion each [ http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery/charles-koch ], meaning their fortune has more than doubled under Obama.
The president called out the billionaires in August [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-koch-brothers-harry-reid_us_55dd1f7be4b04ae49704f4e8 ] for backing efforts to block renewable energy standards. The Koch brothers have lobbied for tax breaks that favor their energy interests and funded efforts to repeal renewable energy standards [ https://ecowatch.com/2015/05/16/koch-brothers-war-on-renewables/ ] at the state level.
The vast and shadowy network of the Kochs' political groups now includes its own intelligence operation [ http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/inside-koch-world-077453 ]. They spent around $400 million on the 2012 campaign and pledged to spend an unprecedented almost $900 million [ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html ] on the 2016 election.
Related
Citizens United Consequences: Super Rich Empowered, Ordinary Americans Undermined, Democracy Subverted
01/20/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-wertheimer/citizens-united-consequen_b_9029038.html [with comment]
Copyright © 2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-brothers-net-worth_us_56a3ac86e4b076aadcc6d1f4 [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
FULL Donald Trump Cedar Falls, IA Rally 1-12-16
Published on Jan 12, 2016 by FOX 10 Phoenix [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJg9wBPyKMNA5sRDnvzmkdg , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJg9wBPyKMNA5sRDnvzmkdg/videos ]
Watch the FULL Donald Trump Rally Speech from Cedar Falls, Iowa on January 12, 2016.
Under Ted Cruz’s own logic, he’s ineligible for the White House
By Laurence H. Tribe
Laurence H. Tribe is a university professor and a professor of constitutional law at Harvard.
January 11, 2016
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/11/through-ted-cruz-constitutional-looking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html [with comments]
further:
Law Prof. Laurence Tribe Comments on Ted Cruz's Candidacy
January 21, 2016
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/1/21/laurence-tribe-cruz-presidency/ [with comments]
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president
By Mary Brigid McManamon
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
January 12, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html [with embedded video, and (over 7,000) comments]
Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution
The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born"
By Einer Elhauge
Einer Elhauge is the Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Founding Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics.
Jan 20, 2016
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/ted_cruz_is_not_eligible_to_run_for_president_a_harvard_law_professor_close_reads_the_constitution/ [with embedded video, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4pOwGvq-ck [very slightly clipped at the start; with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Q_ZBxV_OU (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mhNtoPgGfw (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6V-FcAgbDY (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM4eC9VIHUc (with comments)]
*
The Snake - Recited by Donald Trump; Sung by Al Wilson w/Lyrics
Published on Jan 14, 2016 by Angie Grover [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs9cOi4zxmmn4E2YkoyfYgw , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs9cOi4zxmmn4E2YkoyfYgw/videos ]
Donald Trump reads The Snake; Al Wilson sings the song.
Lyrics to The Snake -
On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
"Oh well," she cried, "I'll take you in and I'll take care of you"
"Take me in oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
She wrapped him up all cozy in a curvature of silk
And then laid him by the fireside with some honey and some milk
Now she hurried home from work that night as soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taking in had been revived
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
Now she clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight
But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
"I saved you," cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman, " sighed the snake
The Snake - Recited by Donald Trump; Sung on Northern Exposure w/Lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL4JBsyh26s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZNJPwFW2tM [with comments] [Trump's dramatic reading of the lyrics to "The Snake" alone at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NaN1ujo_0 (with comments) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD_Ej5i7S4E (with comment), and, with Wilson's instrumental and vocal accompaniment, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFB2yAwgzOU (no comments yet)]
--
Cruz Londonderry NH Town Hall 1-12-16
Uploaded by John Kenny [ https://vimeo.com/user22098934 ]
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:51 PM EST via iMovie
Duration 1:17:45
Ted Cruz's Londonderry, NH town hall on January 12, 2016.
http://www.eventbrite.com/e/state-of-our-union-town-hall-meeting-with-senator-ted-cruz-tickets-20442900265
Ted Cruz delivers mock State of the Union address
01/12/16
http://www.politico.com/blogs/state-of-the-union-2016/2016/01/ted-cruz-mock-state-of-the-union-address-217673 [with comments]
President Ted Cruz's State Of The Union: An Exercise In Fantasy And Delusion
01/13/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/president-ted-cruzs-state_b_8973144.html [with comments]
https://vimeo.com/151716430 [no comments yet]
--
President Obama Delivers his Final State of the Union Address
Published on Jan 13, 2016 by The White House [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYxRlFDqcWM4y7FfpiAN3KQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse , http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos ]
President Barack Obama delivers his seventh and final State of the Union Address from the Capitol Building, January 12th, 2015.
*
Remarks of President Barack Obama – State of the Union Address As Delivered
January 13, 2016
9:10 P.M. EST
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans:
Tonight marks the eighth year that I’ve come here to report on the State of the Union. And for this final one, I’m going to try to make it a little shorter. (Applause.) I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa. (Laughter.) I've been there. I'll be shaking hands afterwards if you want some tips. (Laughter.)
And I understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we will achieve this year are low. But, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach that you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on some bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform -- (applause) -- and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse. (Applause.) So, who knows, we might surprise the cynics again.
But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients. And I will keep pushing for progress on the work that I believe still needs to be done. Fixing a broken immigration system. (Applause.) Protecting our kids from gun violence. (Applause.) Equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) Paid leave. (Applause.) Raising the minimum wage. (Applause.) All these things still matter to hardworking families. They’re still the right thing to do. And I won't let up until they get done.
But for my final address to this chamber, I don’t want to just talk about next year. I want to focus on the next five years, the next 10 years, and beyond. I want to focus on our future.
We live in a time of extraordinary change -- change that’s reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet, our place in the world. It’s change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families. It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away. It’s change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality. And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.
America has been through big changes before -- wars and depression, the influx of new immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change; who promised to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.” Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people. And because we did -- because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril -- we emerged stronger and better than before.
What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation -- our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery, our diversity, our commitment to rule of law -- these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.
In fact, it’s that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible. It’s how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. It’s how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love.
But such progress is not inevitable. It’s the result of choices we make together. And we face such choices right now. Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, turning against each other as a people? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, in what we stand for, in the incredible things that we can do together?
So let’s talk about the future, and four big questions that I believe we as a country have to answer -- regardless of who the next President is, or who controls the next Congress.
First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy? (Applause.)
Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us -- especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change? (Applause.)
Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman? (Applause.)
And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?
Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (Applause.) We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history. (Applause.) More than 14 million new jobs, the strongest two years of job growth since the ‘90s, an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever. (Applause.) That's just part of a manufacturing surge that's created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters. (Applause.)
Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction. (Applause.) Now, what is true -- and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious -- is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit; changes that have not let up.
Today, technology doesn’t just replace jobs on the assembly line, but any job where work can be automated. Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and they face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise. Companies have less loyalty to their communities. And more and more wealth and income is concentrated at the very top.
All these trends have squeezed workers, even when they have jobs; even when the economy is growing. It’s made it harder for a hardworking family to pull itself out of poverty, harder for young people to start their careers, tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And although none of these trends are unique to America, they do offend our uniquely American belief that everybody who works hard should get a fair shot.
For the past seven years, our goal has been a growing economy that works also better for everybody. We’ve made progress. But we need to make more. And despite all the political arguments that we’ve had these past few years, there are actually some areas where Americans broadly agree.
We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we’ve increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, boosted graduates in fields like engineering. In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all and -- (applause) -- offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one. We should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids. (Applause.)
And we have to make college affordable for every American. (Applause.) No hardworking student should be stuck in the red. We’ve already reduced student loan payments to 10 percent of a borrower’s income. And that's good. But now, we’ve actually got to cut the cost of college. (Applause.) Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
But a great education isn’t all we need in this new economy. We also need benefits and protections that provide a basic measure of security. It’s not too much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package for 30 years are sitting in this chamber. (Laughter.) For everyone else, especially folks in their 40s and 50s, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher. Americans understand that at some point in their careers, in this new economy, they may have to retool and they may have to retrain. But they shouldn’t lose what they’ve already worked so hard to build in the process.
That’s why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever. We shouldn’t weaken them; we should strengthen them. (Applause.) And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That, by the way, is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when you lose a job, or you go back to school, or you strike out and launch that new business, you’ll still have coverage. Nearly 18 million people have gained coverage so far. (Applause.) And in the process, health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.
Now, I’m guessing we won’t agree on health care anytime soon. (Applause.) A little applause right there. (Laughter.) Just a guess. But there should be other ways parties can work together to improve economic security. Say a hardworking American loses his job -- we shouldn’t just make sure that he can get unemployment insurance; we should make sure that program encourages him to retrain for a business that’s ready to hire him. If that new job doesn’t pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance in place so that he can still pay his bills. And even if he’s going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him. That’s the way we make the new economy work better for everybody.
I also know Speaker Ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty. America is about giving everybody willing to work a chance, a hand up. And I’d welcome a serious discussion about strategies we can all support, like expanding tax cuts for low-income workers who don't have children. (Applause.)
But there are some areas where we just have to be honest -- it has been difficult to find agreement over the last seven years. And a lot of them fall under the category of what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations. (Applause.) And it's an honest disagreement, and the American people have a choice to make.
I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy. I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed. There is red tape that needs to be cut. (Applause.) There you go! Yes! (Applause.) But after years now of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks just by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at everybody else’s expense. (Applause.) Middle-class families are not going to feel more secure because we allowed attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients did not cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. (Applause.) Immigrants aren’t the principal reason wages haven’t gone up; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that all too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. (Applause.)
The point is, I believe that in this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them. (Applause.) And I'm not alone in this. This year I plan to lift up the many businesses who’ve figured out that doing right by their workers or their customers or their communities ends up being good for their shareholders. (Applause.) And I want to spread those best practices across America. That's part of a brighter future. (Applause.)
In fact, it turns out many of our best corporate citizens are also our most creative. And this brings me to the second big question we as a country have to answer: How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?
Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. (Laughter.) We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight. And 12 years later, we were walking on the moon. (Applause.)
Now, that spirit of discovery is in our DNA. America is Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. America is Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. America is every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley, racing to shape a better world. (Applause.) That's who we are.
And over the past seven years, we’ve nurtured that spirit. We’ve protected an open Internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. (Applause.) We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day. But we can do so much more.
Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources that they’ve had in over a decade. (Applause.) So tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us on so many issues over the past 40 years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. (Applause.) For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the families that we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all. (Applause.)
Medical research is critical. We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources. (Applause.) Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it. (Applause.)
But even if -- even if the planet wasn’t at stake, even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record -- until 2015 turned out to be even hotter -- why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future? (Applause.)
Listen, seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal -- in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy -- something, by the way, that environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. And meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly 60 percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth. (Applause.)
Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either. (Applause.)
Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from old, dirtier energy sources. Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future -- especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. We do them no favor when we don't show them where the trends are going. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet. And that way, we put money back into those communities, and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system. (Applause.)
Now, none of this is going to happen overnight. And, yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests who want to protect the status quo. But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, the planet we’ll preserve -- that is the kind of future our kids and our grandkids deserve. And it's within our grasp.
Climate change is just one of many issues where our security is linked to the rest of the world. And that’s why the third big question that we have to answer together is how to keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem.
I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. Let me tell you something. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. (Applause.) Period. It’s not even close. It's not even close. (Applause.) It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.) No nation attacks us directly, or our allies, because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead -- they call us. (Applause.)
I mean, it's useful to level the set here, because when we don't, we don't make good decisions.
Now, as someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that’s not primarily because of some looming superpower out there, and certainly not because of diminished American strength. In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states.
The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds are blowing in from a Chinese economy that is in significant transition. Even as their economy severely contracts, Russia is pouring resources in to prop up Ukraine and Syria -- client states that they saw slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.
It’s up to us, the United States of America, to help remake that system. And to do that well it means that we’ve got to set priorities.
Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. (Applause.) Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country. Their actions undermine and destabilize our allies. We have to take them out./p>
But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks, twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages -- they pose an enormous danger to civilians; they have to be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. (Applause.) That is the story ISIL wants to tell. That’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, and we sure don't need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world’s largest religions. (Applause.) We just need to call them what they are -- killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed. (Applause.)
And that’s exactly what we’re doing. For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we’re taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, their weapons. We’re training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.
If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote. (Applause.) Take a vote. But the American people should know that with or without congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America’s commitment -- or mine -- to see that justice is done, just ask Osama bin Laden. (Applause.) Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. When you come after Americans, we go after you. (Applause.) And it may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limits. (Applause.)
Our foreign policy hast to be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. For even without ISIL, even without al Qaeda, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world -- in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, in parts of Central America, in Africa, and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks. Others will just fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet-bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.
We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis, even if it's done with the best of intentions. (Applause.) That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately will weaken us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam; it's the lesson of Iraq -- and we should have learned it by now. (Applause.)
Fortunately, there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.
That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.
That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. And as we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war. (Applause.)
That’s how we stopped the spread of Ebola in West Africa. (Applause.) Our military, our doctors, our development workers -- they were heroic; they set up the platform that then allowed other countries to join in behind us and stamp out that epidemic. Hundreds of thousands, maybe a couple million lives were saved.
That’s how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, and protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia. It cuts 18,000 taxes on products made in America, which will then support more good jobs here in America. With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region; we do. You want to show our strength in this new century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it. It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
Let me give you another example. Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, and set us back in Latin America. That’s why we restored diplomatic relations -- (applause) -- opened the door to travel and commerce, positioned ourselves to improve the lives of the Cuban people. (Applause.) So if you want to consolidate our leadership and credibility in the hemisphere, recognize that the Cold War is over -- lift the embargo. (Applause.)
The point is American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world -- except when we kill terrorists -- or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling. Leadership means a wise application of military power, and rallying the world behind causes that are right. It means seeing our foreign assistance as a part of our national security, not something separate, not charity.
When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change, yes, that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our kids. When we help Ukraine defend its democracy, or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order we depend on. When we help African countries feed their people and care for the sick -- (applause) -- it's the right thing to do, and it prevents the next pandemic from reaching our shores. Right now, we’re on track to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS. That's within our grasp. (Applause.) And we have the chance to accomplish the same thing with malaria -- something I’ll be pushing this Congress to fund this year. (Applause.)
That's American strength. That's American leadership. And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example. That’s why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo. (Applause.) It is expensive, it is unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies. (Applause.) There’s a better way. (Applause.)
And that’s why we need to reject any politics -- any politics -- that targets people because of race or religion. (Applause.) Let me just say this. This is not a matter of political correctness. This is a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity, and our openness, and the way we respect every faith.
His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot that I'm standing on tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. (Applause.) It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. It betrays who we are as a country. (Applause.)
“We the People.” Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we’ve come to recognize mean all the people, not just some; words that insist we rise and fall together, and that's how we might perfect our Union. And that brings me to the fourth, and maybe the most important thing that I want to say tonight.
The future we want -- all of us want -- opportunity and security for our families, a rising standard of living, a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids -- all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates. It will only happen if we fix our politics.
A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country -- different regions, different attitudes, different interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, fiercely, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.
But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice. It doesn’t work if we think that our political opponents are unpatriotic or trying to weaken America. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise, or when even basic facts are contested, or when we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.
Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.
But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task -- or any President’s -- alone. There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber, good people who would like to see more cooperation, would like to see a more elevated debate in Washington, but feel trapped by the imperatives of getting elected, by the noise coming out of your base. I know; you’ve told me. It's the worst-kept secret in Washington. And a lot of you aren't enjoying being trapped in that kind of rancor.
But that means if we want a better politics -- and I'm addressing the American people now -- if we want a better politics, it’s not enough just to change a congressman or change a senator or even change a President. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves. I think we've got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. (Applause.) Let a bipartisan group do it. (Applause.)
We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families or hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections. (Applause.) And if our existing approach to campaign finance reform can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution -- because it's a problem. And most of you don't like raising money. I know; I've done it. (Applause.) We’ve got to make it easier to vote, not harder. (Applause.) We need to modernize it for the way we live now. (Applause.) This is America: We want to make it easier for people to participate. And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do just that.
But I can’t do these things on my own. (Applause.) Changes in our political process -- in not just who gets elected, but how they get elected -- that will only happen when the American people demand it. It depends on you. That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people.
What I’m suggesting is hard. It’s a lot easier to be cynical; to accept that change is not possible, and politics is hopeless, and the problem is all the folks who are elected don't care, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure. And then, as frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into our respective tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.
We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want. It will not produce the security we want. But most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world.
So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, whether you supported my agenda or fought as hard as you could against it -- our collective futures depends on your willingness to uphold your duties as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. (Applause.) We need every American to stay active in our public life -- and not just during election time -- so that our public life reflects the goodness and the decency that I see in the American people every single day.
It is not easy. Our brand of democracy is hard. But I can promise that a little over a year from now, when I no longer hold this office, I will be right there with you as a citizen, inspired by those voices of fairness and vision, of grit and good humor and kindness that helped America travel so far. Voices that help us see ourselves not, first and foremost, as black or white, or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born, not as Democrat or Republican, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word -- voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.
And they’re out there, those voices. They don’t get a lot of attention; they don't seek a lot of fanfare; but they’re busy doing the work this country needs doing. I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you, the American people. And in your daily acts of citizenship, I see our future unfolding.
I see it in the worker on the assembly line who clocked extra shifts to keep his company open, and the boss who pays him higher wages instead of laying him off.
I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late at night to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early, and maybe with some extra supplies that she bought because she knows that that young girl might someday cure a disease.
I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early because he knows she might someday cure a disease.
I see it in the American who served his time, and bad mistakes as a child but now is dreaming of starting over -- and I see it in the business owner who gives him that second chance. The protester determined to prove that justice matters -- and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe. (Applause.)
I see it in the soldier who gives almost everything to save his brothers, the nurse who tends to him till he can run a marathon, the community that lines up to cheer him on.
It’s the son who finds the courage to come out as who he is, and the father whose love for that son overrides everything he’s been taught. (Applause.)
I see it in the elderly woman who will wait in line to cast her vote as long as she has to; the new citizen who casts his vote for the first time; the volunteers at the polls who believe every vote should count -- because each of them in different ways know how much that precious right is worth.
That's the America I know. That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Undaunted by challenge. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. (Applause.) That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. I believe in change because I believe in you, the American people.
And that’s why I stand here confident as I have ever been that the State of our Union is strong. (Applause.)
Thank you, God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
END
10:09 P.M. EST
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address [remarks as prepared for delivery at https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-white-house/president-obamas-2016-state-of-the-union-address-remarks-as-prepared-for-deliver/10156510001315193 and https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/president-obama-s-2016-state-of-the-union-address-7c06300f9726 ]
*
2016 State of the Union Address: Enhanced
Published on Jan 12, 2016 by The White House
President Obama delivers his last State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation. January 12, 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCXSO-3mt5I [with comments], [embedded at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlLSBTAg0aM [with comments], [embedded at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2016/01/13/president-obama-delivers-his-final-state-union-address-0
*
S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley delivers GOP response to State of the Union
Published on Jan 12, 2016 by PBS NewsHour [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6ZFN9Tx6xh-skXCuRHCDpQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour , http://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour/videos ]
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley delivered the Republican response to President Barack Obama's 2016 State of the Union address.
Full speech transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gov-nikki-haleys-republican-response-to-2016-state-of-the-union/
Nikki Haley causes a stir in SOTU response
01/13/16
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nikki-haley-causes-stir-sotu-response [with embedded video, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNz40oI17ts [with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m13KmA-zsoU (with comments)]
*
Obama Loves America So Much He Wants To Save It From Becoming Fascist
"As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background."
By Ryan Grim
01/13/2016 12:42 am ET | Updated Jan 13, 2016
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama put the American people on notice Tuesday night that a dark future awaited U.S. democracy if they didn't begin to come together rather than retreat into ethnic or religious corners.
In describing what one Republican senator called an "apocalyptic future," Obama laid out a possible path the country could take away from democracy and toward what sounded like an American version of fascism.
"I remember thinking it's kind of a dreadful prediction for our future," Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told HuffPost. "He was very optimistic about America, but then he laid out a very almost apocalyptic future."
Obama warned that if people lose hope and let cynicism take over, dark forces will surge. "If we give up now, then we forsake a better future," he said, warning of war, the rise of racism and the loss of voting rights.
"Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure," he added. "As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background."
Of course, there are already "those" who are urging just that, namely Donald Trump, who tweeted, just as Obama was issuing his warning, how bored he was.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The #SOTU speech is really boring, slow, lethargic - very hard to watch!
9:05 PM - 12 Jan 2016
[ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/687108096926330880 ]
"We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want, or the security we want, but most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world," Obama added.
"It seemed as though he'd been listening to too many Donald Trump speeches," Portman offered.
Maybe so, and surely we all have been. But the direct statement appearing in what is historically an uplifting speech will either be remembered as political-junkie trivia (Who was that real estate heir with the toupee who flashed in the pan that one time?) or perhaps as a prescient warning that the tree of liberty was awfully sick before it died.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) recently returned from the Middle East, which is having its own fragile, gingerly experiment with limited democracy here and there. He wanted to be clear that he wasn't responding specifically to the president's remarks, but warned that, in general, democracy can be vulnerable.
"Not in reference to the speech, I think democracy is something that we do have to protect and there are times when people can in fact play on weakness," Corker told HuffPost, adding that his trips have shown him how difficult it is to build institutions of democracy. "We've seen it happen throughout history, right? ... I'm constantly in the [Mideast] region; I was just there last week. Even though ours is a very mature democracy, especially in new democracies, it can be very difficult. When those are weak, certainly it's very easy for a strong man or woman to come in and take advantage of the situation."
Obama punctuated his speech with direct reminders that America is not in decline, not a victim and not beset by weakness.
• "The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world."
• "Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction."
• "I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close."
Obama then added a line that wasn't in his written remarks: "It's useful to level-set here, otherwise we make bad decisions."
Despite the apocalyptic warning, Obama does seem to believe that the cause of justice and democracy can win out, if only because of the strength of the people themselves.
"That’s the America I know," he said. "That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. Because of you. I believe in you."
Trump's backers, however -- and it's the support for Trump that is the cause of Obama's alarm, not Trump himself -- are unlikely to take the president's word that things are going their direction, certainly not as wages have been largely flat for several decades. American workers who could suffer through their daily lives with the hope that their children might have a better shot are losing that dream as the cost of education skyrockets.
It's time to find some brown people to blame. Robert O. Paxton, one of the world's leading scholars of fascism, describes the phenomenon in his 2004 The Anatomy of Fascism [ http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2015/11/donald-trump-may-not-be-fascist-but-he.html (that article, in full, first item this post)]. "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion," he writes.
For Obama, the warning comes from a deeply felt place. "This part is the speech he most wanted to give," said a person familiar with Obama's thinking, when asked about the section of the address condemning fascism.
Of course, just as Obama was warning about our poisonous politics, he couldn't help himself from taking a few ad-libbed digs at the Republicans in the chamber. They left a mark.
"Pollsters tell us he's the most polarizing president in history," Portman said. "You saw some of it tonight, where he did some lecturing at us, while he was also talking about us coming together. It's almost like he has two competing parts to his own approach to governing and his personality. So he has to stick it to Republicans on some issues and then say, 'Why can't we work together?'"
Republicans gave it right back. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) told HuffPost that he's not worried about a future dictator when we already have a lawless leader.
"He used the words 'the rule of law,' but if you look at many of the president's unilateral actions, he hasn't at all himself respected the statement that he made," Gardner said. "So I hope that over the coming year we don't see a president who will continue end-running Congress and acting unilaterally. Our Constitution is designed as three separate but equal branches and this president hasn't treated us as such."
So Obama is as bad as it could get?
"I don't know," Gardner said.
Copyright © 2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-dark-future-state-of-the-union_us_5695d5fee4b05b3245db1efe [no comments yet]
*
Donald Trump reacts to Obama's State of the Union jab
Published on Jan 13, 2016 by Fox News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIJgqnII2ZOINSWNOGFThA / http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel , http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel/videos ]
Republican presidential frontrunner reacts to President Obama's final State of the Union address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iK_1moRRYg [with comments]
*
Raw Video: President Obama in Omaha
Published on Jan 15, 2016 by The White House
After delivering his final State of the Union on January 12th, President Obama headed to Nebraska to sit down with Lisa, a new mother who wrote a heartfelt letter to the President about her son, Cooper. The President sat down with Lisa and her friends and family for a conversation in her living room. January 13, 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzbzSbfgQjg [with comments]
*
The President Delivers Remarks in Omaha
Published on Jan 13, 2016 by The White House
The President speaks at an arena on the campus of the University of Nebraska Omaha, January 13, 2016.
*
Remarks by the President at the University of Nebraska-Omaha
Baxter Arena
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Omaha, Nebraska
January 13, 2016
4:32 P.M. CST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Omaha! (Applause.) Thank you! (Applause.) Oh! Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Omaha. (Applause.) That's so nice, thank you. Go, Mavericks! (Applause.) This is quite a place you got here. (Applause.) It’s still got the new-arena smell. (Laughter.) A perfect spot for your hockey team to stage another run to the Frozen Four. (Applause.)
I want to start off by thanking Lisa for the wonderful introduction -- and her hospitality in her living room. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.) She did a great job. Before I came here I stopped over at Lisa’s place, with her husband and her one-year-old. And he was fired up and ready to go. (Laughter.) He was bouncing around -- and I was getting tired just watching him. (Laughter.)
I also want to thank Dr. Hank Bounds, the President of the University of Nebraska. (Applause.) Dr. John Christensen, Chancellor here at UNO. (Applause.) We've got Lieutenant Governor Mike Foley here; your former Senator, Ben Nelson -- (applause) -- your Congressman, Brad Ashford. (Applause.) And all of you are here. (Applause.) This is a pretty good crowd!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.) I do. I do. I do. This is so nice -- what a wonderful welcome. Those of you who have seats, though, feel free to sit down. It's okay. (Laughter.) But if you want to stay standing, that's fine, too. (Applause.)
Last night, I gave my final State of the Union address. (Applause.) I promised that it was going to be shorter, and then it ended up just being like a minute shorter. (Laughter.) So, technically, it was shorter, but it wasn’t like as short as I was planning. But today, I'm definitely going to be shorter.
AUDIENCE: Noooo --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) But whenever I give a State of the Union I want to get out of Washington and talk to people out in the country. And so the first place I decided to visit was Omaha. (Applause.) Part of the reason I wanted to come here is I've got a lot of friends, like Brad and others, and I had not been here in a while. So the last time I was here for an event in Omaha was 2008. (Applause.) And that year, in the primary, I won the Nebraska caucus. (Applause.) And there were people -- I saw some signs -- who called the city “Obamaha.” (Applause.)
And then, in November of 2008, Joe Biden and I won one electoral vote here -- (applause) which I was pretty excited about. And then four years later, I got whupped all across this state. (Laughter.) It was not pretty. It was not pretty. But I love Nebraska anyway. (Applause.) There’s something about the Midwest and its people and the way that folks pull together and the degree to which, in this state, the kind of politics I talked about last night has always been there. There’s a civility and people treating each other with respect.
And so that's part of the reason why I wanted to come back here today, because, as I said last night, America is at its best when we see each other as one people --(applause) -- not Democrats first, not Republicans first, but Americans first. That's our priority.
And that's harder to do during political season. I understand that. And you hear a bunch of folks right across the river -- (laughter) -- and I don't know if the TV ads drift over here but -- (laughter) -- they’re kind of depressing. (Laughter.) I mean, I like talking about hope and all the good stuff that was going on, and then you look at some of these ads and it's some doom and some gloom. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Four more years!
THE PRESIDENT: It's like everybody is running around and saying America is in decline, and everything is scary, and let’s find somebody to blame. And the point I wanted to make, the core thing I wanted to say last night was that’s not the spirit that brought America so far. That's not how we traveled so far. (Applause.) And it’s not what I see every day. That's not what I see in communities and neighborhoods all across this country.
Now, what’s true is we’re all living through a time of extraordinary change, and that’s always a little bit unsettling. And that's what Lisa wrote to me about -- at 4:00 a.m., which I wanted to tell Lisa, you should get some sleep. (Laughter.) But when you have a one-year-old, that’s what happens. (Laughter.) But you heard Lisa talk about she was wondering whether the world she grew up in would be just as prosperous and secure for her new baby as it was for her.
But I want everybody to remember, America has been through big changes before. And each time, we overcame our fears and we overcame our challenges. Each time, we made change work for us. And each time, we emerged stronger and better than we were before. (Applause.) That’s what we do as Americans. We go through war and depression, and all kinds of social and economic changes. But each time, we’ve ended up better than we were before.
Now, here’s the thing -- progress is not inevitable. We got to work for it -- somebody is stealing my lines up here. (Laughter.) It’s the result of the choices that we have to make together. And we’ve got to make some choices. Do we respond to these changes with fear and do we turn on each other, or do we face the future with confidence in who we are, and what we stand for, and all the incredible things we can get done together? (Applause.)
So I just want to repeat the four big questions that I think we have to answer as a country. And this is true whether you’re a Democrat, whether you’re a Republican. You should think about and we have to have good answers for these four questions, regardless of who’s President, regardless of who controls Congress.
Number one: How do we make sure that this new economy works for everybody and not just some people? (Applause.) That’s question number one. Number two, a related question: How do we make sure that the spirit of innovation is used to solve some of our biggest challenges? Number three: How do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming the world’s policeman? (Applause.) Number four, and maybe most important, is how do we have a politics that reflects the best in us and not the worst? (Applause.)
So, on the economy, the first thing I try to remind people is, is think about where we were seven years ago. We were -- because people forget -- and some of you were in grade school, and I had no gray hair. (Laughter.) So just to refresh your memory here for a second, we were in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. I was going back to look at my first State of the Union address, where I had to basically remind everybody that the money in their banks were safe. I had to tell folks that that was -- that it was going to be okay. That’s how fragile things were.
But to paraphrase something that a friend of mine, who I guess people know around here, named Warren Buffett, once said -- (applause) -- no one ever benefitted by betting against America. And because of the grit and the resilience of the American people, because of hard work, because businesses got going, and because, frankly, we made some pretty good policy decisions, we now have the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (Applause.)
We’re in the midst of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history -- 14 million new jobs, around 40,000 right here in Omaha and the surrounding areas. (Applause.) Our national unemployment rate has been cut in half; it’s down to 5 percent. It’s below 3 percent here in Nebraska. (Applause.) So our starting point has to be things are not terrible if your unemployment rate is at 5, and here in Omaha it’s below 3.
Now, that does not mean that things haven’t been changing in profound ways. And that’s also what I have to talk about. Look, it’s changed to the point where even folks who have jobs, and even when the economy is growing, it’s harder for hardworking families to pull themselves out of poverty. It’s harder for young people to start out on their careers, especially if they’ve got too much student loan debt. (Applause.) It’s tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And there’s more inequality, and upward mobility has stalled. And that offends our fundamental American belief that anybody who works hard can get ahead. (Applause.)
So people agree that real opportunity in the new economy requires everybody gets a great education and the training they need to land a good job. And we’ve been working on that. Over the past seven years, we’ve increased early childhood education, we’ve boosted high school graduation rates. (Applause.) We’re training and graduating more engineers and folks in other fields that we need to grow the economy. But we’ve got to build on that progress.
We’ve got to create opportunity for every child, which means pre-K for everybody. (Applause.) It means hands-on computer classes and math classes for the jobs of the future. It means we should recruit and support and lift up great teachers who are doing great things for our kids. (Applause.) And it means that no student should be priced out of a college education, or loaded up with crippling debt. (Applause.)
So one of the things -- I didn’t try to list all the proposals I would like to see happen this year -- that’s why you go to the website, WhiteHouse.gov. (Laughter.) Which now works, I promise. (Laughter.) But we should guarantee two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student. (Applause.) That’s what real opportunity looks like in the new economy.
And then, once we’ve made sure everybody has a great education, as folks move throughout their lives, we’ve got to pair real opportunity with real security. Basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today.
I was talking to Lisa’s dad and mom -- they were there -- and mostly they just wanted to talk about their adorable one-year-old grandson. (Laughter.) But they’ve been married for 44 years. And dad had worked at a company that produces cement and ships it around the country, and he had worked there for 40 years, and he’s still working there. And mom had been a nurse, and she retired. But that kind of career path, where somebody is at one place for that long -- with good benefits, pension, health care -- that’s not going to be the pattern for most of the young people who are here today.
And so the idea is, how do we make sure that even if you’re in this new economy where you’re changing jobs, you’re retraining, you’re starting your own business -- you have some basic security? And that’s what the Affordable Care Act, by the way, is all about. (Applause.) That’s what it’s all about. The goal wasn’t to replace employer-based care. If you’ve got health care on the job, that’s great. But if you lose your job, or you have to go back to school, or you want to start a new business, or you’re starting a new job and you’ve got a preexisting condition -- you should have health care options. (Applause.) You should have health care options.
The same is true for some of the other programs that we had that haven’t been adapted to this new economy. So I mentioned unemployment insurance right now. When folks lose their jobs, unemployment insurance right now is not available for a lot of folks who had been working part-time or were temporary workers. And if you take a job that doesn’t pay as much, sometimes you get penalized. There should be a system of wage insurance so that you can still pay the bills and make up some of the difference as you transition into a new career. (Applause.)
And if we update the unemployment insurance system, that will encourage more folks to retrain for new, better-paying jobs. And when they change jobs, you should be able to save for your retirement even though you didn’t stay in one job for 30 years. There should be a way for you to take your retirement savings with you. (Applause.)
Now, having said all that, somebody here said folks need bigger paychecks. And part of what’s happened in this new economy is workers, frankly, just have less leverage, because companies move more. It means that they can off-shore, they can move to a new state. It means that a lot of times they’re under more severe competition. And that gets a lot of folks frustrated.
But part of what I’ve been concerned about as I’ve been listening to some of the political rhetoric is, let’s make sure that we don’t blame people who had nothing to do with the fact that wages aren’t growing. Let’s try to solve the problem, but not misidentify the problem
So, for example, let’s agree that working families will not get a bigger paycheck by us eliminating all the reforms that we made on Wall Street, or by letting Big Oil and hedge funds make their own rules. That’s not going to help working families. (Applause.)
Now, as I said last night, families on food stamps did not cause the financial crisis. (Applause.) We’ve got to reform our broken immigration system, but immigrants are not the reason wages haven’t gone up. (Applause.) Those decisions were made in boardrooms around the country. You guys aren’t the ones who were -- I don’t think you’ve got off-shore accounts that allow you to dodge paying your taxes. (Laughter.) If you do, then the IRS wants to talk about you. (Laughter.)
But in this new economy, I believe workers, start-ups, small businesses -- they need more of a voice, more of a say, not less. The rules should work for working Americans. And I’m going to spend some of the time this year lifting up a lot of companies who figured out if they pay good wages, provide good benefits, treat their customers well, are environmentally responsible, they can also make really good profits. And it’s good for everybody. (Applause.) It’s good for their shareholders and customers and communities.
And a lot of our best corporate citizens are our most creative. Which brings me to the second question that I raised yesterday -- how do we make sure that we continue to be an innovation economy, and how do we use innovation to meet some of our biggest challenges?
Some of you heard me talk about our space program. Sixty years ago, the Russians beat us to space. And how did we respond? We didn’t go, oh, my God, America is in decline and we’re doomed. (Laughter.) We didn’t say, ah, that’s not actually a spaceship up there, that’s a comet. (Laughter and applause.) We didn’t argue about the science, we didn’t shrink our R&D budget. We built a space program almost overnight. Twelve years later, we were walking on the moon. (Applause.)
I think my favorite movie last year was “The Martian.” And I like space, but there was one line Matt Damon delivered where he said, I’m just going to science the heck out of this. (Laughter.) He didn’t say “heck,” but you get the point. (Laughter.) But that’s the American spirit, right? “Okay, let’s solve the problem.” Sometimes they’re tough problems, but we can figure this out. We can figure this out.
That’s the spirit we need today. That’s why I put Joe Biden in charge of us figuring out how to cure cancer. (Applause.) He’s working with scientists and doctors, and obviously, with families who’ve been affected,, because he knows what they’ve gone through.
That’s why we’ve got to make sure that American businesses produce and sell the energy of the future. We should keep pressing forward with the clean energy that’s going to be creating new jobs for decades to come, and transition from dirty energy. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be subsidizing the past; we should invest in the future. That puts us ahead of the curve. (Applause.)
And that’s how we’re going to keep leading the world to combat climate change and protect this planet, Lisa’s son, your kids and your grandkids. (Applause.) There’s nothing more important than making sure that future generations are able to enjoy the incredible bounty that God has given us.
Third question: How do we keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build all over the world?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Keeping you as President! (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well, I can’t do that. (Applause.) I can’t do that because of the Constitution. And I can’t do that because Michelle would kill me. (Laughter and applause.)
But, look, just as all this talk about how the American economy is terrible is just not true, it’s also not true when you hear folks talking about how America is so weak. We aren’t just the strongest economy in the world, we are far and away the most powerful nation on the planet. (Applause.) Nobody can match our troops. (Applause.) Nobody can match what we can do to mobilize to solve problems around the world.
And when I said that, by the way, last night, it was strange that some in the chamber didn’t agree and applaud with that. I mean, that’s kind of a weird thing. I didn’t say that it’s the strongest in the world because of me. I mean, I understand why they wouldn’t want to give me credit for it -- which is true. (Laughter.) It’s because the United States of America, for 250 years, has been working to make us the strongest.
But that should not be a controversial statement, right? I mean, we can all clap about that. (Applause.) But that’s how crazy our politics has gotten sometimes. That’s how crazy our politics has gotten -- where we now feel obliged to not root for America doing good.
So when you hear people peddling this fiction about our enemies getting stronger, America getting weaker; when you hear folks say we can solve challenges just by looking meaner and talking tougher, or carpet-bombing wherever we want -- that’s just hot air. It’s bluster. (Applause.) It’s not serious. It’s not serious. There’s another word for it that starts with a “B” -- it’s baloney. (Laughter and applause.)
Now, because we’re the strongest nation, we’ve got choices to make about how we use our power. Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. That’s what we’re doing with ISIL. And for more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries. We’re cutting off their financing. We’re disrupting their plots. We’re stopping the flow of terrorist fighters. We’re stamping out their ideology. We’ve had 10,000 airstrikes. We’re taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, their weapons. And they will learn the same lesson that terrorists before them have learned, which is when you come after Americans, we go after you. (Applause.) And it may take time, but our reach has not limits and we will get you. We’ll get you. (Applause.)
But our foreign policy has to also have judgment and wisdom. And we can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into a crisis. (Applause.) So what I suggested last night is, we have to have a patient and disciplined strategy. It’s got to use every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies. But on a lot of world problems, from climate change to Ebola to Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, we’ll mobilize the world to work with us, and we make sure other countries pull their own weight so we’re not ending up sending our troops and spending our money every time there’s a problem around the world. (Applause.) That’s not a lack of leadership; that’s common sense. (Applause.)
That’s how we led 200 nations to forge the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change. (Applause.) That’s how we’ve gotten Iran to roll back its nuclear program. They’re shipping out their nuclear materials right now. (Applause.)
That’s how we dealt with the Ebola crisis. Our troops, our doctors, our development workers -- all outstanding, great courage -- they set up the logistics in West Africa so that other countries could then come in. You had Chinese planes who couldn’t land before, because of our military setting up the landing strip, could then come in and support the effort to stamp out the spread of Ebola. (Applause.)
And we couldn’t be prouder of the doctors and nurses, including here at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, who heroically treated and cared for patients. (Applause.) They saved lives not just here, but their courage saved lives around the world -- because they showed that, you know what, we can deal with this. It’s a problem; it’s serious; we’re going to “science the heck out of it.” (Laughter.) And as a consequence, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people’s lives were saved. (Applause.)
That’s how America leads. That’s the strength of our values. That’s the power of our example. (Applause.)
And that’s why we have to reject any politics -- any politics -- that targets people because of their race or their religion. (Applause.) That we have to reject. That we have to reject. (Applause.) That we’ve got no room for. (Applause.)
I want to be clear about this. This is not about being politically correct. Now, since I’m on a college campus, I’ll tell you, I understand the argument about political correctness. There are times where folks don’t want to hear something and they just shut things down. If somebody doesn’t agree with affirmative action, that’s a legitimate policy difference. That doesn’t mean they’re racist. If somebody has a disagreement about my economic policies, we can have a discussion about that. There should never be a situation on college campuses, for example, where people can’t speak at all. Right? (Applause.) The First Amendment is important. The First Amendment is valuable. So we do have to be cautious about suggesting that anytime somebody says something we shut them down.
But let me say this. That doesn’t mean that you go around insulting people and thinking that that is clever, or that is being honest, or telling it straight. No, that’s just being offensive. (Applause.) And that’s feeding some of our worst impulses. And that does not make us strong. That doesn’t make us strong. (Applause.) And that doesn’t help us fight terrorism, by the way.
When politicians insult Muslims, including Muslim Americans -- including Muslim Americans who are in uniform, fighting on our behalf -- (applause) -- when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us safer. The overwhelming majority of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world, they’re our greatest allies in fighting this scourge of terrorism. (Applause.) So it doesn’t make us stronger. It doesn’t help the effort. It is wrong. It betrays who we are as a country -- one people, who rise and fall together. (Applause.)
And when I think back to the arc of my entire political career, that's one thing that I believe more firmly than anything -- the fact that we are in this together. That's what makes America great. (Applause.)
On the flight over here, Brad was telling me about his grandfather. He said his grandfather was from Sweden. And here in the Midwest, we got some folks of Swedish extraction. And he was telling me about how his grandfather helped to set up an organization that was pretty well known at the time, back in the ‘30s and ‘40s, that was critical in fighting anti-Semitism and helping to bring Jews who were escaping Hitler and Nazi Germany. And I thought about Brad’s grandfather as just one example of all the stories in the history of this country that have made us the envy of the world, that have made us that “shining city on a hill.”
It's not just that we've got a big military. It's not just that we've got a great economy. It's that, in fits and starts, we figured out that if you treat everybody with respect, and you give everybody a shot, and everybody is working together, everybody is better off, everybody is stronger, everybody’s religion is protected. (Applause.) Everybody’s point of view is heard. And that's what we have to remember.
And that’s the last question that we have to answer -- and the most important one: How do we infuse those principles into our politics?
And I said this yesterday and I meant it. I have really enjoyed being President, and I'm going to squeeze every last thing I can get out of it over this next year. (Applause.) But, look, probably my only big regret is that our parties are even more polarized, our politics are even more rancorous than they were seven years ago. I'm going to keep on trying to do better to see if I can help break the fever here. But it's not going to happen unless the American people send a clear message to their elected officials that that's not the kind of politics we want. (Applause.)
Look, I can say this as somebody who is never going to be on the ballot again -- there are some institutional things we've got to fix. I think we have to end political gerrymandering -- (applause) -- so that congressmen aren't choosing their own voters. Because that divides people. If you’ve got a congressional district that's 80 percent Democrat, or 80 percent Republican, then you don't feel obliged to talk to people who don't agree with you -- and that's a problem.
I think we have to end the just crazy amounts of money, much of it hidden, that is in our political system right now. (Applause.)
I believe that there should not be a single state in which we're making it harder for people to vote instead of easier. (Applause.) That doesn’t make any sense. We’re not supposed to be a nation in which we discourage people from participating. This country works by encouraging people to have a voice in their government -- (applause) -- which means that one of the things that I’m going to do over the course of this year is talk about why is it that we should have a single mom who’s got -- a nurse, let’s say, just like Lisa’s mom was -- she might have to take public transportation, get up early, go to her job, fix breakfast, now she’s got to pick up the kid or drop off the kid, come home. And she’s got to vote on a Tuesday. Why wouldn’t we want to make it so that she’s got a little more time to vote? (Applause.) Why are we making it impossible for her?
And a lot of states are doing it. A lot of states are doing it. But that’s how it should be in every state. Because none of these things that I just talked about can happen just by a President saying so -- any President. Whoever replaces me is not going to be able to get all that done unless the American people demand it; when we as citizens demand it. (Applause.)
That’s what I said back in 2008. I didn’t say, “Yes, I can,” I said “Yes, we can.” (Applause.) I asked you not to believe in my ability to bring about change; I asked to believe in your ability to bring about change. (Applause.)
And as I said last night, I know it’s hard. Sometimes it’s frustrating. But if we don’t accept that responsibility and that privilege of citizenship, and we accept the cynicism that says, ah, change can’t happen, and politics is pointless, and our voices and our actions don’t matter, then we’re going to forsake a better future, and the void will be filled by folks with money and power and special interests. And they’re going to gain more and more control over decisions about whether young people are being sent to war. They will be unfettered in pursuing policies that might lead to another economic crisis. They might roll back rights that generations of American fought to secure.
And then, when people get more and more frustrated because things don’t change, you start hearing voices that urge us to fall back into our respective tribes, and start scapegoating our fellow citizens -- people who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background. We can’t go down that path. (Applause.)
So, Omaha, whatever you believe -- whether you are a Democrat, or a Republican, or you don’t believe in political parties; whether you supported me or you didn’t -- our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligation as citizens -- to vote and to speak out -- (applause) -- and to stand up for others, especially those who are vulnerable, especially those who need help -- knowing that we are only here because somebody else did that for us. (Applause.) That’s how all of us are here.
And when we do that, we will see the goodness and the decency and the optimism of people like Lisa reflecting itself in Washington. That’s what we’re fighting for. (Applause.)
And I know it’s there because I see it in the American people every day. (Applause.) I see it every day. I see it in all the students -- first-generation college students -- (applause) -- working hard, and scrimping and saving, and eating Ramen -- (laughter) -- and then eating some more Ramen -- just to get ahead. And you’ve got teachers like Lisa, who come in early, and are helping young people cultivate a passion, or master a new skill that can change their lives. And then you’ve got parents who are volunteering at local schools -- not just to help out their own kids but to help out their neighbor’s kids. (Applause.) And folks coaching Little League. And businesses who are doing the right thing by their employees. (Applause.) And folks who are fighting on our behalf halfway around the world, and their families who are sacrificing alongside them. (Applause.) And folks working to help our veterans after they’ve been served. Big-hearted, optimistic people. They’re everywhere -- in coffee shops, and churches all across Nebraska, and in Louisiana, and in New York, and in Arizona, and every place else. Folks whose spirit has built America. (Applause.)
That’s why I’m hopeful about our future -- because of you, the American people. Because of folks like all of you, I am absolutely confident that we’re going to get to where we need to go, and America will remain the greatest country on Earth.
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.)
END
5:15 P.M. CST
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/13/remarks-president-university-nebraska-omaha
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ILnsAqJjM [with comments], [embedded at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2016/01/13/president-delivers-remarks-omaha
--
FBN GOP 6 p.m. ET debate - January 14, 2016
Published on Jan 14, 2016 by Fox Business [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCXoCcu9Rp7NPbTzIvogpZg / http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxBusinessNetwork , http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxBusinessNetwork/videos ]
The GOP debate featuring former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
*
Transcript: Preliminary Republican Presidential Debate
JAN. 14, 2016
Following is a transcript of the preliminary Republican debate, as transcribed by the Federal News Service.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, the Republican candidates for president are looking to capture their moment. South Carolina has a history of making and breaking campaigns. And this week Charleston is the center of the political universe. Three days from now, the Democrats will debate just a few miles away.
Here, in a city older than the country itself, from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, to the “war by the shore,” South Carolina prepares once again to take center stage. And the Republican candidates all hope that the spotlight of the Palmetto State would shine upon them.
(APPLAUSE)
TRISH REGAN, CO-MODERATOR: Good evening, and welcome to the North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center. Tonight we hear from 10 Republican candidates vying to become the next president of the United States.
I’m Trish Regan, along with my co-moderator Sandra Smith.
SANDRA SMITH, CO-MODERATOR: This evening FOX Business is bringing you the sixth Republican presidential debate of the 2016 campaign. For the next hour, three of the candidates will be answering the questions voters want answered.
REGAN: So let’s introduce them. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: This debate will last one hour. Each candidate will have up to 90 seconds to respond to each question, one minute for each follow-up.
REGAN: When your time is up, you are going to hear this bell.
(BELL RINGS)
REGAN: All right. So let’s begin.
In Tuesday’s State of the Union Address, the president said that our economy is strong. He cited the significant decline we’ve seen in unemployment rate and the millions of jobs that have been created.
What is your assessment of the economy right now? And I would like to hear from all of you on this one, beginning with Ms. Fiorina.
CARLY FIORINA (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, thank you. Good evening. If I may begin by saying how honored I am to be standing here with two former Iowa Caucus winners.
Governor, Senator.
And how honored I am to be talking with all of you. You know, I’m not a political insider. I haven’t spent my lifetime running for office. The truth is I have had and been blessed by a lot of opportunities to do a lot of things in my life.
And unlike another woman in this race, I actually love spending time with my husband.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: I’m standing here because I think we have to restore a citizen government in this country. I think we have to end crony capitalism. The crony capitalism that starts with both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
You know, Hillary Clinton sits inside government and rakes in millions, handing out access and favors. And Donald Trump sits outside government and rakes in billions buying people like Hillary Clinton.
The state of our economy is not strong. We have record numbers of men out of work. We have record numbers of women living in poverty. We have young people who no longer believe that the American dream applies to them.
We have working families whose wages have stagnated for decades, all while the rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected get more connected.
Citizens, it’s time to take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Governor Huckabee, same question to you. Where do you see the country right now?
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I wish I saw the country in the same place that the president presented it to be the other night in the State of the Union. He talked about how great the economy was doing. And I guess for the people he hangs out with, it’s probably doing great.
But the president should’ve stood in the line at the layaway counter at Walmart just before Christmas. He would have heard a very different story about the economy of America.
HUCKABEE: I wish I could introduce him the lady who cleans the building where our campaign headquarters is located in Little Rock. Her name is Kathleen (ph). She works all day at a local hospital cleaning, and then she goes to the building where a bank, and our headquarters, and other offices are she spends another seven hours. She works 15 hours a day.
I guarantee you she’s not working 15 hours a day because she loves scrubbing toilets, and sweeping floors. She’s working that many hours because that’s what it takes for her to make it work.
And, she’s not alone. There are people all over this country who are working like that. Many of them working two jobs — and they used to have one job, and that would take care of them. But, because of wage stagnation, which we’ve had for 40 years, because the fact that they’re punished for working harder if they work that many hours. The government gets more of their second shift than they do.
And, as a result there are a lot of people who are hurting today. I wish the President knew more of them. He might make a change in the economy and the way he’s managing it.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you Governor Huckabee. Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Well, all he has to do is listen to the Democratic debate and find out how bad the economy is. All they do is complain about the hollowing out of the middle of America, and how America is struggling so badly, and have to make these radical changes in Washington.
But they’ve been in control for the last seven years, and what have we seen? The most important jobs, I believe, in this country are the ones that fill the middle. For the 74% of Americans who don’t have a college degree between the age of 25 and 65 are manufacturing jobs. Your governor, and your legislature, and your team here have done an amazing job of bringing manufacturing jobs back to South Carolina.
(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
SANTORUM: Right here. Right here in Charleston, right down in the street in Boeing (ph). You’ve done a great job, and what’s happened? You’ve grown this economy, you’ve strengthened the center of your state, the middle. That’s because you know that if you’re really going to create wealth and opportunity, you got to get jobs, and good paying jobs for everybody.
And, so what’s happened? Two million jobs, manufacturing jobs, have left this country because of Barack Obama. Regulations, EPA, workplace regulations, things driving people off-shore all because of his number one priority, global climate change.
Well, let me tell you this, Mr. President. For every dollar of GDP, China creates five times as much pollution as we do here. You want to — lower global climate change, bring those jobs back to America and let American workers do that job with less pollution.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Senator Santorum. Thank you, candidates.
Moving to the world stage. The middle east is on the brink of chaos. Iran continues to provoke the United States, North Korea claims it’s tested a hydrogen bomb, and Afghanistan is in danger of falling back into Taliban hands. Critics of the administration say it’s all due to lack of U.S. leadership.
To you, Mrs. Fiorina, how do you see America’s role in the world today?
FIORINA: America must lead because when we do not lead, when this exceptional nation does not lead, the world is more dangerous and a more tragic place.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, they all refuse to lead. Worse, they refuse to respond when this nation is provoked. Hillary Clinton famously asked what difference does it make how four Americans died in Benghazi?
Mrs. Clinton, here’s what difference it makes. When you do not stand up and say the truth, that this was a purposeful terrorist attack, when you do not say the United States of America will retaliate for that attack, terrorists assume it’s open season.
We have refused to respond to every provocation. The President wouldn’t even mention the fact that Iran had taken two Navy boats and our sailors — hostage. He didn’t mention the fact that they violated the Geneva convention. He didn’t respond to the fact that Iran launched two ballistic missile just a short time ago, in direct violation of a deal they had just signed. We didn’t respond to the fact that North Korea attacked Sony Pictures.
When we refuse to respond over, and over to provocation and bad behavior, we will get more provocation and bad behavior. I know most of our allies personally. I have met many of our adversaries. I know our military and our intelligence capability, and I know this. When we will not stand with our allies, when we will not respond to our adversaries, when we do not lead in the world the world is a dangerous and tragic place. I will be a Commander in Chief who will lead.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Well, since we’ve been talking about the Middle East, Senator Santorum, conflicts between Saudi Arabia and Iran have certainly escalated, amid accusations that Saudi Arabia bombed the Iranian Embassy in Yemen after the Saudi Embassy in Tehran was attacked.
As we confront an increasingly unstable Middle East, how will you, as president, navigate this administration’s promises to Iran while standing by our historic allies in the region?
RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), FORMER SENATOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the historic promises that we have made to — to Iran in this agreement need to be torn up on the first day in office of the next president.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: And let me tell you why, because Iran has already torn it up. Iran has not approved the agreement that President Obama has said that they have approved. They have approved a different agreement in their parliament.
The fact of the matter is they have violated this agreement. Carly just mentioned some of those violations.
They have launched ballistic missiles, tested them, in clear violation.
And here’s the pathetic part. The president announced that they were going to impose sanctions. And then President Rouhani went on Twitter and said there would be retaliation.
And what did we do?
We backed down.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are 50 some Citadel cadets in this audience tonight.
(APPLAUSE) SANTORUM: I would ask them to stand up if they will. And here’s what I want to tell each and every one of them, as you stand. Here’s what I want to tell them.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Whether it’s you’re watching that movie this weekend that just came out when we abandoned our men and women in Benghazi, or whether it’s we treat Iran, that gave courtesies to our sailors, as they made them record a hostage video, let me tell you this, if you choose to serve this country, I will have your back. I will not let America be trampled upon anymore by these radical jihadists.
REGAN: Thank you, Senator Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Governor Huckabee, in Afghanistan, the Taliban is strengthening. Attacks are on the rise and thousands more civilians have been wounded or killed. Much of the Taliban surge can be attributed to the withdrawal of U.S. forces there.
You have expressed skepticism with the war there, saying you see no end game in sight.
What, then, is your solution to the growing conflict there?
MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AK), FORMER GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let me put that in context. When I went to Afghanistan, I saw a land that looked like the land of the Flintstones. It was desolate. It was barren. It was primitive.
And it’s been that way for thousands of years. They want to take the world back to be just like that.
We don’t.
We need to make a clear goal as to why we want to be anywhere in the Middle East, and I’ll tell you why we want to be and need to be, is to destroy radical Islam and everything that threatens civilization. It’s not just a threat...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: — to Israel or to America, it’s a threat to every civilized person on this Earth. And we need to be equipping not only the Kurds in Iraq, we need to be making sure that those who are willing to fight radical Muslims will do it, but we need to never ever spend a drop of American blood unless there is a clearly defined goal and we can’t make sure we win unless we have a military that’s the strongest in the history of mankind.
We’ve got to rebuild our navy. It’s the smallest navy we’ve had since 1915, when my grandfather got on a destroyer in World War I when he was in the U.S. Navy. We’ve got young men in Air Force B-52s, one in particular, he’s flying a B-52 that his father flew in the ’80s and his grandfather flew in the ’50s. Those planes are older than me.
We’ve got to have a military that the world is afraid of, use it sparingly, but when we do, the whole world will know that America is on their tail and they will be on their tail on the ground, never ever to rise up again.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Governor Huckabee, if I could just follow-up with that.
Do we need to be in Afghanistan?
HUCKABEE: Only if there is a concerted effort to destroy the advance of radical Islamists who are against us. As far as what are we going to make it look like. Frankly, I don’t know what we can make it look like. You can’t create for other people a desire for freedom and democracy.
And frankly, that is not the role of the United States. The role of the United States military is not to build schools, it is not to build bridges, it is not to go around and pass out food packets.
It is to kill and destroy our enemy and make America safe and that is the purpose we should be there if we’re going to be there.
REGAN: Thank you Governor Huckabee.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, nearly 600 women say they were attacked in a German city on New Year’s Eve by men of Arab or North African descent and 45 percent of those alleged attacks were sexual assaults. Twenty-two of those 32 men arrested so far are asylum-seekers. Are you worried about similar problems in the United States?
FIORINA: Of course I’m worried about similar problems in the United States. We can not allow refugees to enter this country unless we can adequately vet them and we know we can’t. Therefore we should stop allowing refugees into this country.
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: And by the way, we do not need to be lectured about why we’re angry and frustrated and fearful because we’ve had an illegal immigration problem in this country for 25 years.
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: And we have every right to be frustrated about the fact that politicians stand up in election after election after election and promise us to fix the problem and yet, it has never been fixed.
I offer leadership that understands that actions speak louder than words, that results count. We must secure our border. We must fix our broken immigration system. We must enforce a pro-American immigration system that serves our interests, not the rest of the world. I understand what it takes to translate goals into results and that is what I will do as president of the United States. Of course, we should be worried, for heavens sakes.
This administration has now told us they don’t know who has overstayed a visa. This administration has told us they don’t even bother to check Facebook or Twitter to find out who’s pledging allegiance to jihadis. We can do better than this, citizens. We need to take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: I want to stay with you on this. The world shares a common enemy right now in the way of ISIS. Russia, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, we all agree ISIS is a threat and it must be stopped.
During World War II, the world partnered with Joseph Stalin, who was arguably one of the most formidable — despicable figures of the 20th century. But they partnered with him to fight the Nazis.
Today, everyone seems to agree we need some kind of coalition to fight ISIS. Do you agree with that? And if so, would your coalition include possibly, Russia and Iran?
FIORINA: We need to be very clear-eyed now about who are our allies and who are our adversaries. In the fight against ISIS, Saudi Arabia is our ally. Iran is our adversary. And despite Donald trump’s bromance with Vladmir Putin, Vladmir Putin and Russia are our adversary. We can not...
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: We can not outsource leadership in the Middle East to Iran and Russia. We must stand and lead. The Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the Saudis, Egyptians, Bahrainis (sic), the Emirates, the Kurds. I know virtually all of these nations and their leaders. And they have asked us for very specific kinds of support: bombs, material, arms, intelligence.
We are not providing any of it today. I will provide all of it. We have allies who will stand up and help us deny ISIS territory, which is what we must do to defeat them. We must deny them territory. They will help us do this. And yes, we need a coalition.
But only in the United States of America can lead such a coalition. I will lead it. But we must be clear-eyed through this fight. Iran is our adversary. Russia is our adversary. We can never outsource our leadership. Only the United States of America can lead to defeat ISIS. I will.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, thank you.
SMITH: All right, thank you, candidates. We’re just getting started. Jobs, Homeland Security, gun rights, all those issues are coming up straight ahead. We’re live from North Charleston and the Republican Presidential Debate. We’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Welcome back, everyone, to the Republican presidential debate. On to the next round of questions — Sandra.
SMITH: All right, let’s get started. Senator Santorum, to you first. President Obama has urged technology leaders to make it hard for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice. Hillary Clinton says social media companies can help by swiftly shutting down terrorist accounts.
The companies say that they’re already working with law enforcement and any proposed legislation would do more harm than good. Should companies like Facebook and Twitter be required by law to more actively — be more actively engaged in fighting terror?
SANTORUM: I would just say that if we were doing a better job within the government, we wouldn’t need the private sector to do the things that we’re asking them to do.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: I’ve had a little experience in this in the private sector myself. And what I found was a government with layers and layers of bureaucracy, of people who had some technical expertise but they had no authority, number one.
And one of the things I found out about in the bureaucracy is if a lot of people have authority, nobody has authority, number one. And number two, that if you don’t do anything, you don’t get fired.
It’s only when you do something and something goes wrong, you get fired. So they do nothing. And that’s what is happening in our Defense Department right now. We have a capability that they’re trying to develop to play defense.
We have a lot of technologists that are very skilled. And they’re trying to figure out how to play defense. But what we don’t have is we don’t have folks who are thinking about offense.
We don’t have war-fighters. We have technologists. Technologists are not war-fighters. Technologists are thinking, how do I protect cyber-security, how do I secure, how do I protect?
SANTORUM: And we need to have a much more dynamic, how do we — how do we go after them?
How do we respond?
And we need leadership that’s willing to make sure that when someone attacks us — and ladies and gentlemen, they’re attacking us as we speak. They’re attacking us all day every day, not just the government, but they’re attacking private sector companies all day every day.
They have to learn that we’re going to pay — they’re going to pay a price when they do so.
And then right now, just like in every other aspect of our national security, people who attack us are not paying a price. We need a leader who will make sure that they know when they mess with America, they’re going to pay a price.
SMITH: Senator, would you — would you require anything of those companies like Facebook and Twitter if you were president?
SANTORUM: Look, Facebook and Twitter can teach us things. We can cooperate with them. We can share ideas and information. But this is a — and this is a very dicey area for the government to go in and require the industry to do its job.
It needs to develop that capability. We need to be — have responsible dialogue, but I don’t think requirements are the order of the day.
SMITH: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, the president has just issued an executive order to expand the gun laws and background checks. And none of you on stage agree with this.
But recent polls show the majority of Americans are in favor of universal background checks.
(BOOS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not in this room.
REGAN: It’s the poll data.
(CROSSTALK)
FIORINA: And we all believe the polling data all the time, don’t we?
REGAN: So tell me...
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: — why, in your view, is the president’s proposal a problem?
FIORINA: Oh, it’s a problem for so many reasons.
First of all, it is yet another lawless executive order. You see, he doesn’t like the fact that Congress has rejected his ideas twice on a bipartisan basis, so he’s decided he just gets to override them.
Sorry, Mr. President, not the way “The Constitution” works.
Secondly...
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: — secondly, he basically admitted in that speech that he hasn’t been paying much attention to enforcing the laws we have. He said, gee, we need a few more FBI agents. That would have helped, perhaps, stop a tragedy here in South Carolina with Dylann Roof, a guy who clearly never should have been sold a gun.
In other words, Mr. President, you’re right, we need to enforce the laws we have. Let’s enforce the laws we have. There are criminals running around with guns who shouldn’t have them. We don’t prosecute any of them. Less than 1 percent.
But I want to go back to the technology issue for a moment, if I may, as well, because in this regard, I disagree with Senator Santorum. Look, I come from the technology industry and I can tell you there is one thing that bureaucracies don’t know how to do. They do not know how to innovate.
We have come seven generations of technology since 2011. We have bureaucracies that are incapable of bringing in that innovation.
So, yes, there are some very specific things that we should ask the private sector to help us with, including making sure we have the latest and greatest in algorithms to search through all these databases so that we find terrorists before they attack us, not after it’s too late.
And, finally, when a president who understands technology in the Oval Office. Mrs. Clinton, actually, you cannot wipe a server with a towel.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, you’ve said that was when you were CEO of HP, you actually worked with the government.
FIORINA: Yes, and see...
REGAN: — to try and combat some of these terrorist threats.
FIORINA: As CEO of Hewlett Packard...
REGAN: What did you do?
FIORINA: As CEO of Hewlett Packard, I was asked very specifically for some very real help. The help I was asked to provide, this is now public information. So I am not revealing what — something that was — was classified.
We had a very large shipment of equipment, software and hardware, headed to a retail outlet. And I was called by the head of the NSA, who had an urgent need for that capability, to begin laying out a program to track terrorists.
We turned that truck around on a highway and it was escorted to the headquarters in San Jose.
In World War II, our government went to the private sector and said, help us do things that we cannot do.
The private sector has capabilities that the government does not have. There are some legal authorities that are required.
The Sony attack could have been detected and repelled, had legal authorities been passed in Congress allowing private networks and public networks to work together.
Those legal authorities have not yet been passed.
Yes, I was asked to help.
(RINGS BELL)
FIORINA: I know the technology industry. They will help again. But they must be asked by a president who understands what they have.
REGAN: Ms. Fiorina, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: All right, Governor Huckabee, you called President Obama’s executive orders on gun control unconstitutional and completely insane.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: (LAUGHING) Yes, I did.
SMITH: You even told gun store owners to ignore the President’s orders.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Yet, innocent people are dying from gun violence in cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Charleston everyday. Is there anything that can be done at the federal level to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals?
HUCKABEE: Well, why don’t we start by making sure the Justice Department never does an idiotic program like Fast and Furious where the U.S. Government put guns...
(CHEERING)
HUCKABEE: ...in the hands of Mexican drug lords...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...and end up killing one of our border agents. You know, they want to talk about law abiding citizens, I just find it amazing the President keeps saying the gun show loophole. There is no gun show loophole. I promise you I’ve been to more gun shows than President Obama.
SMITH: (LAUGHING)
HUCKABEE: And, I’ve bought more weapons at them, and you fill out forms. The President also says things that it’s easier to get a gun now than it is to grow trees. Again, I purchase guns, and I can assure you that it is much more difficult to purchase a firearm than it is to get the ingredients of a salad at the supermarket.
What the President keeps pushing are ideas that have never worked. Ideas that would not have stopped San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Aurora, and at some point you wonder if you keep retrying things that don’t work, maybe we should just see if we could resell all those used lottery tickets that didn’t work real well because that’s the logic of just keep doing the same thing, but something that has failed. Of course, we want to stop gun violence, but the one common thing that has happened in most mass shootings is that they happened in gun- free zones where people who would have been law abiding citizens, who could have stood up and at least tried to stop it and we’re not allowed to under the law.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Governor Huckabee.
REGAN: Governor Huckabee, an American in San Bernardino murdered 14 people while terrorists with Belgian and French passports murdered 130 people. Were facing a threat within our borders, and from outside the United States. Those European terrorists, they could have come here at any time given that we have a visa waiver program that enables people to travel back and forth. It exists within those countries, and 36 others.
In countries around the world, including many in Europe, cannot ensure that their citizens are not jihadists, why are we waiving the visa requirement at all?
HUCKABEE: Well, we shouldn’t be and that’s one of the reasons that I think there a lot of voices in our country who are saying it’s time to relook (ph) at the visa program. The European Union is a failure, it’s not allowed for even the economic goals that they were trying to achieve.
But, what we’re not seeing is that it’s making Europe less safe, and it’s proven not to be exactly what they all thought it was going to be.
Our first and foremost responsibility in this country, and the first responsibility of the President of the United States is protect America, and protect Americans. We have a President who seems to be more interested in protecting the reputation and image of Islam than he is protecting us. And, I want to be very clear...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...that this President.
(CHEERING)
HUCKABEE: Makes comments like he did the other night, that we have to be so careful because we don’t want to offend Muslims. He needs to read his own FBI crime stats from last year which would show him that of the hate crimes in the country, over 5,500, about 1,100 were religious hate crimes. And, of those, 58% were directed toward Jews. Only 16% directed toward Muslims.
Maybe what the President should have talked about the other night is how we ought to be more careful in the anti-semitic comments that are going toward American Jews than toward Muslims because by three times as many...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...they’re being targeted for religious hate crime.
REGAN: If you get the visa waiver program, does that shut down international commerce?
HUCKABEE: It does not shut down international commerce, but it may slow it down. And, you don’t want to slowdown commerce that is making us safer. It’s worth it. This lady who came and joined with the San Bernardino killer had passed three background checks, and that’s why a lot of Americans didn’t buy it when the President said we’ll bring in Syrian refugees, but don’t worry we’ll check them out.
We have a lot of confidence in a president who told us that we could keep our doctor, we could keep our health insurance, and cost us less, and now the latest is if you like your gun you can keep it too, and frankly, we don’t buy it. We don’t believe it. He’s lost his credibility, and his inept...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ...inability to work with Congress and pass legislation has led him to do what I never even imagined doing as a governor, and that’s just going and doing it my own way.
HUCKABEE: That’s why we elect a president, is to lead, is to be able to shepherd things through. And if I can do it with a 90 percent Democrat legislature in Arkansas, there is no excuse for any president not being able to lead in Washington if he knows what the heck he is doing when he gets there.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you, Governor Huckabee.
SMITH: Senator Santorum, many of our military leaders believe America’s critical infrastructure is vulnerable to a terrorist attack. This is the power in our homes, the water we drink, the Internet and phone systems by which we stay connected.
If attacked, these essential services that underpin American society could come to a grinding halt. Do you have a specific plan to protect us from this type of attack?
SANTORUM: Well, the most devastating attack that could occur is an electromagnetic pulse attack, and that would be an attack that would be triggered by a nuclear explosion in the upper atmosphere of our country.
The best way to stop that from happening is to make sure that those who contemplating and actually war-gaming and talking about using it, Iran, doesn’t get a nuclear weapon so they can’t explode that device.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: And the president of the United States has put Iran on a path to a nuclear weapon. And we have done nothing to do anything to harden our grid. There is actually a bill in Congress that would put money forward to try to put redundancy and harden our electric grid so it could actually survive an EMP.
An EMP is a devastating explosion that sends a pulse that knocks out all electric, everything, everything that is connected to any kind — that is wired, that has a circuit board gets fried out. Everything is gone. Cars stop. Planes fall out of the sky.
This is a devastating attack. And this president has done nothing, number one, to take the most probable person to — probable country to launch an attack and stop them, and has done nothing to try to defend us, particularly our electric grid. The bottom line is, I put the original sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program when I was in the United States Senate. I’ve been fighting for 12 years with one thing in mind, that we must stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And...
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Because they’re different than every other country. They do not want a nuclear weapon to defend themselves. They want a nuclear weapon to have theological ends to bring about their mahdi so they can control the world. And that is the most serious threat facing this country right now.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Senator Santorum, I want to stay with you on this, moving to jobs and the economy. In his State of the Union Address the other night, President Obama touted his record on jobs, citing more than 14 million new jobs and boasted of nearly 900,000 manufacturing jobs added in the past six years.
Do you dispute his track record of creating jobs?
SANTORUM: Well, the numbers just don’t add up. I mean, they have not added manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country, 2 million of them. The bottom line is that this president has done more to take jobs away from the hard-working people who are struggling the most.
And that’s folks who are, as I said, the 74 percent of Americans who don’t have a college degree. And they’re out there talking about, well, we’re going to provide free college for everybody. Well, who is going to pay for it? The 74 percent that don’t have a college degree.
They’re not — nobody is focused. Let’s just be honest, nobody is focused on the people who are struggling the most in America today. We talk about immigration. Talk about the president’s immigration plan. He wants to bring in more and more people into this country. Let people who are here illegally stay in this country.
Almost all of the people who are here illegally, and most of the people who came here legally over the last 20 years, they’re working in wage-earning jobs. That is why wages have flat-lined.
And we have unfortunately two political parties with most of the candidates in this field for some form of amnesty, some form of allowing people to stay here even though they’re here illegally and for increasing levels of legal immigration.
I’m someone who believes that we need to be the party that stands for the American worker. And when we say we need to send people back, I mean we send people back.
And let me just make one point. I was in Storm Lake, Iowa, the other day, near a Tyson’s plant, 91 percent of the kids that go to the elementary school there are minority kids. And they said, well, what are you going to do with all of these people, their families, they’ve lived here for a long time?
I said, I’m going to give them a gift. I’m going to give them a gift of being able to help the country they were born in.
SANTORUM: And I’m going to export America, the education they were able to see. They learned English language. They learned about capitalism. They learned about democracy. You want to stop flow of immigrants?
Let’s send six million Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, El Savadorians...
(BELL RINGS)
... back into their country, so they can start a renaissance in their country so they won’t be coming over here anymore.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Senator Santorum, thank you.
SMITH: Governor Huckabee, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said the greatest threat to our security is our national debt.
Our national debt is now on pace to top $19 trillion. Yet, you as well as Ms. Fiorina have laid forward no plan to reform entitlements. How can you say you’re going to pay down our country’s debt without cutting Social Security or Medicare?
HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, let’s just remember that Social Security is not the government’s money, it belongs to the people who had it taken out of their checks involuntarily their entire working lives.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: For the government to say, well it is fault of working people that we have a Social Security problem, no. It is the fault of a government that used those people’s money for something other than protecting those people’s accounts. So let’s not blame them and punish them.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: But here is a fact, and I sometimes hear Republicans say well, we’re going to have to cut this and extend the age. You know what I think a lot of times when I hear people say, well, let’s make people work to their 70. That sounds great for white-collar people who sat at a desk most of their lives. You ever talk to somebody that stood on concrete floor for the first 40 years of their working life? Do you think they can stand another five years or 10 years, many of them will retired virtually crippled because they worked hard. And we’re going to punish them some more? I don’t think so. Here’s the fact.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCAKBEE: Four percent economic growth, we fully fund Social Security and Medicare. Our problem is not that Social Security is just too generous to seniors. It isn’t. Our problem is that our politicians have not created the kind of policies that would bring economic growth.
And I still support strongly that we get rid of the 77,000 pages of the monstrous tax code...
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: ... pass the fair tax, supercharge this economy with the rocket fuel that happens with the consumption tax and we don’t have to cut Social Security to any senior who has worked their lifetime for it.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you, Governor Huckabee.
SMITH: OK. We’re going to continue this conversation. We’re taking a quick break and then coming up, the candidates’ plans for strengthening the middle class. We’re live in North Charleston with the Republican Presidential Debate. We’ll be right back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERICAL BREAK)
REGAN: Welcome back to the Republican presidential debate live from North Charleston.
We want to jump right back in.
Sandra is kicking it off.
SMITH: All right, thanks, Trish.
Well, let’s get started with Ms. Fiorina.
Today, the middle class represents about 50 percent of the U.S. population, down from about 61 percent back in 1971. That’s according to Pew Research. The same research revealed a widening income gap in America. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
What will you do to strengthen a middle class that is no longer the majority?
FIORINA: For decades, the professional political class in both parties has been talking about the middle class. For decades, Republicans in particular have been talking about reducing the size and scope of government, spending less money, reducing the complexity.
And yet, for 40 years, the government has gotten bigger and more expensive.
We now have a 75,000 plus page tax code, although politicians have run for office for decades promising reform. And all the while, middle class incomes have stagnated.
You see, when government gets bigger and bigger, more powerful, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed.
We need to understand who the job creators are in this country, because we need more jobs to grow the middle class and to grow the wages of the middle class.
Who creates jobs?
Small businesses, new businesses, family-owned businesses. (APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: They create two thirds of the new jobs in this country and they employ half the people.
I started out typing for a nine person real estate firm. My husband Frank started out driving a tow truck for a family-owned auto body shop. And we are crushing small businesses and destroying the middle class.
So here’s my blueprint to take back America. Let us first actually reform the tax code from 73,000 pages down to three. There’s a 20-year-old plan to do exactly that.
And then let us begin piece by piece to focus on every single dollar the government spends, so that we will spend less overall and still have enough for our priorities. And that requires the government to budget the way you do at home — examine every dollar, cut any dollar, move any dollar. The fancy term for that is zero- based budgeting, but I call it common sense.
Citizens, we’ve got to take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Fiorina.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Governor Huckabee, you know it used to be you could graduate from high school and get a pretty good job at the local factory, enough to take care of your family and yourself. Those days seem to be gone. It’s pretty hard to do that nowadays.
Businesses are increasingly turning to automation to increase their productivity levels. It’s happening right here, in fact, at the Boeing factory in North Charleston.
The president says automation threatens workers’ ability to get higher wages.
Do you agree with that?
And if so, do you have a solution?
HUCKABEE: Let me go back to the reason so many people are having a hard time getting ahead. The tax system punishes them.
Think about this. If you work really hard and you start moving up the economic ladder, you get bumped into a different tax bracket. So the government thinks it deserves more of your hard work than you do.
And it’s one of the reasons that no matter how many different reforms you have to a tax on people’s productivity, you’re still taxing their work, their savings. You’re taxing their capital gains, inheritance, dividends, you’re taxing everything that produces something.
And it’s way I really believe it’s time to do something bold, not something minute. This is no time for a tap of the hammer, a twist of the screwdriver. It’s time for something big. That’s why the fair tax transforms our economy.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And we don’t punish workers. It’s the only way we’re going to get middle class people moving ahead again, because the harder they work, the more they keep. No payroll tax deducted from their checks. They get their entire paycheck.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And, one of the most important parts, it’s built on the common sense with which we raised our kids, and trained dogs. You reward behavior you want more of. And, you punish behavior you want less of. That’s how I raise kids, it’s how I trained our dogs, and folks, it’s not that difficult.
We now punish the behavior we say we want more of by taxing it, and we reward the behavior that we say we want less of, so if you make a good investment, we punish you with a tax. If you make a bad investment you can write that off and the rest of the taxpayers will help subsidize you, and bail you out.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you very much, Governor Huckabee.
Senator Santorum, 40% of babies born today are born to single moms. That’s twice as high as reported back in 1980, and it’s 11 times as high as in 1940. Studies show that children are always better off economically, most often — and emotionally, with two parents in a household. From a policy perspective, should the government be doing anything to encourage family formation?
SANTORUM: You know, we’ve had this debate about the economy, and we haven’t talked the one issue now increasingly even the right, and even the are coming to agreement. I’ve run around doing 300 town hall meetings talking about a book written by a liberal Harvard sociologist, not a normal thing for me to be talking about, but I now name Robert Putnam who wrote a book called, “Our Kids”.
And, he wrote this book, I think, ostensibly to support the Democratic argument that the middle of America’s hollowing out, and income gap is widening, and rich are getting richer. When he studied all the information as to what was going on, he realized that the biggest reason that we’re seeing the hollowing out of the middle of America is the breakdown of the American family.
The reality is that if you’re a single parent — a child of a single parent, and you grew up in a single parent family neighborhood, you went to that single parent family school, the chance of you ever, ever reaching the top 20% of income earners is 3% in America. At least — I don’t know about you, but that’s not good enough. And, we have been too politically correct in this country because we don’t want to offend anybody to fight for the lives of our children. (APPLAUSE)
You want — You want to be shocked? You read the first few chapters of Mr. — Dr. Putnam’ book. He talks about Port Clinton, Ohio and growing up there in the 1950’s, and how poor kids actually survived and did well, even though they were poor and disadvantaged. But, then he goes to the towns today and these kids are failing, and failing miserably. They don’t even have a shot, and we won’t even have the courage to have leadership at the federal level — not with legislation, but the most powerful tool a president have, the bully pulpit to encourage each and everyone of you, churches and businesses, and educators, and community leaders to let’s have a national campaign to rebuild the American family, and give every child its birthright which is a Mom and a Dad who loves them.
That will change this economy.
(CHEERING & APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you.
SMITH: Thank you, Senator.
We’re not finished yet. More Republican Presidential Debate in North Charleston after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMITH: Welcome back, it’s time for the closing statements. Candidates will each get one minute, starting with Senator Santorum.
Thank you very much, I want to thank the people of Charleston, which has become a little bit of a second home to me, because I am very privileged to have two young men who go to the Citadel here and they’re here tonight, my son John and my son Daniel.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Ladies and gentlemen, America is frustrated and angry and looking for someone who’s a fighter, but I also think they’re looking for someone who’s a winner. Somebody who can go out there and take on the establishment and make a difference. And take on someone who’s going to be the person who’s going to be between a Republican holding the presidency and that’s Hillary Clinton.
And there’s one person on this stage, one person in the race who’s done it and done it repeatedly. I’ve taken on Hillary Clinton on the issues you care about. Partial-birth abortion.
Go and google Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton and there you’ll see a five-minute debate. I’ll let you decide who won the debate. I’ll tell you who won, because we passed the bill and I know I’m out of time but I’m going to take some of Rand Paul’s time here for a second.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: If you’re looking for someone who fought Hillary Clinton on Iran’s sanctions, she was one of four who voted — who’s deciding vote who voted against Iran’s sanctions, so we didn’t get it in place as earlier as we should have.
I’ve fought battles against her. In 1994, I ran against the Clinton machine. James Carville and Paul Begala, ran the race against me when I took on the author of Hillary care.
And each one of those battles, I won. You want a fighter, you want a winner, I’d appreciate your vote. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Senator Santorum. Governor Mike Huckabee.
HUCAKBEE: Well, Rick, I’m pretty sure I did also fight the Clinton machine because every election I was ever in in Arkansas, I assure you, they were behind it, helping finance and campaign for every opponent.
And I share with you the understanding that it’s going to be a tough battle. But I spent the first half of my adult life in the private and nonprofit sector, raising a family, understanding how tough it is for people to make it.
And that first half of my life is what led me to believe that America needs a different kind of leadership, not people who spent their whole life running from one office to the next, and living off the government dime. And I got involved because I got sick of what I saw.
I also believe that there’s got to be some leadership that not only addresses the monetary and military issues of this country, but the moral issues of this country. At the end of every political speech, most of us say, God bless America.
But how can he do that when we continue to slaughter 4,000 babies a day?
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And I want to be the president that treats every person, including the unborn, as a person. And protect them under the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution. I close with this word from a gentleman in East Texas named Butel Lucre (ph). He’s 100 years old and I met him down in East Texas.
HUCKABEE: And he said this to me. “I sure wish, Mike, we had the days when The Ten Commandments were in all of our capitals and in every school, and we prayed again.
You know, he may be 100 years old, but I believe some of those old ideas to get this country back where we unapologetically get on our knees before we get on our feet might be the best solutions we’ve ever sought as a country.
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: And I ask for your support and your vote.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
SMITH: Thank you, Governor.
REGAN: Carly Fiorina?
FIORINA: My husband Frank, that I mentioned, I love spending time with. He’s down there. He was real excited the other day because in New Hampshire, he was introduced as my eye candy.
(LAUGHTER)
FIORINA: You know, everybody out there watching knows this. You cannot wait to see the debate between me and Hillary Clinton. You would pay to see that fight.
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: And that’s because you know I will win. And that’s important. We’ve got to start by beating Hillary Clinton.
All of my life, I have been told to sit down and be quiet. Settle. Settle. Don’t challenge the system.
That’s what the American people are being told now and we have been told that for way too long — sit down and be quiet about our God, about our guns, about the abortion industry, settle for illegal immigration that’s been a problem for decades, as so many of our problems have festered for decades. Accept a system of government and politics that no longer works for us.
I will not sit down and be quiet. And neither will you.
So I ask you to stand with me, fight with me, vote for me, citizens. It is time to take our future back, time to take our politics back. It is time to take our government back. Citizens, it is time. We must take our country back.
(APPLAUSE)
REGAN: Thank you to all the candidates.
(CROSSTALK)
REGAN: That does it, everyone for the first debate right here in North Charleston.
In just about two hours from now, at 9:00 p.m. Eastern seven more candidates are going to be taking to this stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/us/politics/transcript-preliminary-republican-presidential-debate.html
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTo2X4eG8cY [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJSsFfRpxUk [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ48hwDs62E [with comment],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92xZFG7LkIk [with comments]
*
FBN GOP 9 p.m. ET debate part 1 - January 14, 2016
Published on Jan 15, 2016 by Fox Business
The GOP debate featuring real estate mogul Donald Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Ohio Governor John Kasich.
*
6th Republican debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant [annotations viewable at the source, linked at the end of this transcript]
January 14, 2016
Seven candidates participated in Thursday's 2016 presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C.: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey governor Chris Christie.
The complete transcript:
The debate began after moderators Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartiromo introduced the candidates.
BARTIROMO: So let's get started. Candidates, jobs and growth -- two of the biggest issues facing the country right now. In his State of the Union address earlier this week, the president said, quote, "we have the strongest, most durable economy in the world."
And according to our Facebook research, jobs is one of the biggest issues resonating across the country, including here in South Carolina. The president is touting 14 million new jobs and an unemployment rate cut in half.
The president said that anyone who claims America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction. Senator Cruz, what do you see that he doesn't?
CRUZ: Well, Maria, thank you for that question, and let me say thank you to the state of South Carolina for welcoming us.
Let me start -- I want to get to the substance of the question on jobs, but I want to start with something. Today, many of us picked up our newspapers, and we were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees, with their hands on their heads.
In that State of the Union, President Obama didn't so much as mention the 10 sailors that had been captured by Iran. President Obama's preparing to send $100 billion or more to the Ayatollah Khamenei. And I'll tell you, it was heartbreaking.
But the good news is the next commander-in-chief is standing on this stage.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: And I give you my word, if I am elected president, no service man or service woman will be forced to be on their knees, and any nation that captures our fighting men will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, on to your substantive question. The president tried to paint a rosy picture of jobs. And you know, he's right. If you're a Washington lobbyist, if you make your money in and around Washington, things are doing great. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great under Obama. But we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Median wages have stagnated. And the Obama-Clinton economy has left behind the working men and women of this country.
The reason all of us are here is we believe we should be fighting for the working men and women of this country, and not Washington, D.C.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Kasich, we are not even two weeks into this stock trading year, but (inaudible) investors already lost $1.6 trillion in market value. That makes it the worst start to a new year ever. Many worry that things will get even worse, and that banks and financial stocks are particularly vulnerable.
Now, if this escalates, like it did back when Barack Obama first assumed the presidency, what actions would you take if this same thing happens all over again just as, in this example, you are taking over the presidency?
KASICH: Look, it takes three things basically to grow jobs. And I've done it when I was in Washington when we had a balanced budget; had four years of balanced budgets; paid down a half-trillion of debt. And our economy was growing like crazy. It's the same thing that I did in Ohio. It's a simple formula: common sense regulations, which is why I think we should freeze all federal regulations for one year, except for health and safety. It requires tax cuts, because that sends a message to the job creators that things are headed the right way. And if you tax cuts -- if you cut taxes for corporations, and you cut taxes for individuals, you're going to make things move, particularly the corporate tax, which is the highest, of course, in the -- in the world.
But in addition to that, we have to have fiscal discipline. We have to show that we can march to a balanced budget. And when you do that, when you're in a position of managing regulations; when you reduce taxes; and when you have fiscal discipline, you see the job creators begin to get very comfortable with the fact that they can invest.
Right now, you don't have the -- you have taxes that are too high. You have regulations -- I mean, come on, they're affecting everybody here, particularly our small businesses. They are -- they're in a position where they're smothering people. And I mean, are you kidding me? We're nowhere close to a balanced budget or fiscal discipline.
Those three things put together are going to give confidence to job creators and you will begin to see wages rise. You will begin to see jobs created in a robust economy. And how do I know it? Because I've done it. I did it as the chairman of the Budget Committee, working with Senator Domenici. And I've done it in the state of Ohio as the chief executive.
Our wages are growing faster than the national average. We're running surpluses. And we can take that message and that formula to Washington to lift every single American to a better life.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: We know that recent global events have many people worried -- Iran detaining American sailors, forcing them to apologize; North Korea and its nuclear ambitions; an aggressive China; and a Middle East that continues to deteriorate, not to mention ISIS is getting stronger.
Governor Christie, sometimes it seems the world is on fire. Where and when should a president use military action to restore order?
CHRISTIE: Well, Maria, I'm glad to have heard from you in the summary of that question about what's going on in the world. Because Tuesday night, I watched story time with Barack Obama. And I've got to tell you, it sounded like everything in the world was going amazing, you know?
(APPLAUSE)
The fact is, there's a number of things that the next president is going to have to do to clean up this mess. The first thing is we have to strengthen our alliances around the world. And the best way to do that is to start talking to our allies again and having them be able to count on our word.
CHRISTIE: Lots of people will say lots of different things about me in this campaign and others, but the one thing they've never said about me is that I'm misunderstood. And so when we talk to our allies and we give them our word, in a Christie administration, they know we're going to keep it.
Next, we have to talk to our adversaries, and we have to make sure they understand the limits of our patience. And this president, given what Ted said right at the beginning, he's absolutely right. It's a -- it's absolutely disgraceful that Secretary Kerry and others said in their response to what's going on in Iran that this was a good thing; it showed how the relationship was getting better.
The president doesn't understand -- and by the way, neither does Secretary Clinton -- and here's my warning to everybody out in the audience tonight. If you're worried about the world being on fire, you're worried about how we're going to use our military, you're worried about strengthening our military and you're worried most of all about keeping your homes and your families safe and secure, you cannot give Hillary Clinton a third term of Barack Obama's leadership.
I will not do that. If I'm the nominee, she won't get within 10 miles of the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Just to be clear Governor, where and when would you use military action?
CHRISTIE: Military action, Maria, would be used when it was absolutely necessary to protect American lives and protect American interests around the world. We are not the world's policeman, but we need to stand up and be ready.
And the problem, Maria, is that the military is not ready, either. We need to rebuild our military, and this president has let it diminish to a point where tinpot dictators like the mullahs in Iran are taking our Navy ships. It is disgraceful, and in a Christie administration, they would know much, much better than to do that.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Bush, the president just told the nation two nights ago that America is back and that the idea that our enemies are getting stronger or that this country is getting weaker, well, it's just rhetoric and hot air. Now other Democrats go even further, sir, saying Republicans even suggesting such comments actually embolden our enemies. I guess they would include you. What do you say?
BUSH: Well first of all, the idea that somehow we're better off today than the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States is totally an alternative universe. The simple fact is that the world has been torn asunder.
Think about it. With grandiose language, the president talks about red lines and nothing to follow it up; talks about ISIS being the JV team, they form a caliphate the size of Indiana with 35 (thousand) to 40,000 battle-tested terrorists. He's missing the whole point, that America's leadership in the world is required for peace and stability.
In the crowd today is Major General James Livingston, who's the co-chairman of my campaign here in South Carolina, a Medal of Honor recipient.
(APPLAUSE)
I've learned from him that what we need to achieve is peace through strength, which means we need to rebuild the military. In this administration, every weapon system has been gutted, in this administration, the force levels are going down to a level where we can't even project force. Our friends no longer think we have their back and our enemies no longer fear us, and we're in a much difficult -- we're in a much different position than we should be.
And for the life of me, I have no understanding why the president thinks that everything is going well. Terrorism is on the run, China, Russia is advancing their agenda at warp speed, and we pull back.
As president of the United States, I will be a commander in chief that will have the back of the military. We will rebuild the military to make sure that it is a solid force, not to be the world's policeman, but to make sure that in a peaceful world, people know that the United States is there to take care of our own national interests and take care of our allies.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: So I take it from that you do not agree with the president.
BUSH: No. And worse -- worse yet, to be honest with you, Hillary Clinton would be a national security disaster.
Think about it. She wants to continue down the path of Iran, Benghazi, the Russian reset, Dodd-Frank, all the things that have -- that have gone wrong in this country, she would be a national security mess. And that is wrong.
And you know what? Here's the problem. If she gets elected, she's under investigation with the FBI right now. If she gets elected, her first 100 days, instead of setting an agenda, she might be going back and forth between the White House and the courthouse. We need to stop that. (LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Senator Rubio, the president says that ISIS doesn't threaten our national existence like a Germany or a Japan back in World War II, that the terror group is nothing more than twisted souls plotting attacks in their garages.
But House Homeland Security Committee recently said that over 1,000 ongoing investigations of homegrown extremism in 50 states. So how do you define the threat? Germany then or dangerous nut cases now?
RUBIO: Yeah, I would go, first of all, one step further in this description of Hillary Clinton. She wouldn't just be a disaster, Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being commander in chief of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Someone who cannot handle intelligence information appropriately cannot be commander in chief and someone who lies to the families of those four victims in Benghazi can never be president of the United States. Ever.
(APPLAUSE)
On the issue of Barack Obama, Barack Obama does not believe that America is a great global power. Barack Obama believes that America is a arrogant global power that needs to be cut down to size. And that's how you get a foreign policy where we cut deals with our enemies like Iran and we betray our allies like Israel and we gut our military and we go around the world like he has done on 10 separate occasions and apologized for America.
He doesn't understand the threat in ISIS. He consistently underestimates it but I do not. There is a war against ISIS, not just against ISIS but against radical jihadists terrorists, and it is a war that they win or we win.
When I'm president of the United States, we are going to win this war on ISIS. The most powerful intelligence agency in the world is going to tell us where we are, the most powerful military in the world is going to destroy them. And if we capture any of them alive, they are getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and we are going to find out everything they know.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Thank you, Senator.
BARTIROMO: Dr. Carson, the president says he does not want to treat ISIS as a foreign army, but ISIS is neither a country nor a government. How do you attack a network that does not respect national borders?
CARSON: Well, I'm very happy to get a question this early on. I was going to ask you to wake me up when that time came.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, I find it really quite fascinating some of the president's proclamations. The fact of the matter is he doesn't realize that we now live in the 21st century, and that war is very different than it used to be before. Not armies massively marching on each other and air forces, but now we have dirty bombs and we have cyber attacks and we have people who will be attacking our electrical grid. And, you know, we have a whole variety of things that they can do and they can do these things simultaneously. And we have enemies who are obtaining nuclear weapons that they can explode in our exoatmosphere and destroy our electric grid.
I mean, just think about a scenario like that. They explode the bomb, we have an electromagnetic pulse. They hit us with a cyberattack simultaneously and dirty bombs. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue at that point? He needs to recognize that those kinds of things are in fact an existential threat to us.
But here's the real key. We have the world's best military, even though he's done everything he can to diminish it. And the fact of the matter is if we give them a mission and we don't tie their hands behind their back, they can get it accomplished.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Mr. Trump, at the State of the Union, the president pointed to a guest who was a Syrian refugee you might recall whose wife and daughter and other family members were killed in an air attack. Now he fled that country seeking asylum here, ultimately ended up in Detroit where he's now trying to start a new life.
The president says that that doctor is the real face of these refugees and not the one that you and some of your colleagues on this stage are painting; that you prefer the face of fear and terror and that you would refuse to let in anyone into this country seeking legitimate asylum. How do you answer that?
TRUMP: It's not fear and terror, it's reality. You just have to look today at Indonesia, bombings all over.
(APPLAUSE)
You look at California, you look, frankly, at Paris where there's a -- the strictest no-gun policy of any city anywhere in the world, and you see what happens: 130 people dead with many to follow. They're very, very badly wounded. They will -- some will follow. And you look around, and you see what's happening, and this is not the case when he introduced the doctor -- very nice, everything perfect but that is not representative of what you have in that line of migration.
That could be the great Trojan Horse. It could be people that are going to do great, great destruction. When I look at the migration, I looked at the line, I said it actually on your show recently, where are the women? It looked like very few women. Very few children. Strong, powerful men, young and people are looking at that and they're saying what's going on?
TRUMP: You look at the kind of damage that two people that two people that got married, they were radicalized -- they got married, they killed 15 people in actually 15 -- going to be probably 16 but you look at that and you take a look -- a good strong look and that's what we have. We are nineteen trillion dollars -- our country's a mess and we can't let all these people come into our country and break our borders. We can't do it.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, the New York Times is reporting that you failed to properly disclose a million dollars in loans from Goldman Sachs and CitiBank. During your senate race, your campaign said, "it was inadvertent." A million dollars is inadvertent?
CRUZ: Well Maria, thank you for passing on that hit piece in the front page of the New York Times. You know the nice thing about the mainstream media, they don't hide their views. The New York Times a few weeks back had a columnist who wrote a column saying, "Anybody But Cruz." Had that actually -- that same columnist wrote a column comparing me to an evil demonic spirit from the move, "It Follows" that jumps apparently from body to body possessing people.
So you know the New York Times and I don't have exactly have the warmest of relationships. Now in terms of their really stunning hit piece, what they mentioned is when I was running for senate -- unlike Hillary Clinton, I don't have masses of money in the bank, hundreds of millions of dollars. When I was running for senate just about every lobbyist, just about all of the establishment opposed me in the senate race in Texas and my opponent in that race was worth over 200 million dollars. He put a 25 million dollar check up from his own pocket to fund that campaign and my wife Heidi and I, we ended up investing everything we owned.
We took a loan against our assets to invest it in that campaign to defend ourselves against those attacks. And the entire New York times attack -- is that I disclosed that loan on one filing with the United States Senate, that was a public filing. But it was not on a second filing with FDIC and yes, I made a paperwork error disclosing it on one piece of paper instead of the other. But if that's the best the New York Times has got, they better go back to the well.
BARTIROMO: Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right. Welcome back to the Republican presidential debate, right here in North Charleston, South Carolina. Let's get right back to the questions. And I'll start with you, Senator Cruz.
Now you are, of course, a strict constitutionalist -- no one would doubt that. And as you know, the U.S. Constitution says only natural-born citizens are eligible for the office of president of the United States. Stop me if you've heard this before. Now, you were born...
(LAUGHTER)
... you were born in Canada to an American mother. So you were and are considered an American citizen. But that fellow next to you, Donald Trump -- and others -- have said that being born in Canada means you are not natural-born, and that has raised questions about your eligibility.
Do you want to try to close this topic once and for all tonight?
CRUZ: Well, Neil, I'm glad we're focusing on the important topics of the evening.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
You know, back in September, my friend Donald said that he had had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this birther issue.
(LAUGHTER)
Now, since September, the Constitution hasn't changed.
(LAUGHTER)
But the poll numbers have.
(APPLAUSE)
And I recognize -- I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.
If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president.
If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico.
At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on -- some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil.
Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.
(APPLAUSE)
(UNKNOWN): Not me.
CRUZ: Because -- because Donald's mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized. Now, Donald...
TRUMP: But I was born here.
CRUZ: ... on the issue -- on the issue of citizenship, Donald...
TRUMP: (inaudible). Big difference.
CRUZ: ... on the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm not going to use your mother's birth against you.
TRUMP: OK, good. Because it wouldn't work.
CRUZ: You're an American, as is everybody else on this stage, and I would suggest we focus on who's best prepared to be commander- in-chief, because that's the most important question facing the country.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Mr. Trump...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: ... that you raised it because of his rising poll numbers.
TRUMP: ... first of all, let me just tell you something -- and you know, because you just saw the numbers yourself -- NBC Wall Street Journal just came out with a poll -- headline: Trump way up, Cruz going down. I mean, so don't -- so you can't -- you can't...
(BOOING)
... they don't like the Wall Street Journal. They don't like NBC, but I like the poll.
(LAUGHTER)
And frankly, it just came out, and in Iowa now, as you know, Ted, in the last three polls, I'm beating you. So -- you know, you shouldn't misrepresent how well you're doing with the polls.
(APPLAUSE)
You don't have to say that. In fact, I was all for you until you started doing that, because that's a misrepresentation, number one.
TRUMP: Number two, this isn't me saying it. I don't care. I think I'm going to win fair and square (inaudible) to win this way. Thank you.
Lawrence Tribe and (inaudible) from Harvard -- of Harvard, said that there is a serious question as to whether or not Ted can do this. OK? There are other attorneys that feel, and very, very fine constitutional attorneys, that feel that because he was not born on the land, he cannot run for office.
Here's the problem. We're running. We're running. He does great. I win. I choose him as my vice presidential candidate, and the Democrats sue because we can't take him along for the ride. I don't like that. OK?
(LAUGHTER)
The fact is -- and if for some reason he beats the rest of the field, he beats the rest of the field (inaudible). See, they don't like that. They don't like that.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
No, they don't like he beats the rest of the field, because they want me.
(LAUGHTER)
But -- if for some reason, Neil, he beats the rest of the field, I already know the Democrats are going to be bringing a suit. You have a big lawsuit over your head while you're running. And if you become the nominee, who the hell knows if you can even serve in office? So you should go out, get a declaratory judgment, let the courts decide. And you shouldn't have mentioned the polls because I would have been much...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Why are you saying this now -- right now? Why are you raising this issue now?
TRUMP: Because now he's going a little bit better. No, I didn't care (inaudible). It's true. No, it's true. Hey look, he never had a chance. Now, he's doing better. He's got probably a four or five percent chance.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
CRUZ: Neil...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: The fact is, there is a big overhang. There's a big question mark on your head. And you can't do that to the party. You really can't. You can't do that to the party. You have to have certainty. Even if it was a one percent chance, and it's far greater than one percent because (inaudible).
I mean, you have great constitutional lawyers that say you can't run. If there was a -- and you know I'm not bringing a suit. I promise. But the Democrats are going to bring a lawsuit, and you have to have certainty. You can't have a question. I can agree with you or not, but you can't have a question over your head.
CAVUTO: Senator, do you want to respond?
CRUZ: Well, listen, I've spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the U.S. Supreme Court. And I'll tell you, I'm not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump.
TRUMP: You don't have to. Take it from Lawrence Tribe.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Take it from your professors...
(CROSSTALK)
CRUZ: The chances of any litigation proceeding and succeeding on this are zero. And Mr. Trump is very focused...
TRUMP: He's wrong. He's wrong.
CRUZ: ... on Larry Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is. He's a left-wing judicial activist, Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore's lawyer in Bush versus Gore. He's a major Hillary Clinton supporter. And there's a reason why Hillary's supporters are echoing Donald's attacks on me, because Hillary...
TRUMP: He is not the only one.
CRUZ: ... wants to face Donald Trump in the general election.
TRUMP: There are many lawyers.
CRUZ: And I'll tell you what, Donald, you -- you very kindly just a moment ago offered me the V.P. slot.
(LAUGHTER) I'll tell you what. If this all works out, I'm happy to consider naming you as V.P. So if you happen to be right, you could get the top job at the end of the day.
TRUMP: No -- no...
(LAUGHTER)
... I think if it doesn't...
(APPLAUSE)
I like that. I like it. I'd consider it. But I think I'll go back to building buildings if it doesn't work out.
CRUZ: Actually, I'd love to get you to build a wall.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: I have a feeling it's going to work out, actually.
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: Let me (inaudible). I was invoked in that question, so let me just say -- in that answer -- let me say, the real question here, I hate to interrupt this episode of Court TV.
(LAUGHTER)
But the real -- but I think we have to get back to what this election has to be about. OK? Listen, we -- this is the greatest country in the history of mankind. But in 2008, we elected a president that didn't want to fix America. He wants to change America. We elected a president that doesn't believe in the Constitution. He undermines it. We elected a president that is weakening America on the global stage. We elected a president that doesn't believe in the free enterprise system.
This election has to be about reversing all of that damage. That's why I'm running for office because when I become president of the United States, on my first day in office we are going to repeal every single one of his unconstitutional executive orders. When I'm president of the United States we are getting rid of Obamacare and we are rebuilding our military. And when I'm president, we're not just going to have a president that gives a State of the Union and says America is the greatest country in the world. When I'm president, we're going to have a president that acts like it.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, senator.
BARTIROMO: Mr. Trump, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley in her response to the State of the Union address
(APPLAUSE)
BARITROMO: appeared to choose sides within the party, saying Republicans should resist, quote, "the siren call of the angriest voices". She confirmed, she was referring to you among others. Was she out of line? And, how would a President Trump unite the party?
TRUMP: Okay. First of all, Nikki this afternoon said I'm a friend of hers. Actually a close friend. And wherever you are sitting Nikki, I'm a friend. We're friends. That's good.
(LAUGHTER)
But she did say there was anger. And I could say, oh, I'm not angry. I'm very angry because our country is being run horribly and I will gladly accept the mantle of anger. Our military is a disaster.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Our healthcare is a horror show. Obamacare, we're going to repeal it and replace it. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people. And yes, I am angry.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And I won't be angry when we fix it, but until we fix it, I'm very, very angry. And I say that to Nikki. So when Nikki said that, I wasn't offended. She said the truth.
One of your colleagues interviewed me. And said, well, she said you were angry and I said to myself, huh, she's right. I'm not fighting that. I didn't find it offensive at all. I'm angry because our country is a mess.
(APPLAUSE)
BARITROMO: But what are you going to do about it?
CAVUTO: Marco Rubio. I'm sorry, it's the time constraints. You and Governor Christie have been exchanging some fairly nasty words of late, and I will allow the governor to respond as well.
The governor went so far to say, you won't be able to slime your way to the White House. He's referring to a series of ads done by a PAC, speaking on your behalf, that say quote,"One high tax, Common Core, liberal, energy-loving, Obamacare, Medicaid-expanding president is enough. You think you went too far on that and do you want to apologize to the governor?
RUBIO: You know, as I said already twice in this debate, we have a very serious problem in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: We have a president of the United States that is undermining this country's security and expanding the role of...
CAVUTO: That is not my question.
RUBIO: Well, I am going to answer your question, Neil. He is -- this president is undermining the constitutional basis of this government. This president is undermining our military. He is undermining our standing in the world. I like Chris Christie, but we can not afford to have a president of the United States that supports Common Core.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: We can not afford to have a president of the United States that supports gun control. This president, this president is more interested in funding -- less interested in funding the military, than he is in funding planned -- he's more interested in funding Planned Parenthood than he is in funding the military.
Chris Christie wrote a check to Planned Parenthood. All I'm saying is our next president has to be someone that undoes the damage Barack Obama has done to this country. It can not be someone that agrees with his agenda.
Because the damage he has done to America is extraordinary. Let me tell you, if we don't get this election right, there may be no turning back for America. We're on the verge of being the first generation of Americans that leave our children worse off than ourselves.
So I just truly, with all my heart belief, I like everybody on the stage. No one is a socialist. No one here is under FBI investigation. So we have a good group of people.
CAVUTO: Is he a liberal?
RUBIO: Our next president...
CAVUTO: Is he a liberal?
RUBIO: Unfortunately, Governor Christie has endorsed many of the ideas that Barack Obama supports, whether it is Common Core or gun control or the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor or the donation he made to Planned Parenthood. Our next president, and our Republican nominee can not be someone who supports those positions.
CAVUTO: Governor?
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: I stood on the stage and watched Marco in rather indignantly, look at Governor Bush and say, someone told you that because we're running for the same office, that criticizing me will get you to that office.
It appears that the same someone who has been whispering in old Marco's ear too.
(LAUGHTER)
So the indignation that you carry on, some of the stuff, you have to also own then. So let's set the facts straight. First of all, I didn't support Sonia Sotomayor. Secondly, I never wrote a check to Planned Parenthood.
Third, if you look at my record as governor of New Jersey, I have vetoed a 50-caliber rifle ban. I have vetoed a reduction this clip size. I vetoed a statewide I.D. system for gun owners and I pardoned, six out-of-state folks who came through our state and were arrested for owning a gun legally in another state so they never have to face charges.
And on Common Core, Common Core has been eliminated in New Jersey. So listen, this is the difference between being a governor and a senator. See when you're a senator, what you get to do is just talk and talk and talk. And you talk so much that nobody can ever keep up with what you're saying is accurate or not.
When you're a governor, you're held accountable for everything you do. And the people of New Jersey, I've seen it.
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: And the last piece is this. I like Marco too, and two years ago, he called me a conservative reformer that New Jersey needed. That was before he was running against me. Now that he is, he's changed his tune.
I'm never going to change my tune. I like Marco Rubio. He's a good guy, a smart guy, and he would be a heck of a lot better president than Hillary Rodham Clinton would ever be.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Neil, my name was mentioned here. Neil, my name was mentioned as well.
Here's the deal, Chris is totally right. He's been a good governor, and he's a heck of a lot better than his predecessor that would have bankrupted New Jersey.
Everybody on this stage is better than Hillary Clinton. And I think the focus ought to be on making sure that we leave this nomination process, as wild and woolly as it's going to be -- this is not being bad.
These attack ads are going to be part of life. Everybody just needs to get used to it. Everybody's record's going to be scrutinized, and at the end of the day we need to unite behind the winner so we can defeat Hillary Clinton, because she is a disaster.
(APPLAUSE)
Our country rise up again, but we need to have a compelling conservative agenda that we present to the American people in a way that doesn't disparage people, that unites us around our common purpose.
And so everybody needs to discount some of the things you're going to hear in these ads, and discount the -- the back-and-forth here, because every person here is better than Hillary Clinton.
CARSON: Neil, I was mentioned too.
CAVUTO: You were?
CARSON: Yeah, he said everybody. (LAUGHTER)
And -- and I just want to take this opportunity to say, you know, in the 2012 election, you know, we -- and when I say we, Republicans -- tore themselves apart.
You know, we have to stop this because, you know, if we manage to damage ourselves, and we lose the next election, and a progressive gets in there and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, this nation is over as we know it. And we got to look at the big picture here.
BARTIROMO: Governor Kasich...
(APPLAUSE)
... Governor Kasich, Hillary Clinton is getting some serious competition from Senator Bernie Sanders. He's now at 41 percent in the latest CBS/New York Times poll. Vice President Biden sang his praises, saying Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real, and he has credibility on it.
So what does it say about our country that a candidate who is a self-avowed socialist and who doesn't think a 90 percent tax rate is too high could be the Democratic nominee?
KASICH: Well, if that's the case, we're going to win every state, if Bernie Sanders is the nominee. That's not even an issue. But look...
(APPLAUSE)
... and I know Bernie, and I can promise you he's not going to be president of the United States. So here's this -- the situation, I think, Maria.
And this is what we have to -- I -- I've got to tell you, when wages don't rise -- and they haven't for a lot of families for a number of years -- it's very, very difficult for them.
Part of the reason why it hasn't risen because sometimes we're not giving people the skills they need. Sometimes it's because the Federal Reserve kept interest rates so low that the wealthy were able to invest in -- in strong assets like the stock market when everybody else was left behind.
People are upset about it. I'll tell you what else they're upset about: you're 50 or 51 years old, and some kid walks in and tells you you're out of work, and you don't know where to go and where to turn. Do we have answer for that? We do. There are ways to retrain the 50 and 51-year-olds, because they've got great value.
I'll tell you what else people are concerned about. Their kids come out of college, they have high debt and they can't get a good job. We got to do a lot about the high cost of high -- higher education, but we've got to make sure we're training people for jobs that exist, that are good jobs that can pay.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me tell you that, in this country -- in this country, people are concerned about their economic future. They're very concerned about it. And they wonder whether somebody is getting something to -- keeping them from getting it.
That's not the America that I've ever known. My father used to say, "Johnny, we never -- we don't hate the rich. We just want to be the rich." And we just got to make sure that every American has the tools, in K-through-12 and in vocational education, in higher education.
And we got to fight like crazy so people can think the American dream still exists, because it does, with rising wages, with full employment and with everybody in America -- and I mean everybody in America -- having an opportunity to realize the American dream of having a better life than their mother and their father.
I'm president -- look, I've done it once. I've done it once in Washington, with great jobs and lower taxes. The economy was really booming.
And now in Ohio, with the same formula, wages higher than the -- than the national average. A growth of 385,000 jobs.
(BELL RINGS)
It's not that hard. Just know where you want to go, stick to your guts. Get it done, because our -- our children and grandchildren are counting on us to get it done. And, folks, we will. You count on it.
BARTIROMO: Dr. Carson, one of the other candidates on this stage has brought Bill Clinton's past indiscretions. Is that a legitimate topic in this election? And what do you think of the notion that Hillary Clinton is an enabler of sexual misconduct?
CARSON: Well, there's not question that we should be able to look at past president whether they're married to somebody who's running for president or not in terms of their past behavior and what it means. But you know, here's the real issue, is this America anymore? Do we still have standards? Do we still have values and principles?
You know, you look at what's going on, you see all the divisiveness and the hatred that goes on in our society. You know, we have a war on virtual everything -- race wars, gender wars, income wars, religious wars, age wars. Every war you can imaging, we have people at each other's throat and our strength is actually in our unity.
You know, you go to the internet, you start reading an article and you go to the comments section -- you cannot go five comments down before people are calling each all manner of names. Where did that spirit come from in America? It did not come from our Judeo-Christian roots, I can tell you that. And wherever it came from we need to start once again recognizing that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And let's not let the secular progressives drive that out of us.
The majority of people in American actually have values and principles and they believe in the very things that made America great. They've been beaten into submission. It's time for us to stand up for what we believe in.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Well, we are not done. Coming up, one of the top things people are talking about on Facebook, guns. And you can join us live us on this stage in the conversation during this commercial break right from home. You can go to Facebook.com/(inaudible). We will be streaming live and talking about how we think the debate is going so far.
CAVUTO: We're back in a moment in Charleston, South Carolina.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back to the Republican presidential debates, right here in North Charleston. Let's get right back to the questions.
Governor Bush, gun rights, one of the top issues seen on Facebook with close to 3 million people talking about it in the past month. Right here in Charleston, Dylann Roof, who has been accused of killing nine people in a nearby church, reportedly had not passed his background check when he got his gun. What is the harm in tightening standards for not only who buys guns, but those who sell them?
BUSH: First of all, I'd like to recognize Governor Haley for her incredible leadership in the aftermath of the --
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: The Emanuel AME church killings. And I also want to recognize the people in that church that showed the grace of God and the grace of forgiveness and the mercy that they showed.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: I don't know if any of us could have done what they did, one after another, within 48 hours of that tragedy taking place. Look, here's the deal, in this particular case, the FBI made a mistake. The law itself requires a background check, but that didn't fulfill their part of the bargain within the time that they were supposed to do.
We don't need to add new rules, we need to make sure the FBI does its job. Because that person should not have gotten a gun, should not -- would not have passed a background check. The first impulse of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is to take rights away from law- abiding citizens.
That's what they do, whether it's the San Bernardino attack or if it's these tragedies that take place, I think we need to focus on what the bigger issue is. It isn't law-abiding gun owners.
Look, I have an A plus rating in the NRA and we also have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while.
And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities. Target the efforts for people that are committing crimes with guns, and if you do that, and get it right, you're going to be much better off than creating a political argument where there's a big divide.
The other issue is mental health. That's a serious issue that we could work on. Republicans and Democrats alike believe this.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: The president's first impulse is do this by executive order, power he doesn't have. Why not go to Congress and in a bipartisan way, begin to deal with the process of mental health issues so that people that are spiraling out of control because of mental health challenges don't have access to guns.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Trump, are there any circumstances that you think we should be limiting gun sales of any kind in America?
TRUMP: No. I am a 2nd amendment person. If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now.
If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct.
We have a huge mental health problem in this country. We're closing hospitals, we're closing wards, we're closing so many because the states want to save money. We have to get back into looking at what's causing it. The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger and we have to find out what is going on.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: We have to protect our 2nd amendment and you cannot do this and certainly what Barack Obama was doing with the executive order. He doesn't want to get people together, the old-fashioned way, where you get Congress. You get the Congress, you get the Senate, you get together, you do legislation. He just writes out an executive order. Not supposed to happen that way.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you sir.
XXX where you get Congress.
TRUMP: You get the Congress. You get the Senate. You get together. You do legislation. He just writes out an order, executive order. It's not supposed to happen that way.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Senator Rubio, you said that President Obama wants to take people's guns away. Yet under his presidency, gun sales have more than doubled. That doesn't sound like a White House unfriendly to gun owners.
RUBIO: That sounds like people are afraid the president's going to take their guns away.
(APPLAUSE)
Look, the Second Amendment is not an option. It is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right of every American to be able to protect themselves and their families. I am convinced that if this president could confiscate every gun in America, he would. I am convinced that this president, if he could get rid of the Second Amendment, he would. I am convinced because I see how he works with his attorney general, not to defend the Second Amendment, but to figure out ways to undermine it.
I have seen him appoint people to our courts not to defend the Second Amendment, but to figure out ways to undermine it.
Here's my second problem. None of these instances that the president points to as the reason why he's doing these things would have been preventive. You know why? Because criminals don't buy their guns from a gun show. They don't buy their guns from a collector. And they don't buy their guns from a gun store. They get -- they steal them. They get them on the black market.
And let me tell you, ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns from a gun show. These...
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
... his answer -- you name it. If there's an act of violence in America, his immediate answer before he even knows the facts is gun control. Here's a fact. We are in a war against ISIS. They are trying to attack us here in America. They attacked us in Philadelphia last week. They attacked us in San Bernardino two weeks ago. And the last line standing between them and our families might be us and a gun.
When I'm president of the United States, we are defending the Second Amendment, not undermining it the way Barack Obama does.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: But what fact can you point to, Senator -- what fact can you point to that the president would take away everyone's gun? You don't think that's (inaudible)?
RUBIO: About every two weeks, he holds a press conference talking about how he can't wait to restrict people's access to guns. He has never defended...
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: I'll give you a fact. Well, let me tell you this. Do you remember when he ran for president of the United States, and he was a candidate, and he went and said, "These Americans with traditional values, they are bitter people, and they cling to their guns and to their religion." That tells you right away where he was headed on all of this.
This president every chance he has ever gotten has tried to undermine the Second Amendment.
(APPLAUSE)
He doesn't meet -- here's the difference. When he meets with the attorney general in the White House, it's not "how can we protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans." It's "give me options on how I can make it harder for law-abiding people to buy guns." That will never happen when I am president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Christie, you, too, have criticized the president's recent executive action on gun control, saying it's unconstitutional, another step to bypass Congress. But hasn't your own position on guns evolved, sir? The New Jersey Star-Ledger reports that you signed several laws to regulate the possession of firearms, and that you argued back in August 2013, and I quote, "These common sense measures will strengthen New Jersey's already tough gun laws."
So isn't that kind of what the president wants to do now?
CHRISTIE: No, absolutely not. The president wants to do things without working with his Congress, without working with the legislature, and without getting the consent of the American people. And the fact is that that's not a democracy. That's a dictatorship. And we need to very, very concerned about that.
See, here's the thing. I don't think the founders put the Second Amendment as number two by accident. I don't think they dropped all the amendments into a hat and picked them out of a hat. I think they made the Second Amendment the second amendment because they thought it was just that important.
The fact is in New Jersey, what we have done is to make it easier now to get a conceal and carry permit. We have made it easier to do that, not harder. And the way we've done it properly through regulatory action, not buy signing unconstitutional executive orders. This guy is a petulant child. That's what he is. I mean, you know...
(APPLAUSE)
... the fact is, Neil, let's think about -- let's think about -- and I want to maybe -- I hope the president is watching tonight, because here's what I'd like to tell him.
Mr. President, we're not against you. We're against your policies. When you became president, you had a Democratic Congress and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. You had only 21 Republican governors in this country. And now after seven years of your policies, we have the biggest majority we've had since the 1920s in the House; a Republican majority in the Senate; and 31 out of 50 Republican governors.
The American people have rejected your agenda and now you're trying to go around it. That's not right. It's not constitutional. And we are going to kick your rear end out of the White House come this fall.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: So what is the answer, Senator Cruz, to stop mass shootings and violent crime, up in 30 cities across the country?
CRUZ: The answer is simple. Your prosecute criminals. You target the bad guys. You know, a minute ago, Neil asked: What has President Obama do -- done to illustrate that he wants to go after guns?
Well, he appointed Eric Holder as attorney general. Eric Holder said he viewed his mission as brainwashing the American people against guns. He appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, someone who has been a radical against the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
He launched Fast and Furious, illegally selling guns to Mexican drug lords that were then used to shoot law enforcement officials. And I'll tell you what Hillary Clinton has said: Hillary Clinton says she agrees with the dissenters -- the Supreme Court dissenters in the Heller case.
There were four dissenters, and they said that they believe the Second Amendment protects no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever, which means, if their view prevailed and the next president's going to get one, two, three, maybe four Supreme Court justices, the court will rule that not a single person in this room has any right under the Second Amendment and the government could confiscate your guns.
And I'll note that California senator -- Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said, if she could say to Mr. America and Mrs. America, "give me your guns, I'm rounding them up," she would.
And let me make a final point on this. Listen, in any Republican primary, everyone is going to say they support the Second Amendment. Unless you are clinically insane...
(LAUGHTER)
... that's what you say in a primary. But the voters are savvier than that. They recognize that people's actions don't always match their words. I've got a proven record fighting to defend the Second Amendment.
There's a reason Gun Owners of America has endorsed me in this race. There's a reason the NRA gave me their Carter Knight Freedom Fund award...
(BELL RINGS) ... and there's a reason, when Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer came after our right to keep and bear arms, that I led the opposition, along with millions of Americans -- we defeated that gun control legislation.
And I would note the other individuals on this stage were nowhere to be found in that fight.
BARTIROMO: Senator...
(APPLAUSE)
... let me follow up and switch gears.
Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, "embodies New York values." Could you explain what you mean by that?
CRUZ: You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: I am from New York. I don't.
CRUZ: What -- what -- you're from New York? So you might not.
(LAUGHTER)
But I promise you, in the state of South Carolina, they do.
(APPLAUSE)
And listen, there are many, many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of New York. But everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.
And -- and I would note indeed, the reason I said that is I was asked -- my friend Donald has taken to it as (ph) advance playing Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA", and I was asked what I thought of that.
And I said, "well, if he wanted to play a song, maybe he could play, 'New York, New York'?" And -- and -- you know, the concept of New York values is not that complicated to figure out.
Not too many years ago, Donald did a long interview with Tim Russert. And in that interview, he explained his views on a whole host of issues that were very, very different from the views he's describing now.
And his explanation -- he said, "look, I'm from New York, that's what we believe in New York. Those aren't Iowa values, but this is what we believe in New York." And so that was his explanation.
And -- and I guess I can -- can frame it another way. Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I'm just saying.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: Are you sure about that?
CAVUTO: Maria...
TRUMP: So conservatives actually do come out of Manhattan, including William F. Buckley and others, just so you understand.
(APPLAUSE)
And just so -- if I could, because he insulted a lot of people. I've had more calls on that statement that Ted made -- New York is a great place. It's got great people, it's got loving people, wonderful people.
When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York. You had two one hundred...
(APPLAUSE)
... you had two 110-story buildings come crashing down. I saw them come down. Thousands of people killed, and the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup, probably in the history of doing this, and in construction. I was down there, and I've never seen anything like it.
And the people in New York fought and fought and fought, and we saw more death, and even the smell of death -- nobody understood it. And it was with us for months, the smell, the air.
TRUMP: And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers. And I have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor bush, for the third time in as many months, the Iranians have provoked us, detaining us, as we've been discussing, with these 10 Navy sailors Tehran had said strayed into their waters. The sailors were released, but only after shown on video apologizing for the incident. This occurring only weeks after Iran fired multiple rockets within 1,500 yards of a U.S. aircraft carrier and then continued to test medium range missiles.
Now you've claimed that such actions indicate Tehran has little to fear from a President Obama. I wonder, sir, what would change if they continued doing this sort of thing under a President Jeb Bush?
BUSH: Well, first of all, under President Jeb Bush, we would restore the strength of the military. Last week, Secretary Carter announced that the Navy's going to be cut again. It's now half the size of what it was prior to Operation Desert Storm.
The deployments are too high for the military personnel. We don't have procurement being done for refreshing the equipment. The B-52 is still operational as the long range bomber; it was inaugurated in the age of Harry Truman. The planes are older than the pilots. We're gutting our military, and so the Iranians and the Chinese and the Russians and many other countries look at the United States not as serious as we once were.
We have to eliminate the sequester, rebuild our military in a way that makes it clear that we're back in the game.
Secondly, as it relates to Iran, we need to confront their ambitions across the board. We should reimpose sanctions, they've already violated sanctions after this agreement was signed by testing medium-range missiles.
Thirdly, we need to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to send a serious signal that we're back in the game with Israel --
(APPLAUSE)
... and sign an agreement that makes sure that the world knows that they will have technological superiority.
We need to get back in the game as it relates to our Arab nations. The rest of the world is moving away from us towards other alliances because we are weak. This president and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all have made it harder for the next president to act, but he must act to confront the ambitions of Iran. We can get back in the game to restore order and security for our own country.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Thank you, Governor. Governor Kasich, while everyone has been focusing on Iran's provocations, I'm wondering what you make of what Saudi Arabia has been doing and its recent moves in the region, including its execution of a well-known Shi'ite cleric and its move to dramatically increase oil production, some say in an effort to drive down oil prices and force a lot of U.S. oil producers out of business.
Sure enough, oil prices have tumbled. One brokerage house is predicting a third or more of American oil producers and those heavily invested in fracking will go bankrupt, and soon Saudi Arabia and OPEC will be back in the driver's seat.
U.S. energy player Harold Hamrie similarly told me with friends like these, who needs enemies? Do you agree?
KASICH: Well, let me -- let me first of all talk a little bit about my experience. I served on the Defense Committee for 18 years, and by the way, one of the members of that committee was Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina. Let em also tell you...
(APPLAUSE)
... that after the 9/11 attacks, Secretary Rumsfeld invited me to the Pentagon with a meeting of the former secretaries of Defense. And in that meeting, I suggested we had a problem with technology, and that I wanted to take people from Silicon Valley into the Pentagon to solve our most significant problems. So I not only had the opportunity to go through the Cold War struggles in Central America, and even after 9/11 to be involved.
With Saudi Arabia and oil production, first of all, it's so critical for us to be energy independent, and we're getting there because of fracking and we ought to explore because, see, energy independence gives us leverage and flexibility, and secondly, if you want to bring jobs back to the United States of America in industry, low prices make the difference.
We're seeing it in my state and we'll see it in this country. And that's why we must make sure we continue to frack.
In terms of Saudi Arabia, look, my biggest problem with them is they're funding radical clerics through their madrasses. That is a bad deal and an evil situation, and presidents have looked the other way. And I was going to tell you, whether I'm president or not, we better make it clear to the Saudis that we're going to support you, we're in relation with you just like we were in the first Gulf War, but you've got to knock off the funding and teaching of radical clerics who are the very people who try to destroy us and will turn around and destroy them.
(APPLAUSE)
KASICH: So look, in foreign policy -- in foreign policy, it's strength, but you've got to be cool. You've got to have a clear vision of where you want to go. And I'm going to tell you, that it -- I'm going to suggest to you here tonight, that you can't do on the job training.
I've seen so much of it - a Soviet Union, the coming down of a wall, the issues that we saw around the world in Central America, the potential spread of communism, and 9/11 and Gulf War. You see what the Saudi's -- deliver them a strong message but at the end of the day we have to keep our cool because most of the time they're going right with us. And they must be part of our coalition to destroy ISIS and I believe we can get that done.
Thank you.
CAVUTO: Thank you John.
BARTIROMO: There's much more ahead including the fight against ISIS. More from Charleston, South Carolina when we come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: We welcome back to the Republican Presidential Debate, right back to the questions.
Candidates, the man who made fighting ISIS the cornerstone of his campaign, South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham is out the race but he joins us tonight in the audience.
(APPLAUSE)
He says, "the air-strike now in their 16th month have been ineffective." Dr. Carson ...
CARSON: Wait a minute, who in their 16th month?
BARTIROMO: The air-strikes.
CARSON: OK.
BARTIROMO: Now in their 16th month are ineffective. Dr. Carson, do you think Senator Graham is right in wanting to send 20,000 troops -- ground troops to Iraq and Syria to take out ISIS?
CARSON: Well, there's no question that ISIS is a very serious problem, and I don't believe that this administration recognizes how serious it is.
I think we need to do a lot more than we're doing. Recognize that the caliphate is what gives them the legitimacy to go out on a jihadist mission, so we need to take that away from them.
The way to take that away from them is to talk to our military officials and ask them, "what do you need in order to accomplish this goal?"
Our decision is, then, do we give them what we need. I say, yes, not only do we give them what they need, but we don't tie their hands behind their backs so that they can go ahead and get the job done.
In addition to that...
(APPLAUSE)
... in addition to that, we go ahead and we take the oil from them, their source of revenue. You know, some of these -- these engagement rules that the administration has -- "we're not going to bomb a tanker that's coming out of there because there might be a person in it" -- give me a break.
Just tell them that, you put people in there, we're going to bomb them. So don't put people in there if you don't want them bombed. You know, that's so simple.
(APPLAUSE)
And then we need to shut down -- we need to shut down their mechanisms of funding and attack their command-and-control centers. Why should we let their people be sitting there smoking their cigars, sitting in their comfortable chairs in Raqqa?
We know (ph) to go ahead and shut off the supply routes, and send in our special ops at 2:00 a.m. and attack them everywhere they go. They should be running all the time, then they won't have time to plan attacks against us.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir. Senator Graham has also said that the U.S. will find Arab support for its coalition if it removes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. And I quote, "The now king of Saudi Arabia told us, 'you can have our army, you just got to deal with Assad.'
"The emir of Qatar said, 'I'll pay for the operation, but they are not going to fight ISIS and let Damascus fall into the hands of the Iranians. Assad has to go.'"
Governor Christie, how important is it to remove Assad from power and how would you do it?
CHRISTIE: Maria, you look at what this president and his secretary of state, Secretary of State Clinton, has done to get us in this spot. You think about it -- this is the president who said, along with his secretary of state -- drew a red line in Syria, said, if Assad uses chemical weapons against his people, that we're going to attack.
He used chemical weapons, he's killed, now, over a quarter of a million of his own people, and this president has done nothing. In fact, he's done worse than nothing.
This president -- and, by the way, Secretary Clinton, who called Assad a reformer -- she called Assad a reformer. Now, the fact is, what this president has done is invited Russia to play an even bigger role, bring in Vladimir Putin to negotiate getting those chemical weapons back from Assad, yet what do we have today?
We have the Russians and the Iranians working together, not to fight ISIS, but to prop up Assad. The fact of the matter is we're not going to have peace -- we are not going to have peace in Syria. We're not going to be able to rebuild it unless we put a no-fly zone there, make it safe for those folks so we don't have to be talking about Syrian refugees anymore.
The Syrians should stay in Syria. They shouldn't be going to Europe. And here's the last piece...
(APPLAUSE)
... you're not going to have peace in Syria with Assad in charge. You're simply not. And so Senator Graham is right about this.
And if we want to try to rebuild the coalition, as Governor Kasich was saying before, then what we better do is to get to the Arab countries that believe that ISIS is a threat, not only to them, but to us and to world peace, and bring them together.
And believe me, Assad is not worth it. And if you're going to leave this to Hillary Clinton, the person who gave us this foreign policy, the architect of it, and you're going to give her another four years, that's why I'm speaking out as strongly as I am about that.
Hillary Clinton cannot be president. It will lead to even greater war in this world. And remember this, after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had nearly 8 years, we have fewer democracies in the world than we had when they started.
That makes the world less peaceful, less safe. In my administration, we will help to make sure we bring people together in the Middle East, and we will fight ISIS and defeat them.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Trump -- Mr. Trump, your comments about banning Muslims from entering the country created a firestorm. According to Facebook, it was the most-talked-about moment online of your entire campaign, with more than 10 million people talking about the issue.
Is there anything you've heard that makes you want to rethink this position?
TRUMP: No.
(LAUGHTER)
No.
(APPLAUSE)
Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that's not going to have the kind of problems that we've had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers, with the -- with the shootings in California, with all the problems all over the world.
TRUMP: I just left Indonesia -- bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.
We have to find out what's going on. I said temporarily. I didn't say permanently. I said temporarily. And I have many great Muslim friends. And some of them, I will say, not all, have called me and said, "Donald, thank you very much; you're exposing an unbelievable problem and we have to get to the bottom of it."
And unlike President Obama, where he refuses even to use the term of what's going on, he can't use the term for whatever reason. And if you can't use the term, you're never going to solve the problem. My Muslim friends, some, said, "thank you very much; we'll get to the bottom of it."
But we have a serious problem. And we can't be the stupid country any more. We're laughed at all over the world.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Donald, Donald -- can I -- I hope you reconsider this, because this policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS. The Kurds are our strongest allies. They're Muslim. You're not going to even allow them to come to our country?
The other Arab countries have a role to play in this. We cannot be the world's policeman. We can't do this unilaterally. We have to do this in unison with the Arab world. And sending that signal makes it impossible for us to be serious about taking out ISIS and restoring democracy in Syria.
(APPLAUSE)
So I hope you'll reconsider. I hope you'll reconsider. The better way of dealing with this -- the better way of dealing with this is recognizing that there are people in, you know, the -- Islamic terrorists inside, embedded in refugee populations.
What we ought to do is tighten up our efforts to deal with the entry visa program so that a citizen from Europe, it's harder if they've been traveling to Syria or traveling to these other places where there is Islamic terrorism, make it harder -- make the screening take place.
We don't have to have refugees come to our country, but all Muslims, seriously? What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world that the United States is a serious player in creating peace and security?
CAVUTO: But you said -- you said that he made those comments and they represented him being unhinged after he made them.
BUSH: Yeah, they are unhinged.
CAVUTO: Well -- well, after he made them...
(APPLAUSE)
... his poll numbers went up eight points in South Carolina. Now -- now, wait...
TRUMP: Eleven points, to be exact.
CAVUTO: Are you -- are you saying -- are you saying that all those people who agree with Mr. Trump are unhinged?
BUSH: No, not at all, absolutely not. I can see why people are angry and scared, because this president has created a condition where our national security has weakened dramatically. I totally get that. But we're running for the presidency of the United States here. This isn't -- this isn't, you know, a different kind of job. You have to lead. You cannot make rash statements and expect the rest of the world to respond as though, well, it's just politics.
Every time we send signals like this, we send a signal of weakness, not strength. And so it was (inaudible) his statement, which is why I'm asking him to consider changing his views.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I want security for this country. OK?
(APPLAUSE)
I want security. I'm tired of seeing what's going on, between the border where the people flow over; people come in; they live; they shoot. I want security for this country. We have a serious problem with, as you know, with radical Islam. We have a tremendous problem. It's not only a problem here. It's a problem all over the world.
I want to find out why those two young people -- those two horrible young people in California when they shot the 14 people, killed them -- people they knew, people that held the wedding reception for them. I want to find out -- many people saw pipe bombs and all sorts of things all over their apartment. Why weren't they vigilant? Why didn't they call? Why didn't they call the police?
And by the way, the police are the most mistreated people in this country. I will tell you that.
(APPLAUSE)
The most mistreated people. In fact, we need to -- wait a minute -- we need vigilance. We have to find out -- many people knew about what was going on. Why didn't they turn those two people in so that you wouldn't have had all the death?
There's something going on and it's bad. And I'm saying we have to get to the bottom of it. That's all I'm saying. We need security.
BARTIROMO: We -- we want to hear from all of you on this. According to Pew Research, the U.S. admits more than 100,000 Muslim immigrants every single year on a permanent lifetime basis. I want to ask the rest of you to comment on this. Do you agree that we should pause Muslim immigration until we get a better handle on our homeland security situation, as Mr. Trump has said?
Beginning with you, Governor Kasich.
KASICH: I -- I've been for pausing on admitting the Syrian refugees. And the reasons why I've done is I don't believe we have a good process of being able to vet them. But you know, we don't want to put everybody in the same category.
KASICH: And I'll go back to something that had been mentioned just a few minutes ago. If we're going to have a coalition, we're going to have to have a coalition not just of people in the western part of the world, our European allies, but we need the Saudis, we need the Egyptians, we need the Jordanians, we need the Gulf states. We need Jordan.
We need all of them to be part of exactly what the first George Bush put together in the first Gulf War.
(BELL RINGS)
It was a coalition made up of Arabs and Americans and westerners and we're going to need it again. And if we try to put everybody in the same -- call everybody the same thing, we can't do it. And that's just not acceptable.
But I think a pause on Syrian refugees has been exactly right for all the governors that have called for it, and also, of course, for me as the governor of Ohio.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir, we want to hear from the rest of you,
Governor Christie, your take.
CHRISTIE: Now Maria, listen. I said right from the beginning that we should take no Syrian refugees of any kind. And the reason I said that is because the FBI director told the American people, told Congress, that he could not guarantee he could vet them and it would be safe. That's the end of the conversation.
I can tell you, after spending seven years as a former federal prosecutor, right after 9/11, dealing with this issue. Here's the way you need to deal with it. You can't just ban all Muslims. You have to ban radical Islamic jihadists. You have to ban the people who are trying to hurt us.
The only way to figure that out is to go back to getting the intelligence community the funding and the tools that it needs to be able to keep America safe.
(BELL RINGS)
And this summer, we didn't do that. We took it away from the NSA, it was a bad decision by the president. Bad by those in the Senate who voted for it and if I'm president, we'll make our intelligence community strong, and won't have to keep everybody out, we're just going to keep the bad folk out and make sure they don't harm us.
BARTIROMO: Senator Rubio, where do you stand?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, let's understand why we are even having this debate and why Donald tapped in to some of that anger that's out there about this whole issue. Because this president has consistently underestimated the threat of ISIS.
If you listen to the State of the Union the other night, he described them as a bunch of guys with long beards on the back of a pickup truck. They are much more than that. This is a group of people that enslaves women and sells them, sells them as brides.
This is a group of people that burns people in cages, that is conducting genocide against Christians and Yazidis and others in the region. This is not some small scale group.
They are radicalizing people in the United States, they are conducting attacks around the world. So you know what needs to happen, it's a very simple equation, and it's going to happen when I'm president. If we do not know who you are, and we do not know why you are coming when I am president, you are not getting into the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, where do you stand? Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: You know I understand why Donald made the comments he did and I understand why Americans are feeling frustrated and scared and angry when we have a president who refuses to acknowledge the threat we face and even worse, who acts as an apologist for radical Islamic terrorism.
I think what we need is a commander in chief who is focused like a laser on keeping this country safe and on defeating radical Islamic terrorism. What should we do? First, we should pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, legislation I've introduced that says if an American goes and joins ISIS and wages jihad against America, that you forfeit your citizenship and you can not come in on a passport.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: And secondly, we should pass the legislation that I've introduced...
(BELL RINGS)
... that suspends all refugees from nations that ISIS or Al Qaida controls significant territory. Just last week, we see saw two Iraqi refugees vetted using the same process the president says will work, that were arrested for being alleged ISIS terrorists.
If I'm elected president, we will not let in refugees from countries controlled by ISIS or Al Qaida. When it comes to ISIS, we will not weaken them, we will not degrade them, we will utterly and completely destroy ISIS
(APPLAUSE).
BARTIROMO: Dr. Carson, where do you stand? Do you agree with Mr. Trump?
CARSON: Well, first of all, recognize it is a substantial problem. But like all of our problems, there isn't a single one that can't be solved with common sense if you remove the ego and the politics. And clearly, what we need to do is get a group of experts together, including people from other countries, some of our friends from Israel, who have had experience screening these people and come up with new guidelines for immigration, and for visas, for people who are coming into this country.
That is the thing that obviously makes sense, we can do that. And as far as the Syrians are concerned, Al-Hasakah province, perfect place. They have infrastructure. All we need to do is protect them, they will be in their own country.
And that is what they told me when I was in Jordan in November. Let's listen to them and let's not listen to our politicians.
BARTIROMO: So, to be clear, the both of you do not agree with Mr. Trump?
BUSH: So, are we going to ban Muslims from India, from Indonesia, from countries that are strong allies -- that we need to build better relationships with? Of course not. What we need to do is destroy ISIS.
I laid out a plan at the Citadel to do just that and it starts with creating a "No Fly Zone" and "Safe Zones" to make sure refugees are there. We need to lead a force, a Sunni led force inside of Syria. We need to embed with -- with the Iraqi military. We need to arm the Kurds the directly. We need to re-establish the relationships with the Sunnis.
We need the lawyers(ph) off the back of the war fighters. That's how you solve the problem. You don't solve it by big talk where you're banning all Muslims and making it harder for us to build the kind of coalition for us to be successful.
BARTIROMO: Thank you governor.
CAVUTO: Mr. Trump, sometimes maybe in the heat of the campaign, you say things and you have to dial them back. Last week, the New York Times editorial board quoted as saying that you would oppose, "up to 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods."
TRUMP: That's wrong. They were wrong. It's the New York Times, they are always wrong.
CAVUTO: Well...
TRUMP: They were wrong.
CAVUTO: You never said because they provided that...
TRUMP: No, I said, " I would use -- " they were asking me what to do about North Korea. China, they don't like to tell us but they have total control -- just about, of North Korea. They can solve the problem of North Korea if they wanted to but they taunt us.
They say, " well, we don't really have control." Without China, North Korea doesn't even eat. China is ripping us on trade. They're devaluing their currency and they're killing our companies. Thousands of thousands -- you look at the number of companies and the number in terms of manufacturing of plans that we've lost -- 50,000 because of China.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: So they've never said to put a tariff on their... TRUMP: We've lost anywhere between four and seven million jobs because of China. What I said then was, "we have very unfair trade with China. We're going to have a trade deficit of 505 billion dollars this year with China." A lot of that is because they devalue their currency.
What I said to the New York Times, is that, "we have great power, economic power over China and if we wanted to use that and the amount -- where the 45 percent comes in, that would be the amount they saw their devaluations that we should get." That we should get.
What I'm saying is this, I'm saying that we do it but if they don't start treating us fairly and stop devaluing and let their currency rise so that our companies can compete and we don't lose all of these millions of jobs that we're losing, I would certainly start taxing goods that come in from China. Who the hell has to lose 505 billion dollars a year?
CAVUTO: I'm sorry, you lost me.
TRUMP: It's not that complicated actually.
CAVUTO: Then I apologize. Then I want to understand, if you don't want a 45 percent tariff, say that wasn't the figure, would you be open -- are you open to slapping a higher tariff on Chinese goods of any sort to go back at them?
TRUMP: OK, just so you understand -- I know so much about trading about with China. Carl Icon today as you know endorsed. Many businessmen want to endorse me.
CAVUTO: I know...
TRUMP: Carl said, "no, no -- " but he's somebody -- these are the kind of people that we should use to negotiate and not the China people that we have who are political hacks who don't know what they're doing and we have problems like this. If these are the kinds of people -- we should use our best and our finest.
Now, on that tariff -- here's what I'm saying, China -- they send their goods and we don't tax it -- they do whatever they want to do. They do whatever what they do, OK. When we do business with China, they tax us. You don't know it, they tax us.
I have many friends that deal with China. They can't -- when they order the product and when they finally get the product it is taxed. If you looking at what happened with Boeing and if you look at what happened with so many companies that deal -- so we don't have an equal playing field. I'm saying, absolutely, we don't have to continue to lose 505 billion dollars as a trade deficit for the privilege of dealing with China.
I'm a free trader. I believe in it but we have to be smart and we have to use smart people to negotiate. I have the largest bank in the world as a tenant of mine. I sell tens' of millions of (inaudible).
I love China. I love the Chinese people but they laugh themselves, they can't believe how stupid the American leadership is.
CAVUTO: So you're open to a tariff?
TRUMP: I'm totally open to a tariff. If they don't treat us fairly, hey, their whole trade is tariffed. You can't deal in China without tariffs. They do it to us, we don't it. It's not fair trade.
KASICH: Neil, Neil -- can I say one thing about this. I'm a free trader. I support NAFTA. I believe in the PTT because it's important those countries in Asia are interfacing against China. And we do need China -- Donald's right about North Korea.
I mean the fact is, is that they need to put the pressure on and frankly we need to intercepts ships coming out of North Korea so they don't proliferate all these dangerous materials. But what he's touching -- talking about, I think has got merit. And I'll allow putting that tariff or whatever he's saying here...
TRUMP: I'm happy to have him tonight...
(LAUGHTER)
KASICH: For too long -- no, for too long, what happens is somebody dumps their product in our country and take our people's jobs, and then we go to an international court and it takes them like a year or two to figure out whether they were cheating us. And guess what? The worker's out of a job.
So when they -- be found against that country that's selling products in here lower than the cost of what it takes to produce them, then what do we tell the worker? Oh, well, you know, it just didn't work out for you.
I think we should be for free trade but I think fair trade. And when countries violate trade agreements or dump product in this country, we need -- we need to stand up against those countries that do that without making them into an enemy.
And I want to just suggest to you. How do I know this? Because so many people in my family worked in steel mills, and they didn't work with a white collar, they worked in a blue collar. And the fact is those jobs are critical, they're hard working members of the middle class and they need to be paid attention to because they're Americans and they carry the load. So let's demand open trade but fair trade in this country. That's what I think we need to do.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: All right.
RUBIO: But on this point, if I may add something on this point. We are all frustrated with what China is doing. I think we need to be very careful with tariffs, and here's why.
China doesn't pay the tariff, the buyer pays the tariff. If you send a tie or a shirt made in China into the United States and an American goes to buy it at the store and there's a tariff on it, it gets passed on in the price to price to the consumer.
So I think the better approach, the best thing we can do to protect ourselves against China economically is to make our economy stronger, which means reversing course from all the damage Barack Obama is doing to this economy.
It begins with tax reform. Let's not have the most expensive business tax rate in the world. Let's allow companies to immediately expense.
(APPLAUSE)
It continues with regulatory reform. Regulations in this country are out of control, especially the Employment Prevention Agency, the EPA, and all of the rules they continue to impose on our economy and hurting us.
How about Obamacare, a certified job killer? It needs to be repealed and replaced. And we need to bring our debt under control, make our economy stronger. That is the way to deal with China at the end of the day.
TRUMP: Neil, the problem...
BARTIROMO: We're getting...
TRUMP: ... with what Marco is saying is that it takes too long, they're sucking us dry and it takes too long. It would just -- you absolutely have to get involved with China, they are taking so much of what we have in terms of jobs in terms of money. We just can't do it any longer.
CAVUTO: He is right. If you put a tariff on a good, it's Americans who pay.
BUSH: Absolutely.
TRUMP: You looking at me?
BUSH: Yeah.
BARTIROMO: Prices go higher for...
TRUMP: Can I tell you what? It will never happen because they'll let their currency go up. They're never going to let it happen.
Japan, the same thing. They are devaluing -- it's so impossible for -- you look at Caterpillar Tractor and what's happening with Caterpillar and Kamatsu (ph). Kamatsu (ph) is a tractor company in Japan. Friends of mine are ordering Kamatsu (ph) tractors now because they've de-valued the yen to such an extent that you can't buy a Caterpillar tractor. And we're letting them get away with it and we can't let them get away with it.
And that's why we have to use Carl (ph) and we have to use our great businesspeople and not political hacks to negotiate with these guys.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: Here's -- apart from the -- apart from the higher prices on consumers and people are living paycheck to paycheck, apart from that, there will be retaliation.
BARTIROMO: Yeah.
BUSH: So they soybean sales from Iowa, entire soybean production goes -- the equivalent of it goes to China. Or how about Boeing right here within a mile? Do you think that the Chinese, if they had a 45 percent tariff imposed on all their imports wouldn't retaliate and start buying Airbus? Of course, they would. This would be devastating for the economy. We need someone with a steady hand being president of the United States.
BARTIROMO: Real quick, Senator -- go ahead, Senator Cruz.
(APPLAUSE)
And then we have to get to tax reform.
TRUMP: And we don't need a weak person being president of the United State, OK? Because that's what we'd get if it were Jeb -- I tell you what, we don't need that.
AUDIENCE: Boo.
TRUMP: We don't need that. That's essentially what we have now, and we don't need that. And that's why we're in the trouble that we're in now. And by the way, Jeb you mentioned Boeing, take a look. They order planes, they make Boeing build their plant in China. They don't want them made here. They want those planes made in China.
BUSH: They're a mile away from here.
TRUMP: That's not the way the game is supposed to be played.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Governor Bush. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Very briefly.
BUSH: My name was mentioned. My name was mentioned here. The simple fact is that the plane that's being build here is being sold to China. You can -- if you -- you flew in with your 767, didn't you? Right there, right next to the plant.
TRUMP: No, the new planes. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about in the future they're building massive plants in China because China does not want Boeing building their planes here, they want them built in China, because China happens to be smart the way they do it, not the way we do it.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
BUSH: When you head back to airport tonight, go check and see what the...
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Mr. Trmup. Thank you, Governor.
TRUMP: I'll check for you.
BUSH: Check it out.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: Senator briefly.
CRUZ: Thanks for coming back to me, Maria. Both Donald and Jeb have good points, and there is a middle ground. Donald is right that China is running over President Obama like he is a child, President Obama is not protecting American workers and we are getting hammered.
CRUZ: You know, I sat down with the senior leadership of John Deere. They discussed how -- how hard it is to sell tractors in China, because all the regulatory barriers. They're protectionist.
But Jeb is also right that, if we just impose a tariff, they'll put reciprocal tariffs, which will hurt Iowa farmers and South Carolina producers and 20 percent of the American jobs that depend on exports.
So the way you do it is you pass a tax plan like the tax plan I've introduced: a simple flat tax, 10 percent for individuals, and a 16 percent business flat tax, you abolish the IRS...
(APPLAUSE)
... and here's the critical point, Maria -- the business flat tax enables us to abolish the corporate income tax, the death tax, the Obamacare taxes, the payroll taxes, and they're border-adjustable, so every export pays no taxes whatsoever.
It's tax-free -- a huge advantage for our farmers and ranchers and manufacturers -- and every import pays the 16 percent business flat tax. It's like a tariff, but here's the difference: if we impose a tariff, China responds.
The business flat tax, they already impose their taxes on us, so there's no reciprocal...
(BELL RINGS)
... tariffs that come against us. It puts us on a level, even playing field, which brings jobs here at home...
(UNKNOWN): Maria...
CRUZ: ... and as president, I'm going to fight for the working men and women.
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: We've got to get to tax reform, gentlemen. We've got to get to tax reform, and we've got to get to the...
(UNKNOWN): Yeah, but I want to talk about taxes.
BARTIROMO: ... we've got to get to the national debt as well. Coming up next, the growing national debt, the war on crime, tax reform. More from North Charleston, South Carolina, when we come right back.
COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back to the Republican presidential debate here in North Charleston. Right back to the questions.
(APPLAUSE)
Governor Christie, we have spoken much about cutting spending, given the $19 trillion debt. But according to one report, America needs $3.6 trillion in infrastructure spending by 2020.
Here in South Carolina, 11 percent of bridges are considered structurally deficient, costing drivers a billion dollars a year in auto repairs. What is your plan to fix the ailing roads and bridges without breaking the bank?
CHRISTIE: Well, I'm glad you asked that, Maria. Here's -- here's our plan. We've all been talking about tax reforms tonight, and paying for infrastructure is caught right up in tax reform.
If you reform the corporate tax system in this country, which, as was mentioned before, is the highest rate in the world -- and we double tax, as you know.
And what that's led to over $2 trillion of American companies' monies that are being kept offshore, because they don't want to pay the second tax. And who can blame them? They pay tax once overseas. They don't want to pay 35 percent tax on the way back.
So beside reforming that tax code, bringing it down to 25 percent and eliminating those special-interest loopholes that the lobbyists and the lawyers and the accountants have given -- bring that rate down to 25 percent, but also, a one-time repatriation of that money.
Bring the money -- the $2 trillion -- back to the United States. We'll tax it, that one time, at 8.75 percent, because 35 percent of zero is zero, but 8.75 percent of $2 trillion is a lot of money. And I would then dedicate that money to rebuilding infrastructure here in this country.
It would not necessitate us raising any taxes. It would bring the money back into the United States to help build jobs by American companies and get our economy moving again, and growing as a higher rate, and it would rebuild those roads and bridges and tunnels that you were talking about. And -- and -- and the last piece of this, Maria, is this. You know, the fact is that this president has penalized corporations in America. He's penalized -- and doesn't understand. In fact, what that hurts is hurt hardworking taxpayers.
You've seen middle-class wages go backwards $3,700 during the Obama administration. That's wrong for hardworking taxpayers in this country. We'd rebuild infrastructure that would also create jobs in this country, and we'd work with the states to do it the right way, to do it more efficiently and more effectively.
And remember this -- I'm credible on this for this reason: Americans for Tax Reform says that I've vetoed more tax increases than any governor in American history. We don't need to raise taxes to get this done.
We need to make the government run smarter and better, and reform this corporate tax system, bring that money back to the United States to build jobs and rebuild our infrastructure, and we need to use it also to protect our grid from terrorists.
All of those things are important, and all those things would happen in a Christie administration.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir. Dr. Carson...
(APPLAUSE)
... it is true U.S. companies have $2 trillion in cash sitting overseas right now. That could be used for investment and jobs in America.
Also, several companies right now are pursuing mergers to move their corporate headquarters abroad, and take advantage of much lower taxes. What will you do to stop the flow of companies building cash away from America, and those leaving America altogether?
CARSON: Well, I would suggest a fair tax system, and that's what we have proposed. A flat tax for everybody -- no exemptions, no deductions, no shelters, because some people have a better capability of taking advantage of those than others.
You know, and then the other thing we have to do is stop spending so much money. You know, I -- my -- my mother taught me this. You know, she only had a third-grade education, but -- you know, she knew how to stretch a dollar.
I mean, she would drive a car until it wouldn't make a sound, and then gather up all her coins and buy a new car. In fact, if my mother were secretary of treasury, we would not be in a deficit situation. But...
(LAUGHTER)
... you know, the -- the -- the fact of the matter is -- you know, if we fix the taxation system, make it absolutely fair, and get rid of the incredible regulations -- because every regulation is a tax, it's a -- on goods and services. And it's the most regressive tax there is.
You know, when you go into the store and buy a box of laundry detergent, and the price has up -- you know, 50 cents because of regulations, a poor person notices that. A rich person does not. Middle class may notice it when they get to the cash register.
And everything is costing more money, and we are killing our -- our -- our people like this. And Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will say it's those evil rich people.
It's not the evil rich people. It's the evil government that is -- that is putting all these regulations on us so that we can't survive.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, sir.
Senator Rubio...
TRUMP: Maria -- Maria, what you were talking about just now is called corporate inversion. It's one of the biggest problems our country has. Right now, corporations, by the thousands, are thinking of leaving our country with the jobs -- leave them behind.
TRUMP: They're leaving because of taxes, but they are also leaving because they can't get their money back and everybody agrees, Democrats and Republicans, that is should come back in. But they can't get along. They can't even make a deal.
Here is the case, they both agree, they can't make a deal. We have to do something. Corporate inversion is one of the biggest problems we have. So many companies are going to leave our country.
BARTIROMO: Which is why we raised it.
Senator Rubio?
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: One of the biggest fiscal challenges is our entitlement programs, particularly Social Security and Medicare. What policies will you put forward to make sure these programs are more financially secure?
RUBIO: Well, first let me address the tax issue because it's related to the entitlement issue and I want to thank you for holding a substantive debates where we can have debates about these key issues on taxes.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: Here is the one thing I'm not going to do. I'm not going to have something that Ted described in his tax plan. It's called the value added tax. And it's a tax you find in many companies in Europe.
Where basically, businesses now will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees.
And that's why they have it in Europe, because it is a way to blindfolded the people, that's what Ronald Reagan said. Ronald Regan opposed the value tax because he said it was a way to blindfold the people, so the true cost of government was not there there for them.
Now, you can support one now that's very low. But what is to prevent a future liberal president or a liberal Congress from coming back and not just raising the income tax, but also raising that VAT tax, and that vat tax is really bad for seniors. Because seniors, if they are retired, are no longer earning an income from a job. And therefore, they don't get the income tax break, but their prices are going to be higher, because the vat tax is embedded in both the prices that business that are charging and in the wages they pay their employees.
When I am president of the United States, I'm going to side with Ronald Regan on this and not Nancy Pelosi and we are not having a vat tax.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you senator.
CRUZ: Maria, I assume that I can respond to that.
BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, yes. You were meant to. Yes, of course.
CRUZ: Well, Marco has been floating this attack for a few weeks now, but the problem is, the business flat tax in my proposal is not a vat. A vat is imposed as a sales tax when you buy a good.
This is a business flat tax. It is imposed on business and a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. It enables us to eliminate the death tax.
If you're a farmer, if you're a rancher, if you are small business owner, the death tax is gone. We eliminate the payroll tax, we eliminate the Obamacare taxes. And listen, there is a real difference between Marco's tax plan and mine.
Mine gives every American a simple, flat tax of 10 percent. Marco's top tax rate is 35 percent. My tax plan enables you to fill out your taxes on a postcard so we can abolish the IRS. Marco leaves the IRS code in with all of the complexity. We need to break the Washington cartel, and the only way to do it is to end all the subsidies and all...
(BELL RINGS)
... the mandates and have a simple flat tax. The final observation, invoked Ronald Reagan. I would note that Art Laffer, Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser, has written publicly, that my simple flat tax is the best tax plan of any of the individuals on this stage cause it produces economic growth, it raises wages and it helps everyone from the very poorest to the very richest.
BARTIROMO: Thank you senator.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: But that's not an accurate description of the plan. Because, first of all, you may rename the IRS but you are not going to abolishes the IRS, because there has to be some agency that's going to collect your vat tax. Someone's going to be collecting this tax.
In fact, Ronald Reagan's treasury, when Ronald Reagan's treasury looked at the vat tax, you know what they found? That they were going to have to hire 20,000 new IRS agencies to collect it.
The second point, it does not eliminate the corporate tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees.
So there are people watching tonight in business. If you are now hit on a 60 percent tax on both your income and on the wages you pay your employees, where are you going to get that money from? You're going to get it by paying your employees less and charging your customers more, that is a tax, the difference is, you don't see it on the bill.
And that's why Ronald Reagan said that it was a blindfold. You blindfold the American people so that they cannot see the true cost of government. Now 16 percent is what the rate Ted wants it at. But what happens if, God forbid, the next Barack Obama takes over, and the next Nancy Pelosi, and the next Harry Reid...
(BELL RINGS)
and they decide, we're going to raise it to 30 percent, plus we're going to raise the income tax to 30 percent. Now, you've got Europe.
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: Thank you senator. I have to get to a question for Mr. Trump.
CRUZ: Maria...
BARTIROMO: Yes.
CRUZ: Maria, I'd just like to say...
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: Maria, I'd like to interrupt this debate on the floor of the Senate to actually answer the question you asked, which was on entitlements. Do you remember that, everybody? This was a question on entitlements.
And the reason -- and the reason...
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: ... no, you already had your chance, Marco, and you blew it. Here's the thing.
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: The fact is, the reason why...
RUBIO: If you'll answer the (inaudible) core question.
CHRISTIE: ... the fact is -- the fact is the reason why that no one wants to answer entitlements up here is because it's hard. It's a hard problem. And I'm the only one up on this stage who back in April put forward a detailed entitlement reform plan that will save over $1 trillion, save Social Security, save Medicare, and avoid this -- avoid what Hillary Rodham Clinton will do to you.
Because what she will do is come in and she will raise Social Security taxes. Bernie Sanders has already said it. And she is just one or two more poll drops down from even moving further left than she's moved already to get to the left of Bernie on this.
We have seniors out there who are scared to death because this Congress -- this one that we have right now, just stole $150 billion from the Social Security retirement fund to give it to the Social Security disability fund. A Republican Congress did that.
And the fact is it was wrong. And they consorted with Barack Obama to steal from Social Security. We need to reform Social Security. Mine is the only plan that saves over $1 trillion and that's why I'm answering your question.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Governor.
(APPLAUSE) CARSON: Can I just add one very quick thing? And I just want to say, you know, last week we released our tax plan. And multiple reputable journals, including The Wall Street Journal, said ours is the best. Just want to get that out there, just saying.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Dr. Carson.
Coming up, how would the candidates protect America, and another terror attack, if we were to see it. But first, you can join us live on stage during the commercial break right from home. Go to facebook.com/foxbusiness. We'll be streaming live and answering your questions during this break next.
More from South Carolina coming up. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Mr. Trump, your net worth is in the multi-billions of dollars and have an ongoing thriving hotel and real estate business. Are you planning on putting your assets in a blind trust should you become president? With such vast wealth, how difficult will it be for you to disentangle yourself from your business and your money and prioritize America's interest first?
TRUMP: Well, it's an interesting question because I'm very proud of my company. As you too know, I know I built a very great company. But if I become president, I couldn't care less about my company. It's peanuts.
I want to use that same up here, whatever it may be to make America rich again and to make America great again. I have Ivanka, and Eric and Don sitting there. Run the company kids, have a good time. I'm going to do it for America.
So I would -- I would be willing to do that.
BARTIROMO: So you'll put your assets in a blind trust?
TRUMP: I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don't know if it's a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. If that's a blind trust, I don't know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn't ever be involved because I wouldn't care about anything but our country, anything.
BARTIROMO: Thank you sir.
TRUMP: Thank you.
CAVUTO: Governor Christie, going back to your U.S. Attorney days, you had been praised by both parties as certainly a tough law and order guy. So I wonder what you make of recent statistics that showed violent crimes that have been spiking sometimes by double digit ratings in 30 cities across the country. Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said, "most local law enforcement officials feel abandoned by Washington." Former NYC Police Chief Ray Kelly, says that, "police are being less proactive because they're being overly scrutinized and second guessed and they're afraid of being sued or thrown in jail."
What would you do as president to address this?
CHRISTIE: Well, first off, let's face it, the FBI director James Comey was a friend of mine who I worked with as U.S. Attorney of New Jersey. He was the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. He said, "there's a chill wind blowing through law enforcement in this country." Here's why, the president of the United States and both his attorney's general, they give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal, not to the police officers.
That's the truth of the matter and you see it every time with this president. Every time he's got a chance, going all the way back to -- remember that Great Beer Summit he had after he messed up that time. This is a guy who just believes that law enforcement are the bad guys.
Now, I for seven years was the U.S. Attorney of New Jersey. I worked hard with not only federal agents but with police officers and here's the problem, sanctuary cities is part of the problem in this country. That's where crime is happening in these cities where they don't enforce the immigration laws. And this president turns his back -- this president doesn't enforce the marijuana laws in this country because he doesn't agree with them.
And he allows states to go ahead and do whatever they want on a substance that's illegal. This president allows lawlessness throughout this country. Here's what I would do Neil, I would appoint an Attorney General and I would have one very brief conversation with that Attorney General. I'd say, "General, enforce the law against everyone justly, fairly, and aggressively. Make our streets safe again. Make our police officers proud of what they do but more important than that, let them know how proud we are of them."
We do that, this country would be safe and secure again not only from criminals but from the terrorist who threaten us as well. I'm the only person on this stage who's done that and we will get it done as President of the United States.
CAVUTO: Thank you governor.
Governor Kasich, as someone has to deal with controversial police shootings in your own state, what do you make of Chicago's move recently to sort of retrain police? Maybe make them not so quick to use their guns?
KASICH: Well, I created a task force well over a year ago and the purpose was to bring law enforcement, community people, clergy and the person that I named as one of the co-chair was a lady by the name of Nina Turner, a former State Senator, a liberal Democrat. She actually ran against one of my friends and our head of public safety.
KASICH: And they say down as a group trying to make sure that we can begin to heal some of these problems that we see between community and police.
KASICH: And they came back with 23 recommendations. One of them is a statewide use of deadly force. And it is now being put into place everyplace across the state of Ohio. Secondly, a policy on recruiting and hiring, and then more resources for -- for training.
But let me also tell you, one of the issues has got to be the integration of both community and police. Community has to understand that that police officer wants to get home at night, and not -- not to lose their life. Their family is waiting for them.
At the same time, law enforcement understands there are people in the community who not only think that the system doesn't work for them, but works against them.
See, in Ohio, we've had some controversial decisions. But the leaders have come forward to realize that protest is fine, but violence is wrong. And it has been a remarkable situation in our state. And as president of the United States, it's all about communication, folks. It's all about getting people to listen to one another's problems.
And when you do that, you will be amazed at how much progress you can make, and how much healing we can have. Because, folks, at the end of the day, the country needs healed. I've heard a lot of hot rhetoric here tonight, but I've got to tell you, as somebody that actually passed a budget; that paid down a half-a-trillion dollars of our national debt, you can't do it alone. You've got to bring people together. You've got to give people hope.
And together, we can solve these problems that hurt us and heal America. And that is what's so critical for our neighborhoods, our families, our children, and our grandchildren.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Thank you, Governor.
BARTIROMO: Senator Rubio?
(APPLAUSE)
Under current law, the U.S. is on track to issue more new permanent immigrants on green cards over the next five years than the entire population of South Carolina. The CBO says your 2013 immigration bill would have increased green cardholders by another 10 million over 10 years.
Why are you so interested in opening up borders to foreigners when American workers have a hard enough time finding work?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, this is an issue that's been debated now for 30 years. And for 30 years, the issue of immigration has been about someone who's in this country, maybe they're here illegally, but they're looking for a job. This issue is not about that anymore.
First and foremost, this issue has to be now more than anything else about keeping America safe. And here's why. There is a radical jihadist group that is manipulating our immigration system. And not just green cards. They're looking -- they're recruiting people that enter this country as doctors and engineers and even fiances. They understand the vulnerabilities we have on the southern border.
They're looking -- they're looking to manipulate our -- the visa waiver countries to get people into the United States. So our number one priority must now become ensuring that ISIS cannot get killers into the United States. So whether it's green cards or any other form of entry into America, when I'm president if we do not know who you are or why you are coming, you are not going to get into the United States of America.
BARTIROMO: So your thinking has changed?
RUBIO: The issue is a dramatically different issue than it was 24 months ago. Twenty-four months ago, 36 months ago, you did not have a group of radical crazies named ISIS who were burning people in cages and recruiting people to enter our country legally. They have a sophisticated understanding of our legal immigration system and we now have an obligation to ensure that they are not able to use that system against us.
The entire system of legal immigration must now be reexamined for security first and foremost, with an eye on ISIS. Because they're recruiting people to enter this country as engineers, posing as doctors, posing as refugees. We know this for a fact. They've contacted the trafficking networks in the Western Hemisphere to get people in through the southern border. And they got a killer in San Bernardino in posing as a fiance.
This issue now has to be about stopping ISIS entering the United States, and when I'm president we will.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: But Maria, radical Islamic terrorism was not invented 24 months ago; 24 months ago, we had Al Qaida. We had Boko Haram. We had Hamas. We had Hezbollah. We had Iran putting operatives in South America and Central America. It's the reason why I stood with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and led the fight to stop the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, because it was clear then, like it's clear now, that border security is national security.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Senator.
CRUZ: It is also the case that that Rubio-Schumer amnesty bill, one of the things it did is it expanded Barack Obama's power to let in Syrian refugees. It enabled him -- the president to certify them en masse without mandating meaningful background checks.
I think that's a mistake. That's why I've been leading the fight to stop it. And I would note the Senate just a few weeks ago voted to suspend refugees from Middle Eastern countries. I voted yes to suspend that. Marco voted on the other side. So you don't get to say we need to secure the borders, and at the same time try to give Barack Obama more authority to allow Middle Eastern refugees coming in, when the head of the FBI tells us they cannot vet them to determine if they are ISIS terrorists.
RUBIO: Maria, let me clear something up here. This is an interesting point when you talk about immigration.
RUBIO: Ted Cruz, you used to say you supported doubling the number of green cards, now you say that you're against it. You used to support a 500 percent increase in the number of guest workers, now you say that you're against it. You used to support legalizing people that were here illegally, now you say you're against it. You used to say that you were in favor of birthright citizenship, now you say that you are against it.
And by the way, it's not just on immigration, you used to support TPA, now you say you're against it. I saw you on the Senate floor flip your vote on crop insurance because they told you it would help you in Iowa, and last week, we all saw you flip your vote on ethanol in Iowa for the same reason.
(APPLAUSE)
That is not consistent conservatism, that is political calculation. When I am president, I will work consistently every single day to keep this country safe, not call Edward Snowden, as you did, a great public servant. Edward Snowden is a traitor. And if I am president and we get our hands on him, he is standing trial for treason.
(APPLAUSE)
And one more point, one more point. Every single time that there has been a Defense bill in the Senate, three people team up to vote against it. Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. In fact, the only budget you have ever voted for, Ted, in your entire time in the Senate is a budget from Rand Paul that brags about how it cuts defense.
Here's the bottom line, and I'll close with this. If I'm president of the United States and Congress tries to cut the military, I will veto that in a millisecond.
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: There's -- look, there's --
CAVUTO: Gentlemen, gentlemen --
CRUZ: I'm going to get a response to that, Neil. There's no way he launches 11 attack --
CAVUTO: Very quick, very quick. CRUZ: I'm going to -- he had no fewer than 11 attacks there. I appreciate your dumping your (inaudible) research folder on the debate stage.
RUBIO: No, it's your record.
CRUZL But I will say --
CAVUTO: Do you think they like each other?
CRUZ: -- at least half of the things Marco said are flat-out false. They're absolutely false.
AUDIENCE: Boo.
CRUZ: So let's start -- let's start with immigration. Let's start with immigration and have a little bit of clarity. Marco stood with Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama on amnesty. I stood with Jeff Sessions and Steve King. Marco stood today, standing on this stage Marco supports legalization and citizenship for 12 million illegals. I opposed and oppose legalization and citizenship.
And by the way, the attack he keeps throwing out on the military budget, Marco knows full well I voted for his amendment to increase military spending to $697 billion. What he said, and he said it in the last debate, it's simply not true. And as president, I will rebuild the military and keep this country safe.
CAVUTO: All right, gentlemen, we've got to stop. I know you are very passionate about that.
(APPLAUSE)
Governor Bush, fears have gripped this country obviously, and you touched on it earlier since the San Bernardino attacks. Since our last debate, the national conversation has changed, according to Facebook data as well.
Now this first graphic shows the issues that were most talked about right before those attacks and now after: the issues of Islam, homeland security and ISIS now loom very large. The FBI says Islamic radicals are using social media to communicate and that it needs better access to communication. Now the CEO of Apple, Governor, Tim Cook said unless served with a warrant private communication is private, period. Do you agree, or would you try to convince him otherwise?
BUSH: I would try to convince him otherwise, but this last back and forth between two senators -- back bench senators, you know, explains why we have the mess in Washington, D.C. We need a president that will fix our immigration laws and stick with it, not bend with the wind.
The simple fact is one of the ways, Maria, to solve the problem you described is narrow the number of people coming by family petitioning to what every other country has so that we have the best and the brightest that come to our country. We need to control the border, we need to do all of this in a comprehensive way, not just going back and forth and talking about stuff --
CAVUTO: Would you answer this question?
BUSH: Oh, I'll talk about that, too. But you haven't asked me a question in a while, Neil, so I thought I'd get that off my chest if you don't mind.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: Fair enough. So Tim Cook -- so Tim Cook says he's going to keep it private.
BUSH: I got that. And the problem today is there's no confidence in Washington, D.C. There needs to be more than one meeting, there needs to complete dialogue with the large technology companies. They understand that there's a national security risk. We ought to give them a little bit of a liability release so that they share data amongst themselves and share data with the federal government, they're not fearful of a lawsuit.
We need to make sure that we keep the country safe. This is the first priority. The cybersecurity challenges that we face, this administration failed us completely, completely. Not just the hacking of OPM, but that is -- that is just shameful. 23 million files in the hands of the Chinese? So it's not just the government -- the private sector companies, it's also our own government that needs to raise the level of our game.
We should put the NSA in charge of the civilian side of this as well. That expertise needs to spread all across the government and there needs to be much more cooperation with our private sector.
CAVUTO: But if Tim cook is telling you no, Mr. President.
BUSH: You've got to keep asking. You've got to keep asking because this is a hugely important issue. If you can encrypt messages, ISIS can, over these platforms, and we have no ability to have a cooperative relationship --
CAVUTO: Do you ask or do you order?
BUSH: Well, if the law would change, yeah. But I think there has to be recognition that if we -- if we are too punitive, then you'll go to other -- other technology companies outside the United States. And what we want to do is to control this.
We also want to dominate this from a commercial side. So there's a lot of balanced interests. But the president leads in this regard. That's what we need. We need leadership, someone who has a backbone and sticks with things, rather than just talks about them as though anything matters when you're talking about amendments that don't even actually are part of a bill that ever passed.
CAVUTO: Governor, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: When we come right back, closing statements. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Candidates, it is time for your closing statements. You get 60 seconds each.
Governor John Kasich, we begin with you.
KASICH: You know, in our country, there are a lot of people who feel as though they just don't have the power. You know, they feel like if they don't have a lobbyist, if they're not wealthy, that somehow they don't get to play.
But all of my career, you know, having been raised in -- by a mailman father whose father was a coal miner, who died of black lung and was losing his eyesight; or a mother whose mother could barely speak English. You see, all of my career, I've fought about giving voice to the people that I grew up with and voice to the people that elected me.
Whether it's welfare reform and getting something back for the hard-earned taxpayers; whether it's engaging in Pentagon reform and taking on the big contractors that were charging thousands of dollars for hammers and screw drivers and ripping us off; or whether it's taking on the special interests in the nursing home industry in Ohio, so that mom and dad can have the ability to stay in their own home, rather than being forced into a nursing home.
KASICH: Look, that's who I stand up for. That's who's in my mind
(BELL RINGS)
And if you really want to believe that you can get your voice back, I will tell you, as I have all my career, I will continue to fight for you, because you're the ones that built this country, and will carry it into the future. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Governor Bush?
BUSH: Who can you count on to keep us safer, stronger and freer? Results count, and as governor, I pushed Florida up to the top in terms of jobs, income and small business growth.
Detailed plans count, and I believe that the plan I've laid out to destroy ISIS before the tragedies of San Bernardino and Paris are the right ones.
Credibility counts. There'll be people here that will talk about what they're going to do. I've done it. I ask for your support to build, together, a safer and stronger America.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Governor Chris Christie?
CHRISTIE: Maria, Neil, thank you for a great debate tonight.
When I think about the folks who are out there at home tonight watching, and I think about what they had to watch this week -- the spectacle they had to watch on the floor of the House of Representatives, with the president of the United States, who talked a fantasy land about the way they're feeling.
They know that this country is not respected around the world anymore. They know that this country is pushing the middle class, the hardworking taxpayers, backwards, and they saw a president who doesn't understand their pain, and doesn't have any plan for getting away from it.
I love this country. It's the most exceptional country the world has ever known. We need someone to fight for the people. We need a fighter for this country again.
I've lived my whole life fighting -- fighting for things that I believe in, fighting for justice and to protect people from crime and terrorism, fighting to stand up for folks who have not had enough and need an opportunity to get more, and to stand up and fight against the special interests.
But here's the best way that we're going to make America much more exceptional: it is to make sure we put someone on that stage in September who will fight Hillary Clinton and make sure she never, ever gets in the White House again.
I am the man who can bring us together to do that, and I ask for your vote.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Dr. Ben Carson?
CARSON: You know, in recent travels around this country, I've encountered so many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch our freedom, our security and the American dream slipping away under an unresponsive government that is populated by bureaucrats and special interest groups.
We're not going to solve this problem with traditional politics. The only way we're going to solve this problem is with we, the people. And I ask you to join me in truth and honesty and integrity. Bencarson.com -- we will heal, inspire and revive America for our children.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Senator Marco Rubio?
RUBIO: You know, 200 years ago, America was founded on this powerful principle that our rights don't come from government. Our rights come from God.
That's why we embraced free enterprise, and it made us the most prosperous people in the history of the world. That's why we embraced individual liberty, and we became the freest people ever, and the result was the American miracle.
But now as I travel the country, people say what I feel. This country is changing. It feels different. We feel like we're being left behind and left out.
And the reason is simple: because in 2008, we elected as president someone who wasn't interested in fixing America. We elected someone as president who wants to change America, who wants to make it more like the rest of the world.
And so he undermines the Constitution, and he undermines free enterprise by expanding government, and he betrays our allies and cuts deals with our enemies and guts our military. And that's why 2016 is a turning point in our history. If we elect Hillary Clinton, the next four years will be worse than the last eight, and our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a diminished country.
But if we elect the right person -- if you elect me -- we will turn this country around, we will reclaim the American dream and this nation will be stronger and greater than it has ever been.
(APPLAUSE)
CAVUTO: Senator Ted Cruz?
CRUZ: "13 Hours" -- tomorrow morning, a new movie will debut about the incredible bravery of the men fighting for their lives in Benghazi and the politicians that abandoned them. I want to speak to all our fighting men and women.
I want to speak to all the moms and dads whose sons and daughters are fighting for this country, and the incredible sense of betrayal when you have a commander-in-chief who will not even speak the name of our enemy, radical Islamic terrorism, when you have a commander-in- chief who sends $150 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who's responsible for murdering hundreds of our servicemen and women.
I want to speak to all of those maddened by political correctness, where Hillary Clinton apologizes for saying all lives matter. This will end. It will end on January 2017.
CRUZ: And if I am elected president, to every soldier and sailor and airman and marine, and to every police officer and firefighter and first responder who risk their lives to keep us safe, I will have your back.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Mr. Donald Trump?
TRUMP: I stood yesterday with 75 construction workers. They're tough, they're strong, they're great people. Half of them had tears pouring down their face. They were watching the humiliation of our young ten sailors, sitting on the floor with their knees in a begging position, their hands up.
And Iranian wise guys having guns to their heads. It was a terrible sight. A terrible sight. And the only reason we got them back is because we owed them with a stupid deal, $150 billion. If I'm president, there won't be stupid deals anymore.
We will make America great again. We will win on everything we do. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BARTIROMO: Candidates, thank you.
CAVUTO: Gentlemen, thank you all. All of you. That wraps up our debate. We went a little bit over here. But we wanted to make sure everyone was able to say their due. He's upset. All right. Thank you for joining us. Much more to come in the Spin Room ahead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/6th-republican-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/ [with embedded annotations and video clip, and comments] [other transcripts at http://time.com/4182096/republican-debate-charleston-transcript-full-text/ (no comments yet), and http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/us/politics/transcript-of-republican-presidential-debate.html ]
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwHtZnqn0o [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRNatN0oGXk [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQb-Q4vdCAo [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKNw8NYayoU [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp18Rqr25Uk [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VYlHL5cHgc [with comments],
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5tB4icYFso [no comments yet]
--
NBC News-YouTube Democratic Debate (Full)
Streamed live on Jan 17, 2016 by NBC News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeY0bbntWzzVIaj2z3QigXg / http://www.youtube.com/user/NBCNews , http://www.youtube.com/user/NBCNews/videos ]
Join NBC News' Lester Holt, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and YouTube creators Connor Franta, Marques Brownlee, MinuteEarth and Franchesca Ramsey as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley debate in Charleston, South Carolina.
*
The 4th Democratic debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant [annotations viewable at the source, linked at the end of this transcript]
January 17, 2016
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley participated in Sunday's NBC/YouTube Democratic primary debate in Charleston, S.C.
The complete transcript:
NBC News' Lester Holt introduced the candidates and the debate began.
HOLT: We'll begin with 45 second opening statements from each candidate, starting with Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, good evening. And I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and the people of Charleston for hosting us here on the eve of Martin Luther King Day tomorrow.
You know, I remember well when my youth minister took me to hear Dr. King. I was a teenager. And his moral clarity, the message that he conveyed that evening really stayed with me and helped to set me on a path to service. I also remember that he spent the last day of his life in Memphis, fighting for dignity and higher pay for working people.
And that is our fight still. We have to get the economy working and incomes rising for everyone, including those who have been left out and left behind. We have to keep our communities and our country safe. We need a president who can do all aspects of the job.
I understand that this is the hardest job in the world. I'm prepared and ready to take it on and I hope to earn your support to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and the next president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Thank you. Senator Sanders, your opening statement, sir.
SANDERS: Thank you. As we honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it's important not only that we remember what he stood for, but that we pledge to continue his vision to transform our country. As we look out at our country today, what the American people understand is we have an economy that's rigged, that ordinary Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, 47 million people living in poverty, and almost all of the new income and wealth going to the top one percent.
SANDERS: And then, to make a bad situation worse, we have a corrupt campaign finance system where millionaires and billionaires are spending extraordinary amounts of money to buy elections.
This campaign is about a political revolution to not only elect the president, but to transform this country.
HOLT: Senator, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
And Governor O'Malley, your opening statement, sir.
O'MALLEY: Thank you. My name is Martin O'Malley, I was born the year Dr. King delivered his "I Have A Dream" speech.
And I want to thank the people of South Carolina, not only for hosting our debate here tonight, but also for what you taught all of us in the aftermath of the tragic shooting at Mother Emanuel Church.
You taught us, in fact, in keeping with Dr. King's teaching, that love would have the final word when you took down the Confederate flag from your state house; let go of the past and move forward.
Eight years ago, you brought forward a new leader in Barack Obama to save our country from the second Great Depression. And that's what he's done. Our country's doing better, we're creating jobs again.
But in order to make good on the promise of equal opportunity and equal justice under the law, and we have urgent work to do, and the voices of anger and fear and division that we've heard coming off of the Republican presidential podiums are pretty loud.
We need new leadership. We need to come together as a people and build on the good things that President Obama has done.
That's why I'm running for president. I need your help, I ask for your vote, and I look forward to moving our country forward once again.
Thank you.
HOLT: All right. And Governor, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: All right, to our first question, now. The first question, I'll be addressing to all of the candidates.
President Obama came to office determined to swing for the fences on health care reform. Voters want to know how you would define your presidency? How would you think big? So complete this sentence: in my first 100 days in office, my top three priorities will be -- fill in the blank.
Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: Well, that's what our campaign is about. It is thinking big. It is understanding that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we should have health care for every man, woman, and child as a right that we should raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour; that we have got to create millions of decent- paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
So, what my first days are about is bringing America together, to end the decline of the middle class, to tell the wealthiest people in this country that yes, they are going to start paying their fair share of taxes, and that we are going to have a government that works for all of us, and not just big campaign contributors.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, same question, my first 100 days in office, my top three priorities will be.
CLINTON: I would work quickly to present to the Congress my plans for creating more good jobs in manufacturing, infrastructure, clean and renewable energy, raising the minimum wage, and guaranteeing, finally, equal pay for women's work.
I would also...
(APPLAUSE)
I would also be presenting my plans to build on the Affordable Care Act and to improve it by decreasing the out-of-pocket costs by putting a cap on prescription drug costs; by looking for ways that we can put the prescription drug business and the health insurance company business on a more stable platform that doesn't take too much money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans.
And third, I would be working, in every way that I knew, to bring our country together. We do have too much division, too much mean- spiritedness. There's a lot we have to do on immigration reform, on voting rights, on campaign finance reform, but we need to do it together. That's how we'll have the kind of country for the 21st century that we know will guarantee our children and grandchildren the kind of future they deserve.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Governor O'Malley, same question.
O'MALLEY: Thank you. First of all, I would lay out an agenda to make wages go up again for all Americans, rather than down. Equal pay for equal work, making it easier rather than harder for people to join labor unions and bargain collectively for better wages; getting 11 million of our neighbors out of the underground shadow economy by passing comprehensive immigration reform, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, however we can, wherever we can.
Secondly, I believe the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years is climate change. And I put forward a plan to move us to a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create 5 million jobs along the way.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Thank you. You've all...
O'MALLEY: Finally -- I'm sorry, that was second, Lester.
O'MALLEY: And third and finally, we need a new agenda for America's cities. We have not had a new agenda for America's cities since Jimmy Carter. We need a new agenda for America cities that will invest in the talents and skills in our people, that will invest in CBVG transportation, infrastructure and transit options, and make our cities the leading edge in this move to a redesigned built clean green energy future that will employ our people.
HOLT: All right governor thank you.
We've all laid out large visions and we're going to cover a lot of the ground you talked about as we continue in the evening. The last couple of weeks of this campaign have featured some of the sharpest exchanges in the race. Let's start with one of them, the issue of guns.
Senator Sanders, last week Secretary Clinton called you quote, "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." Right before the debate you changed your position on immunity from lawsuits for gun manufacturers, can you tell us why?
SANDERS: Well, I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous. I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA. I was in 1988, there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military style assault weapons.
I have supported from day one an instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable. I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loopholes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as strawmen.
We have seen in this city a horrendous tragedy of a crazed person praying with people in the coming up and shooting nine people. This should not be a political issue. What we should be doing is working together.
And by the way, as a senator from a rural state that has virtually no gun control, I believe that I am in an excellent position to bring people together to fight the sensible...
HOLT: Senator, but you didn't answer the question that you did change your position on immunity from gun manufacturers. So can you...
SANDERS: What I have said, is that gun manufacturer's liability bill has some good provisions among other things, we've prohibited ammunition that would've killed cops who had protection on. We have child safety protection work on guns in that legislation. And what we also said, "is a small mom and pop gun shop who sells a gun legally to somebody should not be held liable if somebody does something terrible with that gun."
So what I said is, " I would re-look at it." We are going to re- look at it and I will support stronger provisions.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond to Senator Sanders.
CLINTON: Yes look, I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times. He voted against the Brady Bill five times. He voted for what we call, the Charleston Loophole. He voted for immunity from gunmakers and sellers which the NRA said, "was the most important piece of gun legislation in 20 years. "
He voted to let guns go onto the Amtrak, guns go into National Parks. He voted against doing research to figure out how we can save lives. Let's not forget what this is about, 90 people a day die from gun violence in our country. That's 33,000 people a year.
One of the most horrific examples not a block from here where we had nine people murdered. Now, I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation. There is no other industry in America that was given the total pass that the gun makers and dealers were and that needs to be reversed.
HOLT: All right, Governor O'Malley, you signed tough gun control measures as governor of Maryland and there are a lot Democrats in the audience here in South Carolina who own guns. This conversation might be worrying many of them. They may be hearing, "you want to take my guns. What would you say to them?
O'MALLEY: This is what I would say Lester, look see, I've listened to Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders go back and forth on which of them has the most inconsistent record on gun safety legislation and I would have to agree with both of them. They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue.
O'MALLEY: I'm the one candidate on this stage that actually brought people together to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation. This is very personal to me being from Baltimore. I will never forget one occasion visiting a little boy in Johns' Hopkins Hospital, he was getting a birthday haircut, the age of three when drug dealers turned that barbershop into a shooting gallery and that boy's head was pierced with a bullet. And I remember visiting him, it did not kill him - I remember visiting him and his mother in Johns Hopkins Hospital. He was getting a birthday haircut, the age of three when drug dealers turned that barbershop into a shooting gallery, and that boys head was pierced with a bullet.
And, I remember visiting him, it did not kill him. I remember visiting him and his mother in Johns Hopkins Hospital. In his diapers (ph) with tubes running in and out of his head, same age as my little boy.
So, after the slaughter of the kids in Connecticut last year, we brought people together. We did pass in our state comprehensive gun safety legislation. It did have a ban on combat assault weapons, universal background checks, and you know what? We did not interrupt a single person's hunting season.
I've never met a self respecting deer hunter that needed an AR-15 to down a deer. And, so...
(APPLAUSE)
... we're able to actually do these things.
HOLT: Alright, Governor, thank you.
Secretary Clinton, this is a community that has suffered a lot of heartache in the last year. Of course, as you mentioned, the church shootings. We won't forget the video of Walter Scott being shot in the back while running from police.
We understand that a jury will decide whether that police officer was justified, but it plays straight to the fears of many African American men that their lives are cheap. Is that perception, or in your view, is it reality?
CLINTON: Well, sadly it's reality, and it has been heartbreaking, and incredibly outraging to see the constant stories of young men like Walter Scott, as you said, who have been killed by police officers. Their needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system.
And, that requires a very clear, agenda for retraining police officers, looking at ways to end racial profiling, finding more ways to really bring the disparities that stalk our country into high relief.
One out of three African American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic. I want people hear to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men, and very often, the black men are arrested, convicted and incarcerated ...
(APPLAUSE)
...for offensive that do not lead to the same results for white men.
So, we have a very serious problem that we can no longer ignore.
HOLT: You time is up.
Senator Sanders, my next question is...
SANDERS: ...Well, I -- look...
HOLT: ... It's actually -- actually my next question is to you...
SANDERS: ... Let me respond to what the secretary said. We have a criminal justice system which is broken. Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China? Disproportionately African American, and Latino. Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed? Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEO's of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: ... We need to take a very hard look at our...
HOLT: Senator. Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: ... criminal justice system, investing in jobs, and education not in jails and incarceration .
HOLT: ... Just over a week ago the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Secretary Clinton, not you. He said that choosing her over you was not a hard decision. In fact, our polling shows she's beating you more than two to one among minority voters. How can you be the nominee if you don't have that support?
SANDERS: Well, let me talk about polling.
(LAUGHTER) SANDERS: As Secretary Clinton well knows, when this campaign began she was 50 points ahead of me. We were all of three percentage points. Guess what?
In Iowa, New Hampshire, the race is very, very close. Maybe we're ahead New Hampshire.
(CHEERING)
SANDERS: In terms of polling, guess what? We are running ahead of Secretary Clinton. In terms of taking on my taking on my good friend, Donald Trump, beating him by 19 points in New Hampshire, 13 points in the last national poll that we saw.
To answer your question. When the African American community becomes familiar with my Congressional record and with our agenda, and with our views on the economy, and criminal justice -- just as the general population has become more supportive, so will the African American community, so will the Latino community. We have the momentum, we're on a path to a victory.
(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
O'MALLEY: Lester, I (inaudible)
HOLT: Governor, I'm going to come to you in a second.
Google searches for the words, "Black Lives Matter" surpassed, "civil rights movement". And, here in South Carolina, "black lives matter" was the number one trending political issue.
HOLT: Governor O'Malley, you've campaigned on your record as governor of Maryland, and before that, the mayor of Baltimore. Last year, of course, Baltimore was rocked by violent unrest in the wake of the death of Freddie Gray.
And right from the start of your campaign, you've been dogged by those who blame your tough-on-crime, so-called zero tolerance policies as mayor for contributing to that unrest. What responsibility do you bear?
O'MALLEY: Yes, let's talk about this. When I ran for mayor in 1999, Lester, it was not because our city was doing well. It was because we were burying over 300 young, poor black men every single year.
And that's why I ran, because, yes, black lives matter. And we did a number of things. We weren't able to make our city immune from setbacks as the Freddie Gray unrest and tragic death showed.
But we were able to save a lot of lives doing things that actually worked to improve police and community relations. The truth of the matter is, we created a civilian review board. And many of these things are in the new agenda for criminal justice reform that I've put forward.
We created a civilian review board, gave them their own detectives. We required the reporting of discourtesy, use of excessive force, lethal force. I repealed the possession of marijuana as a crime in our state.
I drove our incarceration rate down to 20-year lows, and drove violent crime down to 30-year lows, and became the first governor south of the Mason-Dixon line to repeal the death penalty.
I feel a responsibility every day to find things that work...
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: All right. Let's talk...
O'MALLEY: ... and to do more of them to reform our criminal justice system.
HOLT: Let's talk more about policing and the criminal justice system. Senator Sanders, a few times tonight we're going to hear from some of the most prominent voices on YouTube, starting with Franchesca Ramsey, who tackles racial stereotypes through her videos. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANCHESCA RAMSEY: Hey, I'm Franchesca Ramsey. I believe there's a huge conflict of interest when local prosecutors investigate cases of police violence within their own communities.
For example, last month, the officers involved in the case of 12- year-old Tamir Rice weren't indicted. How would your presidency ensure that incidents of police violence are investigated and prosecuted fairly?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLT: Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: I apologize for not hearing all of that question.
HOLT: Would you like me to read it back to you?
SANDERS: Yes.
HOLT: Prosecutors -- "I believe there's a huge conflict of interest when local prosecutors investigate cases of police violence within their communities. Most recently, we saw this with a non- indictment of the officers involved in the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice. How would you presidency ensure incidents of police violence are investigated and prosecuted fairly?"
SANDERS: Absolutely. This is a responsibility for the U.S. Justice Department to get involved. Whenever anybody in this country is killed while in police custody, it should automatically trigger a U.S. attorney general's investigation.
(APPLAUSE)
Second of all, and I speak as a mayor who worked very closely and well with police officers, the vast majority of whom are honest, hard- working people trying to do a difficult job, but let us be clear.
If a police officer breaks the law, like any public official, that officer must be held accountable.
(APPLAUSE)
And thirdly, we have got to de-militarize our police departments so they don't look like occupying armies. We've got to move toward community policing.
And fourthly, we have got to make our police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, this question is for you. Tonight parts of America are in the grip of a deadly heroin epidemic, spanning race and class, hitting small towns and cities alike. It has become a major issue in this race.
In a lot of places where you've been campaigning, despite an estimated trillion dollars spent, many say the war on drugs has failed. So what would you do?
CLINTON: Well, Lester, you're right. Everywhere I go to campaign, I'm meeting families who are affected by the drug problem that mostly is opioids and heroin now, and lives are being lost and children are being orphaned. And I've met a lot of grandparents who are now taking care of grandchildren.
So I have tried to come out with a comprehensive approach that, number one, does tell the states that we will work with you from the federal government putting more money, about a billion dollars a year, to help states have a different approach to dealing with this epidemic.
The policing needs to change. Police officers must be equipped with the antidote to a heroin overdose or an opioid overdose, known as Narcan. They should be able to administer it. So should firefighters and others.
We have to move away from treating the use of drugs as a crime and instead, move it to where it belongs, as a health issue. And we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system into drug courts, into treatment, and recovery.
HOLT: And that's time.
CLINTON: So this is the kind of approach that we should take in dealing with what is now...
HOLT: Senator...
CLINTON: ... a growing epidemic.
HOLT: Senator Sanders, would you like to respond?
SANDERS: Sure. I agree...
(APPLAUSE)
I agree with everything the Secretary said, but let me just add this, there is a responsibility on the part of the pharmaceutical industry and the drug companies who are producing all of these drugs and not looking at the consequence of it.
And second of all, when we talk about addiction being a disease, the Secretary is right, what that means is we need a revolution in this country in terms of mental health treatment. People should be able to get the treatment that they need when they need it, not two months from now, which is why I believe in universal...
HOLT: That's...
SANDERS: ... healthcare with mental health...
HOLT: ... time.
SANDERS: ... a part of that.
HOLT: We're going to get into all that coming up.
O'MALLEY (?): Lester, just ten seconds.
HOLT: But we're going to take a break and we need to take a break...
O'MALLEY (?): Just 10 seconds. All of the things...
HOLT: ... and when we come back, the anger brewing in America.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Welcome back to Charleston. Let's turn to another area where there has been fierce disagreement -- that would be health care.
Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, you both mentioned it in your 100-day priorities.
Let's turn to my colleague, Andrea Mitchell now to lead that questioning.
MITCHELL: Thank you, Lester.
Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders favors what he calls "Medicare for all." Now, you said that what he is proposing would tear up Obamacare and replace it.
Secretary Clinton, is it fair to say to say that Bernie Sanders wants to kill Obamacare?
CLINTON: Well, Andrea, I am absolutely committed to universal health care. I have worked on this for a long time, people may remember that I took on the health insurance industry back in the '90s, and I didn't quit until we got the children's health insurance program that ensures eight million kids.
And I certainly respect Senator Sanders' intentions, but when you're talking about health care, the details really matter. And therefore, we have been raising questions about the nine bills that he introduced over 20 years, as to how they would work and what would be the impact on people's health care?
He didn't like that, his campaign didn't like it either. And tonight, he's come out with a new health care plan. And again, we need to get into the details. But here's what I believe, the Democratic Party and the United States worked since Harry Truman to get the Affordable Care Act passed.
We finally have a path to universal health care. We have accomplished so much already. I do not to want see the Republicans repeal it, and I don't to want see us start over again with a contentious debate. I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act and improve it.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: OK.
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders?
SANDERS: Secretary -- Secretary Clinton didn't answer your question.
(LAUGHTER)
Because what her campaign was saying -- Bernie Sanders, who has fought for universal health care for my entire life, he wants to end Medicare, end Medicaid, end the children's health insurance program. That is nonsense.
What a Medicare-for-all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman and child as a right. Now, the truth is, that Frank Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, do you know what they believed in? They believed that health care should be available to all of our people.
I'm on the committee that wrote the Affordable Care Act. I made the Affordable Care Act along with Jim Clyburn a better piece of legislation. I voted for it, but right now, what we have to deal with is the fact that 29 million people still have no health insurance. We are paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, getting ripped off.
And here's the important point, we are spending far more per person on health care than the people of any other country. My proposal, provide health care to all people, get private insurance out of health insurance, lower the cost of health care for middle class families by 5,000 bucks.
That's the vision we need to take.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: But -- Senator Sanders, if I can...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I have to say I'm not sure whether we're talking about the plan you just introduced tonight, or we're talking about the plan you introduced nine times in the Congress. But the fact is, we have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of our country.
(APPLAUSE)
And we have already seen 19 million Americans get insurance. We have seen the end of pre-existing conditions keeping people from getting insurance.
(APPLAUSE)
We have seen women no longer paying more for our insurance than men. And we have seen young people, up to the age of 26, being able to stay on their parent's policy.
SANDERS: But -- what if we have...
CLINTON: Now, there are things we can do to improve it, but to tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate, I think is the wrong direction.
SANDERS: It is -- it is absolutely inaccurate.
O'MALLEY: I have to talk about something that's actually working in our state.
MITCHELL: Governor -- Governor Sanders...
SANDERS: No one is tearing this up, we're going to go forward. But with the secretary neglected to mention, not just the 29 million still have no health insurance, that even more are underinsured with huge copayments and deductibles.
Tell me why we are spending almost three times more than the British, who guarantee health care to all of their people? Fifty percent more than the French, more than the Canadians. The vision from FDR and Harry Truman was health care for all people as a right in a cost-effective way.
We're not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it. But we are going to move on top of that to a Medicaid-for- all system.
O'MALLEY: Andrea -- Andrea -- Andrea.
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: Instead of -- Andrea, I think, instead of attacking one another on health care, we should be talking about the things that are actually working.
In our state, we have moved to an all-payer system. With the Affordable Care Act, we now have moved all of our acute care hospitals, that driver of cost at the center, away from fee-for- service.
And actually to pay, we pay them based on how well they keep patients out of the hospital. How well they keep their patients. That's the future. We need to build on the Affordable Care Act, do the things that work, and reduce costs and increase access.
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: And that's exactly what we are able to do based on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act -- what Governor O'Malley just said is one of the models that we will be looking at to make sure we do get costs down, we do limit a lot of the unnecessary costs that we still have in the system.
But, with all due respect, to start over again with a whole new debate is something that I think would set us back. The Republicans just voted last week to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and thank goodness, President Obama vetoed it and saved Obamacare for the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders, let me ask you this, though...
SANDERS: Yeah.
MITCHELL: ... you've talked about Medicare for all...
SANDERS: Yes.
MITCHELL: .. and tonight you've released a very detailed plan, just two... SANDERS: Not all that detailed.
MITCHELL: ... well, two hours before the debate, you did.
SANDERS: Well.
MITCHELL: But let me ask you about Vermont. Because in Vermont -- you tried in the state of Vermont, and Vermont walked away from this kind of idea, of -- of Medicare for all, single-payer, because they concluded it would require major tax increases...
SANDERS: Well, that's -- you might want to ask...
MITCHELL: ... and by some estimates, it would double the budget. If you couldn't sell it in Vermont, Senator...
SANDERS: Andrea, let me just say this.
MITCHELL: ... how can you sell it to the country?
SANDERS: Let me just say that you might want to ask the governor of the state of Vermont why he could not do it. I'm not the governor. I'm the senator from the state of Vermont.
(LAUGHTER)
But second of all -- second of all...
(APPLAUSE)
... here is what the real point is, in terms of all of the issues you've raised -- the good questions you've raised. You know what it all comes down to?
Do you know why we can't do what every other country -- major country on Earth is doing? It's because we have a campaign finance system that is corrupt, we have super PACs, we have the pharmaceutical industry pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying, and the private insurance companies as well.
What this is really about is not the rational way to go forward -- it's Medicare for all -- it is whether we have the guts to stand up to the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That's what this debate should be about.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, as someone who -- as someone who has a little bit of experience standing up to the health insurance industry, that spent, you know...
(APPLAUSE)
... many, many millions of dollars attacking me, and probably will so again, because of what I believe we can do building on the Affordable Care Act, I think it's important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health care system we have today.
I know how much money influences the political decision-making. That's why I'm for huge campaign finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance.
And even during the Affordable Care Act debate, there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy in to Medicare, and even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn't get the votes for that.
So, what I'm saying is really simple. This has been the fight of the Democratic Party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let's make it work.
Let's take the models that states are doing. We now have driven costs down to the lowest they've been in 50 years. Now we've got to get individual costs down. That's what I'm planning to do.
HOLT: And that's time (ph). We're gonna take a turn now.
Secretary Clinton, in his final State of the Union address, President Obama said his biggest regret was his inability to bring the country together. If President Obama couldn't do it, how will you?
O'MALLEY: Great question.
CLINTON: Well, I think it's an important point the president made in his State of the Union. And here's what I would say. I will go anywhere, to meet with anyone, at any time to find common ground.
That's what I did as a first lady, when I worked with both Democrats and Republicans to get the Children's Health Insurance Program, when I worked with Tom DeLay, one of the most partisan of Republicans, to reform the adoption and foster care system.
What I did, working in the Senate, where I crossed the aisle often, working even with the senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, to get Tricare for national guardsmen and women.
And it's what I did as Secretary of State, on numerous occasions, and most particularly, rounding up two-thirds votes in order to pass a treaty that lowered the nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States.
CLINTON: So I know it's hard, but I also know you've got to work at it every single day. I look out here, I see a lot of my friends from the Congress. And I know that they work at it every single day.
Because maybe you can't only find a little sliver of common ground to cooperate with somebody from the other party, but who knows. If you're successful there, maybe you can build even more. That's what I would do.
HOLT: That's time. Senator Sanders, response.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: A couple of years ago, when we understood that veterans were not getting the quality care they needed in the timely manner, I worked with folks like John McCain and others to pass the most comprehensive veteran's health care legislation in modern history.
But let me rephrase your question because I think, in all do respect, you're expression. In all do respect, you're missing the main point. And the main point in the Congress, it's not the Republicans and Democrats hate each other.
That's a mythology from the media. The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: The real issue is that in area after area, raising the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour. The American people want it. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, creating 13 million jobs, the American people want it. The pay equity for women, the American people want it. Demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes. The American people want it.
HOLT: That's time. But let me continue with the...
SANDERS: The point is, we have to make Congress respond to the needs of the people, not big money.
HOLT: Senator Sanders, let me continue, you call yourself a Democratic socialist...
SANDERS: I do. HOLT: And throughout your career in politics, you've been critical of the Democratic party, you've been saying in a book you wrote, quote, "There wasn't a hell of a big difference between the the two major parties." How would you will a general election...
SANDERS: Did I say that?
HOLT: How will you win a general election labeling yourself a democratic socialist?
SANDERS: Because of what I believe in what I was just saying. The Democratic party needs major reform. To those of you in South Carolina, you know what, in Mississippi, we need a 50-state strategy so that people in South Carolina and Mississippi can get the resources that they need.
Instead of being dependent on super PACs, what we need is to be dependent on small, individual campaign contributors. We need an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families and low-income people. Not wealthy campaign contributors.
HOLT: Yes, but senator, you can...
SANDERS: We need to expand what the input into the Democratic party. I am very proud that in this campaign, we have seen an enormous amount of excitement from young people, from working people. We have received more individual contributions than any candidate in the history of this country up to this point.
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: Yes, but senator you never came to campaign for Vincent Sheheen when he was running for governor. In fact, neither of you came to campaign for Vincent Sheheen when he was running for governor.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: We can talk all we want about wanting to build a stronger Democratic party, but Lester, the question you answered, it's no laughing matter.
The most recurring question I get when I stand on the chair all across Iowa and talk with my neighbors is, how are you going to heal the divisions and the wounds in our country? This is the biggest challenge we face as a people.
All my life, I brought people together over deep divides and very old wounds, and that's what we need now in a new leader. We cannot keep talking past each other, declaring all Republicans are our enemies or the war is all about being against millionaires or billionaires, or it's all against American Muslims, all against immigrants.
Look, as Frederick Douglas said, we are one, our cause is one, and we must help each other if we are going to succeed. HOLT: And that is right.
SANDERS: And I respectfully disagree.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, our next question is for you. Here's another quantitative problem.
SANDERS: And I respectfully disagree with my friend over here. And that is, you are right. All of us have denounced Trump's attempts to divide this country: the anti-Latino rhetoric, the racist rhetoric, he anti-Muslim rhetoric.
But where I disagree with you, Governor O'Malley, is I do believe we have to deal with the fundamental issues of a handful of billionaires...
O'MALLEY: I agree with that.
SANDERS: ... who control economic and political life of this country.
O'MALLEY: I agree.
SANDERS: Nothing real will get happened. Unless we have a political revolution. Where millions of people finally stand up.
HOLT: And we're going to get into that coming up. But Secretary Clinton, here's a question from YouTube. It's from a young video blogger who has over 5 million subscribers. He has a question about the importance of younger voters.
FRANTA: Hi, I'm Connor Franta, I'm 23 and my audience is around the same age. Getting my generation to vote should be a priority for any presidential candidate.
Now I know Senator Sanders is pretty popular among my peers, but what I want to know is, how are all of you planning on engaging us further in this election?
HOLT: Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well thanks for the question and congratulations on five million viewers on YouTube, that's quite an accomplishment. Look, this election is mostly about the future and therefore it is of greatest urgency for young people.
I've laid out my ideas about what we can do to make college affordable; how we can help people pay off their student debts and save thousands of dollars, how we can create more good jobs because a lot of the young people that I talk with are pretty disappointed the economic prospects they feel their facing. So making community college free, making it possible to attend a public college or university with debt free tuition, looking for ways to protect our rights especially from the concerted Republican assault; on voting rights, on women's rights, on gay rights, on civil rights, on workers rights.
And I know how much young people value their independence, their autonomy, and their rights. So I think this is an election where we have to pull young people and older people together to have a strategy about how we're going to encourage even more American's to vote because it absolutely clear to me...
HOLT: That's time...
CLINTON: That turning over our White House to the Republicans would be bad for everybody especially young people.
HOLT: A quick follow up -- a thirty second follow up.
Why is Senator Sanders beating you to 2 to 1 among younger votes?
CLINTON: Look, I have the greatest respect for Senator Sanders and for his supports and I'm going to keep working as hard as I can to reach as many people of all ages about what I will do, what the experience and the ideas that I have that I will bring to the White House and I hope to have their support when I'm the Democratic nominee.
HOLT: We're going to take...
SANDERS: Is that your strategy...
HOLT: We're going to take a break. When we come back; big banks, big business and big differences among the three candidates on the American Economy. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Welcome back from Charleston. Let's turn now to the economy.
Senator Sanders, you released a tough new ad last week in which without mentioning Secretary Clinton by name, you talk about two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street. "One says it's OK to take millions from big banks and tell them what to do. My plan, break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes and make them pay their fair share."
What do you see as the difference between what you would do about the banks and what Secretary Clinton would do?
SANDERS: Well, the first difference is I don't take money from big banks. I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. What I would do...
(APPLAUSE)
What I would do is understand that when you have three out of the four largest banks today, bigger than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, when you have the six largest financial institutions having assets of 60 percent of the GDP of America, it is very clear to me what you have to do.
You've got to bring back the 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation and you've got to break up these huge financial institutions. They have too much economic power and they have too much financial power over our entire economy. If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, the old Republican trust buster, what he would say is these guys are too powerful. Break them up. I believe that's what the American people to want see. That's my view.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, help the voter understand the daylight between the two of you here.
CLINTON: Well, there's no daylight on the basic premise that there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that. But where we disagree is the comments that Senator Sanders has made that don't just affect me, I can take that, but he's criticized President Obama for taking donations from Wall Street, and President Obama has led our country out of the great recession.
Senator Sanders called him weak, disappointing. He even, in 2011, publicly sought someone to run in a primary against President Obama. Now, I personally believe that President Obama's work to push through the Dodd- Frank...
(LAUGHTER)
The Dodd-Frank bill and then to sign it was one of the most important regulatory schemes we've had since the 1930s. So I'm going to defend Dodd- Frank and I'm going to defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street, taking on the financial industry and getting results.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: OK. First of all...
HOLT: Senator Sanders, your response.
SANDERS: Set the record right. In 2006 when I ran for the Senate, Senator Barack Obama was kind enough to campaign for me, 2008, I did my best to see that he was elected and in 2012, I worked as hard as I could to see that he was reelected. He and I are friends. We've worked together on many issues. We have some differences of opinion.
But here is the issue, Secretary touched on it, can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions and when they are providing speaker fees to individuals? So it's easy to say, well, I'm going to do this and do that, but I have doubts when people receive huge amounts of money from Wall Street.
SANDERS: I am very proud, I do not have a super PAC. I do not want Wall Street's money. I'll rely on the middle class and working families...
HOLT: That's time.
Governor O'Malley...
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: ... campaign contributions.
HOLT: I have a question for you...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I think since -- since Senator Standers followed up on this...
HOLT: Thirty-second response.
CLINTON: Your profusion of comments about your feelings towards President Obama are a little strange given what you said about him in 2011.
But look, I have a plan that most commentators have said is tougher, more effective, and more comprehensive.
O'MALLEY: That's not true.
CLINTON: It builds on the Dodd-Frank -- yes, it is. It builds on the Dodd-Frank, regulatory scheme...
O'MALLEY: It's just not true.
CLINTON: ... but it goes much further, because...
O'MALLEY: Oh, come on.
CLINTON: ... both the governor and the senator have focused only on the big banks. Lehman Brothers, AIG, the shadow banking sector were as big a problem in what caused the Great Recession, I go after them.
And I can tell you that the hedge fund billionaires who are running ads against me right now, and Karl Rove, who started running an ad against me right now, funded by money from the financial services sector, sure thing, I'm the one they don't want to be up against.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Yes, thank you. Yes, Lester, what Secretary Clinton just said is actually not true. What -- I have put forward a plan that would actually put cops back on the beat of Wall Street. I have put forward a plan that was heralded as very comprehensive and realistic.
Look, if a bank robber robs a bank and all you do is slap him on the wrist, he's just going to keep robbing banks again. The same thing is true with people in suits.
Secretary Clinton, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but for you to say there's no daylight on this between the three of us is also not true. I support reinstituting a modern version of Glass- Steagall that would include going after the shadow banks, requiring capital requirements that would force them to no longer put us on the hook for these sorts of things.
In prior debates I've heard you even bring up -- I mean, now you bring up President Obama here in South Carolina in defense of the fact of your cozy relationship with Wall Street.
In an earlier debate, I heard you bring up even the 9/11 victims to defend it. The truth of the matter is, Secretary Clinton, you do not go as far as reining in Wall Street as I would.
And the fact of the matter is, the people of America deserve to have a president that's on their side, protecting the main street economy from excesses on Wall Street. And we're just as vulnerable today.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, 30-second response.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Yes, well, first of all -- first of all, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, others have all endorsed my plan. Secondly, we have Dodd-Frank. It gives us the authority already to break up big banks that pose...
O'MALLEY: And we have never used it.
CLINTON: That pose a risk to the financial sector. I want to go further and add to that.
And, you know, Governor, you have raised money on Wall Street. You raised a lot of money on Wall Street when you were the head of the Democratic Governor's Association...
O'MALLEY: Yes, but I haven't gotten a penny this year... CLINTON: And you were...
O'MALLEY: ... so somebody please, go on to martinomalley.com...
(LAUGHTER)
O'MALLEY: Go on to martinomalley.com, send me your checks. They're not giving me -- zero.
CLINTON: Yes, well, the point is that if we're going to be serious about this and not just try to score political points, we should know what's in Dodd-Frank, and what's in Dodd-Frank already gives the president the authority...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: ... with his regulators to make those decisions.
SANDERS: Let me give you an example of how corrupt -- how corrupt this system is. Goldman Sachs recently fined $5 billion. Goldman Sachs has given this country two secretaries of treasury, one on the Republicans, one under Democrats.
O'MALLEY: Say it.
SANDERS: The leader of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire who comes to Congress and tells us we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Secretary Clinton -- and you're not the only one, so I don't mean to just point the finger at you, you've received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year.
I find it very strange that a major financial institution that pays $5 billion in fines for breaking the law, not one of their executives is prosecuted, while kids who smoke marijuana get a jail sentence.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: That's time.
Andrea.
CLINTON: Well, the last point on this is, Senator Sanders, you're the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial market in 2000, to take the cops off the street, to use Governor O'Malley's phrase, to make the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission no longer able to regulate swaps and derivatives, which were one of the main cause of the collapse in '08.
So there's plenty...
SANDERS: If you want to...
CLINTON: There's plenty of problems that we all have to face together.
And the final thing I would say, we're at least having a vigorous debate about reining in Wall Street...
HOLT: ... Senator...
CLINTON: ... The Republicans want to give them more power, and repeal Dodd-Frank. That's what we need to stop...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Anyone who wants to check my record in taking on Wall Street, in fighting against the deregulation of Wall Street when Wall Street put billions of dollars in lobbying, in campaign contributions to get the government off their backs. They got the government off their backs.
Turns out that they were crooks, and they destroyed our economy. I think it's time to put the government back on their backs.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, you've talked a lot about things you want to do. You want free education for everyone, you want the Federal Minimum Wage raised to $15 an hour. You want to expand Social Security...
SANDERS: ... Yeah...
MITCHELL: ... benefits. You've been specific about what you want, but let's talk about how to pay for all this. You now said that you would raise taxes today, two hours or so ago, you said you would raise taxes to pay for your health care plan. You haven't been specific about how to pay for the other things...
SANDERS: ... That's true.
MITCHELL: ... Will you tell us tonight?
SANDERS: Good. You're right. I want to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create 13 million jobs. We do that by doing away with the absurd loophole that now allows major profitable corporations to stash their money in the Cayman (ph) Islands, and not in some years, pay a nickel in taxes. Yes, I do. I plead guilty. I want every kid in this country who has the ability to be able to go to a public college, or university, tuition free. And, by the way, I want to substantially lower student debt interest rates in this country as well.
How do I pay for it?
(APPLAUSE)
I pay for it through a tax on Wall Street speculation. This country, and the middle class, bailed out Wall Street. Now, it is Wall Street's time to help the middle class. In fact...
O'MALLEY: (inaudible)
SANDERS: ... we have documented, unlike Secretary Clinton, I have documented exactly how I would pay for our ambitious agenda.
O'MALLEY: Andrea...
MITCHELL: ... OK...
O'MALLEY: ... The only person on this stage who has...
MITCHELL: ... Secretary Clinton, you mentioned earlier -- Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?
CLINTON: Well, I have actually documented every way that I'm going to pay for what I'm doing because I think the American public deserves to know. And, you can go to my website and actually see that.
But, there are serious questions about how we're going to pay for what we want to see our country do. And, I'm the only candidate standing here tonight who has said I will not raise taxes on the middle class. I want to raise incomes, not taxes, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that the wealthy pay for debt free tuition, for child care, for paid family leave. To help us bring down student debt we're going to refinance that student debt, saving kids thousands of dollars.
Yeah, and that will also come out of the -- some of the pockets of people in the financial services industry...
MITCHELL: OK, we're out of time. Senator Sanders,
CLINTON: But I will tell you exactly how I pay for everything I've proposed...
(CROSSTALK)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: ... Here is the main two points...
MITCHELL: ... Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question about taxes. SANDERS: Yeah.
MITCHELL: The most googled political issue...
SANDERS: ... I got it.
MITCHELL: In the last month was taxes. Now, in your healthcare plan, the plan you released tonight, you would not only raise taxes on the wealthy, but the details you released indicate you would raise taxes on the middle class also. Is that correct?
SANDERS: What is correct, and I'm disappointed that Secretary Clinton's campaign has made this criticism. It's a Republican criticism. Secretary Clinton does know a lot about healthcare, and she understands, I believe, that a medicare for all, single payer program will substantially lower the cost of healthcare for middle class families. So, what we have got to acknowledge, and I hope the Secretary does, is we are doing away with private health insurance premiums.
SANDERS: So, if I save you $10,000 in private health insurance, and you pay a little bit more in taxes in total, there are huge savings in what your family is spending.
O'MALLEY: Senator, I'm the only person on this stage that's actually balanced a budget every year for 15 years.
SANDERS: I was mayor for eight years, I did that as well.
(LAUGHTER)
O'MALLEY: OK. So, that was eight years. Yes. And Senator, but I actually did it during a budget down time -- I mean, during a recession.
And Andrea, the -- I had to make more cuts than any governor in the history of Maryland, but we invested more in infrastructure, more in transportation. We made our public schools more in America more than five years in a row, and went four years in a row without a penny's increase to college tuition.
The things that we need to do in our country, like debt-free college in the next five years, like making universal -- like making national service a universal option in order to cut youth unemployment in half in the next three years, all these things can be done if we eliminate one entitlement we can no longer afford as a nation.
And that is the wealthy among us, those making more than a million dollars, feel that they are entitled to paying a much lower marginal tax rate than was usual for the better part of these 80 years.
And if we tax earnings from investments on money -- namely capital gains -- at the same rate as we tax sweat and hard work and toil, we can make the investments we need to make to make our country better.
HOLT: We have got a lot to ground to cover here.
Many Democratic voters are passionate about the need to do something to combat the threat of climate change, including the team of scientists from Youtube's MinuteEarth channel.
Here's their take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: Hello from MinuteEarth. Fossil fuels have long kept our cars moving and our light bulbs lit.
But we know that burning these fuels releases heat-trapping gases that are warming the planet, causing seas to rise and contributing to extreme weather events, like South Carolina's devastating flooding last year.
Fighting human-caused climate change means giving up our global addiction to fossil fuels and shifting the bulk of the world's energy supply to alternative sources.
Some countries have acted decisively to make this transition. But here at home, we still get a whooping 82 percent of our energy from coal, oil, and natural gas.
In the U.S., political gridlock, pressure from industry lobbyists and insufficient R&D have made an already tough battle against climate change even tougher.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLT: Senator Sanders, Americans love their SUVs, which spiked in sales last year as gas prices plummeted.
How do you convince Americans that the problem of climate change is so urgent that they need to change their behavior?
SANDERS: I think we already are. Younger generation understands it instinctively.
I was home in Burlington, Vermont, on Christmas Eve, the temperature was 65 degrees. People in Vermont know what's going on. People who did ice fishing, where their ice is no longer there on the lake understand what's going on.
I'm on both the Environmental and Energy Committees. The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is already causing major problems. And if we do not act boldly and decisively, a bad situation will become worse.
It is amazing to me, and I think we'll have agreement on this up here, that we have a major party, called the Republican Party that is so owned by the fossil fuel industry and their campaign contributions that they don't even have the courage, the decency to listen to the scientists.
(APPLAUSE)
It is beyond my comprehension how we can elect a president of the United States, somebody like Trump, who believes that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.
(LAUGHTER)
Bottom line is, we need to be bold and decisive, we can create millions of jobs. We must, for the sake of our kids and grandchildren, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
I've got the most comprehensive legislation in the Senate to do that. And as president, I will fight to make that happen.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Governor O'Malley, 30 seconds.
O'MALLEY: Thank you.
Lester, on this stage tonight, this Democratic stage, where we actually believe in science.
(LAUGHTER)
I would like to challenge and invite my colleagues here on this stage to join me in putting forward a plan to move us to a 100 percent clean, electric energy grid by 2050. It can be done.
(APPLAUSE)
With solar, with wind, with new technologies, with green buildings, this can happen, but in all -- President Obama made us more energy independent, but in all of the above strategy didn't land us on the moon, we need American ingenuity and we need to reach by 2050 for the sake of our kids.
HOLT: That's time. We're going to take a break.
CLINTON: And let me...
HOLT: When we return, the late-breaking developments regarding Iran. The threat of ISIS now more real than ever on U.S. soil. Americans in fear and hearing few good answers.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TODD: And we are back. I'm Chuck Todd. We are just past the halfway mark in our NBC News YouTube Democratic Candidates Debate. Boy, this is one that has actually lived up to the billing.
We've seen some sharp exchanges on guns, health care and Wall Street -- the debate, you could argue, that has been largely focused on all things Bernie Sanders.
He was on the defensive early, Hillary Clinton getting, I think, some control on the gun issue. But on health care and on Wall Street reform, it was Hillary Clinton on the defensive, and was a very aggressive Bernie Sanders.
One thing of note here: Bernie Sanders very much being the sort of revolutionary candidate, major change, and you've heard a lot of Hillary Clinton saying things like she wants to build on the things that President Obama did, wrapping herself in President Obama.
Let's go back downstairs and check in with our moderators, Lester and Andrea. So what's coming up next, guys?
HOLT: Well, we've covered a lot of ground already, but we're gonna be talking about ISIS. A threat to America, it's -- always polls as one of the top concerns of Americans. And also some more late-breaking news.
MITCHELL: We have all the news that has happened from Iran and the president's comments today, as well as what this means going forward for the War on Terror. What do we expect from Iran, and also what's happening in Syria? So a lot of foreign policy coming up.
HOLT: A lot of debate to come. We'll be back in Charleston after this.
TODD: You've got it. Well, it's the commander-in-chief test -- that's what's next. Stay with us -- the debate resumes right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Charleston, Andrea Mitchell has questions now starting with Iran.
MITCHELL: Thank you Lester.
Senator Sanders, the nuclear deal is now enforced. Iran is getting it's billions of dollars, several Americans who have been held are now going to be heading home. The president said today, "it's a good day. It's a good day for diplomacy. It's a time now to restore diplomatic relations for the first time since 1979 and actually re- opened a U.S. Embassy in Tehran."
SANDERS: I think what we've got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran. Understanding that Iran's behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with; their support terrorism, the anti-American rhetoric that we're hearing from of their leadership is something that is not acceptable.
On the other hand, the fact that we've managed to reach an agreement, something that I've very strongly supported that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we did that without going to war. And that I believe we're seeing a fall in our relationships with Iran is a very positive step. So if your question is, do I want to see that relationship become more positive in the future? Yes.
Can I tell that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don't think we should. But I think the goal has go to be as we've done with Cuba, to move in warm relations with a very powerful and important country in this world.
MITCHELL: Your response Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I'm very proud of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I was very pleased to be part of what the president put into action when he took office. I was responsible for getting those sanctions imposed which put the pressure on Iran. It brought them to the negotiating table which resulted in this agreement.
And so, they have been so far, following their requirements under the agreement. But I think we still have to carefully watch them. We've had one good day over 36 year and I think we need more good days before we move more rapidly toward any kind of normalization. And we have to be sure that they are truly going to implement the agreement. And then, we have to go after them on a lot of their other bad behavior in the region which is causing enormous problems in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere.
MITCHELL: You mentioned Syria. Let me ask you about Syria, all of you. Let's turn to Syria and the civil war that has been raging there. Are there any circumstances in which you could see deploying significant numbers of ground forces in Syria, not just specials forces but significant ground forces to combat ISIS in a direct combat role?
Let me start with you Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Absolutely not.
I have a three point plan that does not include American Ground forces. It includes the United States leading an air coalition which is what we're doing, supporting fighters on the ground; the Iraqi Army which is beginning to show more ability, the Sunni fighters that we are now helping to reconstitute and Kurdish on both sides of the border.
I think we also have try to disrupt their supply chain of foreign fighters and foreign money and we do have to contest them in online space. So I'm very committed to both going after ISIS but also supporting what Secretary Kerry is doing to try to move on a political diplomatic to try to begin to slow down and hopefully end the carnage in Syria which is the root of so many of the problems that we seen in the region and beyond.
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders, ground forces yes or no?
SANDERS: As everybody you know, this is incredibly complicated and difficult issue and I applaud. I know President Obama's been getting a lot of criticism on this. I think he is doing the right thing.
What the nightmare is, which many of my Republican colleagues appear to want is to not have learned the lesson of Iraq. To get American young men and women involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of Syria and the Middle East would be an unmitigated disaster that as president, I will do everything in my power to avoid.
O'MALLEY: Andrea...
MITCHELL: Governor O'Malley?
SANDERS: We should -- we should learn -- we should learn from King Abdullah of Jordan, one of the few heroes in a very unheroic place. And what Abdullah said is this is a war with a soul of Islam and that Muslim troops should be on the ground with our support and the support of other major countries. That is how we destroy ISIS, not with American troops in perpetual warfare.
MITCHELL: Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Andrea, governors have led us to victory in two world wars by doing what America does best, and that is by joining forces with others by acting in coalition. And I believe that President Obama is doing the right thing in this case.
We need to learn the lessons from the past. We do need to provide the special -- special ops advisers, we need -- do need to provide the technical support, but over the long-term, we need to develop new alliances. We need a much more proactive national security strategy that reduces these threats before they rise to a level where it feels like we need to pull for a division of marines.
And I also want to add one other thing here. I appreciate the fact that in our debate, we don't use the term you hear Republicans throwing around trying to look all vibrato (ph) and macho sending other kids -- kids into combat, they keep using the term boots on the ground. A woman in Burlington, Iowa said to me, "Governor, when you're with your colleagues, please don't refer to my son who has served two tours of duty in Iraq as a pair of boots on the ground." Now, we need to be mindful of learning the lessons of the past.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: I have a question. I have a question for Senator Sanders. Did the policies of the Obama administration, in which Secretary Clinton of course was a part, create a vacuum in Iraq and Syria that helped ISIS grow?
SANDERS: No. I think the vacuum was created by the disastrous war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Not only did I vote against it, I helped lead the opposition. And what happened there is yes, it's easy to get rid of a two-bit dictator like Saddam Hussein, but there wasn't the kind of thought as to what happens the day after you get him and what kind of political vacuum occurs. And who rises up? Groups like ISIS.
So I think that President Obama made a promise to the American people when he ran, and he said you know what, I'm going to do my best to bring American troops home. And I supported what he did. Our job is to train and provide military support for Muslim countries in the area who are prepared to take on ISIS.
And one point I want to make here that is not made very often, you have incredibly wealthy countries in that region, countries like Saudi Arabia, countries like Qatar. Qatar happens to be the largest -- wealthiest country per capita in the world. They have got to start putting in some skin in the game and not just ask the United States to do it.
(APPLAUSE)
MITCHELL: Secretary Clinton, I want to talk to you about red lines, because former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a recent interview that President Obama's decision to stand down on planned missile strikes against Damascus after Assad had used chemical weapons hurt the president's credibility. Should the president have stuck to his red line once he drew it?
CLINTON: Look, I think that the president's decision to go after the chemical weapons once there was a potential opportunity to build on when the Russians opened that door resulted in a very positive outcome. We were able to get the chemical weapons out.
I know from my own experience as secretary of State that we were deeply worried about Assad's forces using chemical weapons because it would have had not only a horrific affect on people in Syria, but it could very well have affected the surrounding states, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey. So getting those chemical weapons out was a big deal, but...
MITCHELL: But should he -- should he have stuck to his...
CLINTON: Well -- but -- but...
MITCHELL: ... line? Did it hurt U.S. credibility?
CLINTON: I think, as commander in chief, you've got to constantly be evaluating the decisions you have to make. I know a little bit about this, having spent many hours in the situation room, advising President Obama.
And I want to just add to something that Senator Sanders said, the United States had a very big interest in trying to help stabilize the region. If there is any blame to be spread around, it starts with the prime minister of Iraq, who sectarianized his military, setting Shia against Sunni.
It is amplified by Assad, who has waged one of the bloodiest, most terrible attacks on his own people: 250,000-plus dead, millions fleeing. Causing this vacuum that has been filled unfortunately, by terrorist groups, including ISIS.
So, I think we are in the midst of great turmoil in this region. We have a proxy conflict going on between Saudi Arabia and Iran. You know, one of the criticisms I've had of Senator Sanders is his suggestion that, you know, Iranian troops be used to try to end the war in Syria...
MITCHELL: Your time is up.
CLINTON: ... and go after ISIS, which I don't think would be a good idea.
SANDERS: Let me just...
MITCHELL: Senator....
CLINTON: But overall, a lot of the forces at work in the region are ones that we cannot directly influence, but we can...
MITCHELL: You're out of time.
SANDERS: OK. Let me suggest...
(CROSSTALK)
MITCHELL: Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: Where Secretary Clinton and I think, I agree with most of what she said. But where I think we do have an honest disagreement, is that in the incredible quagmire of Syria, where it's hard to know who's fighting who and if you give arms to this guy, it may end up in ISIS' hand the next day. We all know that.
And we all know, no argument, the secretary is absolutely right, Assad is a butcher of his own people, man using chemical weapons against his own people. This is beyond disgusting.
But I think in terms of our priorities in the region, our first priority must be the destruction of ISIS. Our second priority must be getting rid of Assad, through some political settlement, working with Iran, working with Russia.
But the immediate task is to bring all interests together who want to destroy ISIS, including Russia, including Iran, including our Muslim allies to make that the major priority.
O'MALLEY: But in all of that senator and secretary, I think we're leaving out something very important here. And that is that we still don't have the human intelligence: overt, in terms of diplomatic intelligence or covert, to understand even what the heck happens as the secondary and tertiary effects of some of these things.
We are walking through this region, Andrea, without the human intelligence that we need. And we need to make a renewed investment as a country in bringing up a new generation of foreign service officers, and bringing up a new generation of business people and actually understanding and having relationships in these places.
So we have a better sense of what the heck happens after a dictator topples and can take action to prevent another safe haven and another iteration of terror.
MITCHELL: Your time is us. Lester.
HOLT: Senator Sanders mentioned Russia a moment ago. Secretary Clinton, you famously handed Russia's foreign minister a reset button in 2009. Since then, Russia has annexed Crimea, fomented a war in Ukraine, provided weapons that downed an airliner and launched operations, as we just did discuss, to support Assad in Syria. As president, would you hand Vladimir Putin a reset button?
CLINTON: Well, it would depend on what I got for it and I can tell you what we got in the first term, we got a new start treaty to reduce nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia. We got permission to resupply our troops in Afghanistan by traveling across Russia.
We got Russia to sign on to our sanctions against Iran and other very important commitments. So look, in diplomacy, you are always trying to see how you can figure out the interest of the other to see if there isn't some way you can advance your security and your values.
When Putin came back in the fall of 2011, it was very clear he came back with a mission. And I began speaking out as soon as that happened because there were some fraudulent elections held, and Russians poured out into the streets to demand their freedom, and he cracked down. And in fact, accused me of fomenting it. So we now know that he has a mixed record to say the least and we have to figure out how to deal with him.
HOLT: What's your relationship with him?
CLINTON: Well, my relationship with him, it's -- it's interesting.
(LAUGHTER)
It's one, I think, of respect. We've had some very tough dealings with one another. And I know that he's someone that you have to continuingly stand up to because, like many bullies, he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can unless you do.
And we need to get the Europeans to be more willing to stand up, I was pleased they put sanctions on after Crimea and eastern Ukraine and the downing of the airliner, but we've got to be more united in preventing Putin from taking a more aggressive stance in Europe and the Middle East.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: We to want turn right now to the issue of balancing national security concerns with the privacy rights of Americans. That brings us to YouTube and this question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BROWNLEE: Hi, my name Marques Brownlee, and I've been making YouTube videos about electronics and gadgets for the past seven years.
I think America's future success is tied to getting all kinds of tech right. Tech companies are responsible for the encryption technology to protect personal data, but the government wants a back door into that information.
So do you think it's possible to find common ground? And where do you stand on privacy versus security?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLT: So, Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Thank you.
I believe whether it's a back door or a front door that the American principle of law should still hold that our federal government should have to get a warrant, whether they want to come through the back door or your front door.
(APPLAUSE)
And I also agree, Lester, with Benjamin Franklin, who said, no people should ever give up their privacy or their freedoms in a promise for security.
So we're a collaborative people. We need collaborative leadership here with Silicon Valley and other bright people in my own state of Maryland and around the NSA that can actually figure this out.
But there are certain immutable principles that will not become antique things in our country so long as we defend our country and its values and its freedoms. And one of those things is our right to be secure in our homes, and our right to expect that our federal government should have to get a warrant.
I also want to the say that while we've made some progress on the Patriot Act, I do believe that we need an adversarial court system there. We need a public advocate. We need to develop jurisprudence so that we can develop a body of law that protects the privacy of Americans in the information and digital age.
HOLT: That's time.
You have all talked about what you would do fighting ISIS over there, but we've been hit in this country by home-grown terrorists, from Chattanooga to San Bernardino, the recent shooting of a police officer in Philadelphia. How are you going to fight the lone wolves here, Senator Sanders?
O'MALLEY: Yes, Lester, year in and year out I was the leader of the U.S. ...
HOLT: That's a question to Senator Sanders. I wasn't clear, I apologize.
SANDERS: OK. I just wanted to add, in the previous question, I voted against the USA Patriot Act for many of the reasons that Governor O'Malley mentioned. But it is not only the government that we have to worry about, it is private corporations.
You would all be amazed, or maybe not, about the amount of information private companies and the government has in terms of the Web sites that you access, the products that you buy, where you are this very moment.
And it is very clear to me that public policy has not caught up with the explosion of technology. So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley to make sure that we do not allow ISIS to transmit information...
HOLT: But in terms of lone wolves, the threat, how would you do it?
SANDERS: Right. What we have got to do there is, among other things, as I was just saying, have Silicon Valley help us to make sure that information being transmitted through the Internet or in other ways by ISIS is, in fact, discovered.
But I do believe we can do that without violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people.
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: We have to go to a -- we have to go to a break, and when we come back, we're going to get to some of the burning questions these candidates have yet to answer and are totally eager to talk about.
CLINTON: Oh, we're breaking? OK.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: And welcome back to Charleston.
As we were going to a break, Secretary Clinton, I cut you off. I'll give you 30 seconds to respond on the issue of lone wolves.
O'MALLEY: Can I get 30 seconds, too?
(LAUGHTER)
SANDERS: Can I get 50 seconds?
HOLT: Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, I wanted to say, and I'll do it quickly, I was very pleased that leaders of President Obama's administration went out to Silicon Valley last week and began exactly this conversation about what we can do, consistent with privacy and security.
We need better intelligence cooperation, we need to be sure that we are getting the best intelligence that we can from friends and allies around the world. And then, we've got to recognize our first line of defense against lone wolf attacks is among Muslim Americans.
And it is not only shameful, it is dangerous for the kinds of comments you're hearing from the Republican side.
We need to be reaching out and unifying our country against terrorist attacks and lone wolves, and working with Muslim Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: And Andrea has a follow-up.
O'MALLEY: And Andrea -- Andrea -- Andrea...
MITCHELL: Just a -- just a quick follow-up, though, Secretary Clinton. Just a moment, Governor.
O'MALLEY: Andrea, when can I get my 30 seconds?
MITCHELL: But -- but -- Secretary Clinton, you said that the leaders from the intelligence community went to Silicon Valley, they were flatly turned down. They got nowhere.
CLINTON: That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that.
O'MALLEY: Andrea, I need to talk about homeland security and preparedness.
Ever since the attacks of September 11th -- 30 seconds.
(LAUGHTER)
Ever since the attacks of September 11th, my colleagues, Democratic and Republican mayors, Democratic and Republican governors, made me their leader on homeland security and preparedness.
Ever since the attacks of September 11th -- 30 seconds.
(LAUGHTER)
Ever since the attacks of September 11th, my colleagues, Democratic and Republican mayors, Democratic and Republican governors, made me their leader on homeland security and preparedness.
O'MALLEY: Here in the homeland, unlike combating ISIL abroad, we're almost like it's -- your body's immune system. It's able to protect your body against bad bugs, not necessarily because it outnumbers them, but it's better connected -- the fusion centers, the biosurveillance systems, better prepared first responders.
But there's another front in this battle, and it is this. That's the political front, and if Donald Trump wants to start a registry in our country of people by faith, he can start with me, and I will sign up as one who is totally opposed to his fascist appeals that wants to vilify American Muslims. That can do more damage to our democracy than any...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: All right, that's time, and -- and we do...
(APPLAUSE)
... we do have to move on.
Secretary Clinton, this is the first time...
SANDERS: Can I get a -- can I just get a very brief response? Very brief.
HOLT: Thirty -- 30 -- 30 seconds, Senator.
SANDERS: OK. One -- and I agree with what the secretary said, and what Governor O'Malley said. But here's an issue that we also should talk about. We have a $600 billion military budget. It is a budget larger than the next eight countries'.
Unfortunately, much of that budget continues to fight the old Cold War with the Soviet Union. Very little of that budget -- less than 10 percent -- actually goes into fighting ISIS and international terrorism. We need to be thinking hard about making fundamental changes in the priorities of the Defense Department.
HOLT: All right. Secretary Clinton...
(APPLAUSE)
... this is the first time that a spouse of a former president could be elected president. You have said that President Clinton would advise you on economic issues, but be specific, if you can. Are you talking about a kitchen-table role on economics, or will he have a real policy role?
CLINTON: Well, it'll start at the kitchen table, we'll see how it goes from there. And I...
(APPLAUSE)
... I'm going to have the very best advisers that I can possibly have, and when it comes to the economy and what was accomplished under my husband's leadership and the '90s -- especially when it came to raising incomes for everybody and lifting more people out of poverty than at any time in recent history -- you bet.
I'm going to ask for his ideas, I'm going ask for his advice, and I'm going use him as a goodwill emissary to go around the country to find the best ideas we've got, because I do believe, as he said, everything that's wrong with America has been solved somewhere in America.
We just have to do more of it, and we have to reach out, especially into poor communities and communities of color, to give more people their own chance to get ahead.
HOLT: Senator sanders, a 30 second response, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Great ideas, Governor O'Malley, Secretary Clinton, but here's the truth. If you have an administration stacked with Wall Street appointees, it ain't going to accomplish very much.
So here's a promise that I make -- and I mentioned a moment ago how corrupt the system is -- Goldman Sachs, paying a $5 billion fine, gives this country, in recent history, a Republican secretary of treasury, a Democratic secretary of treasury.
Here's a promise. If elected president, Goldman Sachs is not going to have -- bring forth a secretary of treasury for a Sanders administration.
(APPLAUSE)
MILLER: Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question. You called Bill Clinton's past transgressions, quote, "totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable." Senator, do you regret saying that?
SANDERS: I was asked a question. You know, one of the things, Andrea, and I -- that question annoys me. I cannot walk down the street -- Secretary Clinton knows this -- without being told how much I have to attack secretary Clinton, want to get me on the front pages of the paper, I'd make some vicious attack.
I have avoided doing that. Trying to run an issue-oriented campaign.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: I was asked a question.
MILLER: You didn't have to answer it that way, though. Why did you?
SANDERS: Well -- then if I don't answer it, then there's another front page, so it's yes (ph).
(LAUGHTER)
And I mean this seriously. You know that. We've been through this. Yes, his behavior was deplorable. Have I ever once said a word about that issue? No, I have not. I'm going to debate Secretary Clinton, Governor O'Malley, on the issues facing the American people, not Bill Clinton's personal behavior.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: We will take a break. We'll continue from Charleston right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLT: Welcome back everybody. Finally, before we go tonight, we set out here to understand points of differences between you. We believe we've learned a lot here, but before we leave, is there anything that you really wanted to say tonight that you haven't gotten a chance to say.
And, we'll start with Governor O'Malley.
(LAUGHTER)
HOLT: Didn't see that coming, did you?
O'MALLEY: Yes, but we're going to have to get 20 minutes to do it, so.
(LAUGHTER)
MITCHELL: ...too long (ph).
O'MALLEY: I believe there are many issues. I have 60 seconds for this?
HOLT: Sixty seconds, we'd appreciate it.
O'MALLEY: There are so many issues that we haven't been able to discuss here. We have not fully discussed immigration reform, and the deplorable number of immigrant detention camps that our nation's now maintaining. We haven't discussed the shameful treatment that the people of Puerto Rico, our fellow Americans, are getting treated with by these hedge funds that are working them over.
(APPLAUSE)
O'MALLEY: We haven't discussed the fact that in our hemisphere we have the danger of nation-state failures because of drug traffickers; and Honduras, and Guatemala and El Salvador.
I guess the bottom line is this, look we are a great people the way we act at home and abroad based on the beliefs that unite us. Our belief in the dignity of every person, our belief in our own common good. There is now challenge that is too great for us to overcome provided we bring forward in these divided times, new leadership that can heal our divides here at home and bring our principles into alignment abroad.
We're on the threshold of a new era of American progress and I believe we have only need to join forces together and cross that threshold into a new era of American prosperity.
HOLT: And that's time.
O'MALLEY: Thanks a lot.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well Lester, I spent a lot of time last week being outraged by what's happening in Flint, Michigan and I think every single American should be outraged. We've had a city in the United States of America where the population which is poor in many ways and majority African American has been drinking and bathing in lead contaminated water. And the governor of that state acted as though he didn't really care.
He had requests for help that he basically stonewalled. I'll tell you what, if the kids in a rich suburb of Detroit had been drinking contaminated water and being bathed in it, there would've been action.
So I sent my top campaign aide down there to talk to the mayor of Flint to see what I could do to help. I issued a statement about what we needed to do and then I went on a TV show and I said, "it was outrageous that the governor hadn't acted and within two hours he had."
HOLT: And that's time.
CLINTON: I want to be a president who takes care of the big problems and the problems that are affecting the people of our country everyday.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Thank you.
Senator Sanders?
SANDERS: Well, Secretary Clinton was right and what I did which I think is also right, is demanded the resignation of governor. A man who acts that irresponsibly should not stay in power.
Now, we are a great nation -- and we've heard a lot of great ideas here tonight. Let's be honest and let's be truthful. Very little is going to be done to transform our economy and to create the kind of middle class we need unless we end a corrupt campaign finance system which is undermining American democracy.
We've got to get rid of Super PACs, we've got to get rid of Citizens' United and what we've got to do is create a political revolution which revitalizes American democracy; which brings millions of young people and working people into the political process. To say loudly and clearly," that the government of the United States of America belongs to all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors."
HOLT: All right. Well thank you and thanks to all of you for being here tonight shedding light on some of the differences as Americans get ready to vote.
I also want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and certainly my friend and colleague, Andrea Mitchell. This has been great. It's been a great spirited conversation and American people appreciate it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/17/the-4th-democratic-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/ [with embedded annotations and video clip, and comments]
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4 [with (over 102,000) comments]
--
Donald Trump - Liberty University Convocation
Published on Jan 18, 2016 by Liberty University [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzibtqE6MFp4Z2gxi2_Acjw / http://www.youtube.com/user/libertyuniversity , http://www.youtube.com/user/libertyuniversity/videos ]
January 18, 2016: GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke at Liberty University’s first convocation of 2016 in front of a record crowd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSAyOlQuVX4 [comments disabled] [also at/text taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E32ZPa4LGkM (with comments), and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAUhSTagmjM (with comment)] [Trump's appearance alone at http://www.c-span.org/video/?403331-1/donald-trump-remarks-liberty-university ]
--
Donald Trump holds rally in Iowa with Sarah Palin and receives Palin’s endorsement
Streamed live on Jan 19, 2016 by Washington Post [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHd62-u_v4DvJ8TCFtpi4GA / http://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost , http://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost/videos ]
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump attends a campaign rally in Ames, Iowa.
Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Which Could Bolster Him in Iowa
JAN. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html [with embedded video clip, and comments]
Palin’s endorsement the latest prize as Trump, Cruz battle for conservatives
January 19, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/palins-endorsement-the-latest-prize-as-trump-cruz-battle-for-conservatives/2016/01/19/c243b326-bede-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html [with embedded video clips, and comments]
Sarah Palin Backs Donald Trump, Murders Irony
She dazzled in sequins. He smirked. She declared an end to ‘pussyfooting around.’ Tuesday’s Palin announcement may have been surreal, but it can only benefit The Donald.
01.19.16
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-backs-donald-trump-murders-irony.html
12 Things Sarah Palin Just Said, In What We Can Only Assume Is Real Life
We keep pinching ourselves and it's not working.
Sarah Palin endorsed GOP front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday, and quickly reminded the nation that she really has a way with words.
01/19/2016 | Updated 01/20/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-palin-quotes-trump_us_569ed3b5e4b04c813761f583 [with embedded video, and comments]
Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign, Gets In A 'Squirmish' With Coherence
19/01/2016 Updated: 21/01/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-endorses-donal-trump_n_9020106.html [with embedded video clip, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPx0OOIM6W0 [Trump's appearance begins at c. the 49:35 mark, and, including Trump's brief introduction, Palin's performance, itself c. 20 minutes long, begins at c. the 1:15:05 mark; with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb0qIZD9g7M (with {over 7,000} comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tif6xm4_ysA (with {over 19,000} comments)] [Palin's performance alone at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvlm3LKSlpU (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5TfD8KEbf4 (with comments)]
*
Palin's take: The Trump phenomenon
Published on Aug 19, 2015 by Fox News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIJgqnII2ZOINSWNOGFThA / http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel , http://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel/videos ]
Former governor and vice presidential candidate on why Donald Trump has struck a chord and his lead his widening over GOP hopefuls and his immigration plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f4GmK17QVY [with comments] [also at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116598729 and preceding and following]
*
'On Point' with Gov. Sarah Palin & Donald Trump
Published on Aug 28, 2015 by One America News Network [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNbIDJNNgaRrXOD7VllIMRQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/1americanews , http://www.youtube.com/user/1americanews/videos ]
One America News Network’s “On Point with guest host Sarah Palin” interviews real estate mogul and 2016 Presidential candidate Donald Trump. The exclusive One America News Network interview was conducted live from the Trump Bar in New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeju2SG7UMA [with (over 11,000) comments] [also at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116623042 and preceding and following]
*
Sarah Palin To Be Trump's Secretary Of Stupid
Published on Sep 8, 2015 by The Young Turks [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks , http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/videos ]
Recently Sarah Palin was interviewing Donald Trump. They got along famously. She has since been asked about a potential cabinet position in the Trump Administration. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"Sarah Palin is already picking out a job for herself in the forthcoming Donald Trump administration. She'd like to run the Department of Energy for a brief period, before abolishing it.
Sounds promising! Except for one tiny little catch — it's not clear she even knows what the department does. Here's what she told CNN:
"I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby: oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations."
"I'd get rid of it. And I'd let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries and the people who are affected by the developments within their states. If I were in charge of that, it would be a short-term job, but it would be really great to have someone who knows energy and is pro-responsible development to be in charge.””*
*Read more here: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/7/9272275/palin-trump-energy-secretary
The Young Turks September 8, 2015 Hour 1
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTpcK80irdQixrQsWEqWqVawWc-cMXHyx
Teenage Trump Sent To Military School For Assaulting Teacher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV8z7eR-7ys
Is Demonization Of Minorities Fueling Hate Crimes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJF0gZEeNc
Anti-Gay Bully Kim Davis Throws Post-Prison Pity Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6dgV-uuMI
Muslim Flight Attendant Refuses To Serve Alcohol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxdx0PeBawA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1yAEHc6AlA [with comments]
*
The Original Material Girl Is Back
Published on Jan 21, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig/videos ]
Sarah Palin's linguistically acrobatic endorsement of Donald Trump wasn't fair to the rest of the candidates. So Stephen's got a Palin endorsement for everyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LPR7DktumA [with comments] [also at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119993019 and following]
*
Palin Endorsement Cold Open
Published on Jan 24, 2016 by Saturday Night Live [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqFzWxSCi39LnW1JKFR3efg / http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive , http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive/videos ]
Sarah Palin (Tina Fey) endorses Donald Trump (Darrell Hammond) for president at an Iowa campaign stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pinZNYxQeo [with comments] [original at http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/palin-endorsement-cold-open/2973575 ] [also at/see (linked in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0pinZNYxQeo any following]
--
Full Speech: Donald Trump campaign Event With Sarah Palin in Tulsa, OK Jan. 20th 2016
Published on Jan 20, 2016 by FOX 10 Phoenix
WED, JAN 20, 2016 AT 12:00 PM
Donald J. Trump in Tulsa, OK
Mabee Center, Tulsa, OK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNdLKwV5W4 [with comments] [also at e.g. and title and text taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdChrHVwRDU (with {over 4,000} comments), and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ix5D8FissM (with {over 17,000} comments)] [Palin's performance alone, again c. 20 minutes long and this time as the warm-up act, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuF11kUukrQ (with comments)]
--
Ted Cruz Welcomes Endorsement Of Mike Bickle, Who Believes Oprah Is A Forerunner To The Antichrist
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 1/22/2016 11:02 am
Back in 2011, when Texas governor Rick Perry [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/rick-perry ] was planning his first run for the presidency, he kicked off his campaign with a massive prayer rally [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html ] in Houston called "The Response [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/the-response-prayer-rally ]." The event was the source of considerable controversy because Perry organized it in partnership with a whole host [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-sheet-gov-rick-perry%E2%80%99s-extremist-allies ] of radical Religious Right activists, including several members of the New Apostolic Reformation [ http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/new-apostolic-reformation ], a collection [ https://www.texasobserver.org/rick-perrys-army-of-god/ ] of self-proclaimed modern day apostles and prophets who believe that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, they are capable of performing greater miracles than even Jesus himself [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/new-prophets-we-can-do-same-or-greater-things-jesus ].
One of the key leaders in the NAR movement is Mike Bickle [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/longform/inside-the-international-house-of-prayer--2 , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/mike-bickle ], who also played a central role in organizing Perry's [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/perry-prayer-politics-and-presidency ] prayer rally [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/response-bickle-rails-against-redefining-love-and-false-religions ]. Bickle is the founder of the International House of Prayer [ http://www.ihopkc.org/about/ , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/international-house-prayer ], a controversial missionary organization in Kansas City, Missouri, that some critics [ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/the-seven-signs-youre-in-a-cult/361400/ ] have labeled a cult [ https://carm.org/ihop ] and which is best known for engaging [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ihop-classes-canceled-due-holy-spirit ] in nonstop 24-hour-a-day prayer in preparation for the End Times [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ihop-preparing-thousands-students-end-world , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/end-times ] and for its anti-gay activism in Uganda [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/new-york-times-investigates-relationship-between-american-dominionists-and-uganda , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/uganda ].
Bickle, unsurprisingly is a demon-fighting [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-bickle-exercising-dominion-casting-out-demons ] radical who believes that gay marriage is "rooted in the depths of hell [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-ally-bickle-says-marriage-equality-rooted-depths-hell ]," that homosexuality "opens the door to the demonic realm [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-bickle-warns-homosexuality-opens-door-demonic-realm ]" and that Oprah Winfrey is a forerunner of the Antichrist [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-partners-pastor-who-thinks-oprah-precursor-antichrist , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pFcFldh8lo (next below, as embedded; with comments)]:
Back in 2004, Bickle declared [ http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/10/18/15172/771/Front_Page/IHOP_Head_Mike_Bickle_Predicts_Coming_quot_Prison_Camps_quot_For_Jews_ ] that as the End Times approach, all Jews will be given a chance to accept Jesus, warning [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRV0spflIE (below, as embedded; with comments)] that if they do not accept "the grace" of Christ, God will then "raise up a hunter" who will kill two-thirds of them "and the most famous hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler":
Yesterday, Ted Cruz [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/ted-cruz ] proudly announced [ https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-for-president-announces-endorsement-of-mike-bickle/ ] that Bickle had endorsed his presidential campaign [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/election-2016 ]:
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz today announced the endorsement of Mike Bickle, Founder and Director of the International House of Prayer of Kansas City, an evangelical missions organization based on prayer.
“Our nation is in a great crisis in this hour,” Bickle said. “We need a president who will first be faithful to honor God’s Word. We need a president who will work to defend religious liberty, uphold our Constitution, keep our country safe and our economy sound, and speak truth to the nation. We have been praying for righteous leaders, and Ted Cruz is such a leader. I am enthusiastically endorsing Ted Cruz.”
The International House of Prayer is engaged in many outreaches, justice initiatives, and mission projects. For the last 16 years, their prayer room has continued nonstop in 24/7 prayer led by worship teams. 800 staff members work at the IHOPKC Mission Base in Kansas City, and 800 full-time students and interns attend the International House of Prayer University, which consists of three full-time ministry schools— a Bible school, music school, and media school. About 20,000 people attend One Thing annually, IHOPKC’s year-end young adult conference
“Through prayer, the Lord has changed my life and altered my family’s story,” said Cruz. “I am grateful for Mike’s dedication to call a generation of young people to prayer and spiritual commitment. Heidi and I are grateful to have his prayers and support. With the support of Mike and many other people of faith, we will fight the good fight, finish the course, and keep the faith.”
Bickle is just the latest in a long [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-endorsed-anti-lgbt-national-organization-marriage ] list [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cruz-touts-endorsements-anti-feminist-eagle-forum ] of [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/michael-brown-joins-list-religious-right-endorsements-ted-cruz ] radical [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-touts-endorsement-extreme-anti-gay-anti-choice-activist-flip-benham ] Religious [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-pastor-who-linked-ebola-gay-rights ] Right [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-nabs-another-anti-lgbt-endorsement ] activists [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-anti-gay-hate-group-official-and-radio-host-sandy-rios ] who [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-touts-endorsement-anti-gay-extremist-paul-blair ] have publicly [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/people-who-hate-gays-sure-do-love-ted-cruz ] endorsed [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-leader-james-dobson-endorse-ted-cruz ] Cruz for president, many of whom Cruz's campaign has eagerly embraced.
It is also worth noting that back in 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/john-mccain ] was forced to reject the endorsement [ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/mccain.hagee/ ] of John Hagee [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/john-hagee , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/john-hagee-0 ] after it was revealed that Hagee had made comments similar to Bickle's about God having used Hitler as a "hunter" to force the Jews to return to Israel.
Rick Perry Endorses Ted Cruz For President
Jan 25, 2016
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rick-perry-endorses-ted-cruz-president/story?id=36497065 [with embedded video report, and comments]
© 2016 People For the American Way
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-mike-bickle-who-believes-oprah-forerunner-antichrist
*
The key to the GOP in 2016 is... Oprah??
The Rachel Maddow Show
1/22/16
Rachel Maddow shows how Oprah is an unexpected point of overlap between the Trump and Cruz campaigns as Ted Cruz welcomes the endorsement of a preacher who thinks Oprah is the antichrist and Donald Trump has repeatedly said he would like Oprah as a running mate. Duration: 16:10
The Apocalypse Is Upon Us, Ted Cruz Endorsement Edition
January 22, 2016
http://religiondispatches.org/the-apocalypse-is-upon-us-ted-cruz-endorsement-edition/ [with comments]
Fanning the Flames of Dominionism: Ted Cruz Officially Endorsed by Mike Bickle
January 22, 2016
http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/01/22/fanning-the-flames-of-dominionism-ted-cruz-officially-endorsed-by-mike-bickle/ [no comments yet]
Cruz Endorsed by Mike Bickle
January 24, 2016
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/01/24/cruz-endorsed-by-mike-bickle/ [with comments]
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/the-key-to-the-gop-in-2016-is-oprah-607206467790 [with comments; also embedded at/see related article http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/week-god-12316 (with comments)] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-january-22-2015-trms (with comments)] [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pTjl5P_mUg (no comments yet)]
*
Glenn Beck Endorses Ted Cruz for President
Glenn Beck speaks at a rally for Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz in Iowa on Saturday, Jan. 23, 2016.
(Image source: Facebook)
(Image source: Facebook)
Dave Urbanski
Jan. 23, 2016 4:12pm
This story has been updated.
Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican Ted Cruz for president of the United States during a rally for the Texas senator in Iowa.
“I am here to announce that I am endorsing Senator Ted Cruz as the next President of the United States!” Beck said to wild cheers from crowd at Faith Bible College in Ankeny.
Beck said Cruz is the candidate who will “repoint the cornerstones” in Washington.
Beck also highlighted Cruz’s many accomplishments — from winning landmark court cases to standing on principles grounded by the U.S. Constitution.
The iconic radio talk-show host recalled a moment after he became acquainted with Cruz: “If you’re not who you say you are, I’m going to be your worst nightmare,” Beck said he told Cruz, adding that he’s watched the conservative candidate “relentlessly” and that Cruz is indeed who he says he is.
Just before Beck officially made his endorsement, he brought Cruz onstage and handed him his George Washington compass, a symbol of radio host’s pursuit of truth.
Beck said Cruz will fight for religious liberty, citizens’ Second Amendment rights and nominating Supreme Court justices who won’t tilt the balance toward liberalism.
“Iowa, I beg you,” Beck said as the state’s caucus approaches. “My children’s future depends on what you do a week from Monday.”
Beck underscored that it’s a “two-person race” with Cruz locked in a battle for votes with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.
“We have to start raising the bar,” Beck said.
Cruz Commander
Published on Jan 13, 2016 by Ted Cruz [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzMQMhq7Id0Y_wSDA_CJdGg / http://www.youtube.com/user/TedCruzforSenate , http://www.youtube.com/user/TedCruzforSenate/videos ]
http://www.cruzcommander.com [ https://www.tedcruz.org/l/cruz-commander/ ]
*
Phil Robertson Endorses Ted Cruz for President
Cruz News | January 13, 2016
Duck Commander says Cruz is “the man for the job”
HOUSTON, Texas – Today, the Cruz for President campaign announced the endorsement of Phil Robertson, a professional hunter, businessman, Christian minister, and reality television star on the popular television series Duck Dynasty. Robertson believes Ted Cruz is the man for the job.
“My qualifications for President of the United States are rather narrow: Is he or she Godly, does he or she love us, can he or she do the job, and finally would they kill a duck and put him in a pot and make him a good duck gumbo?,” Robertson said. “[Cruz] fits the bill.”
Robertson attended Louisiana Tech University, where he played football and received a master’s degree in education and spent several years teaching. However, his true passion was hunting, fishing and duck calling. Robertson started a commercial fishing company, which he expanded into a duck calling business that launched the family into success.
“I am thrilled to have Phil’s support for our campaign,” said Cruz. “The Robertson’s are a strong family of great Christian faith and conservative values. Phil’s story of starting off with something small and working hard to achieve the American dream is inspiring. Much like my parents, and many other Americans, who started a small business and worked hard to provide for our family. If we as conservatives come together in 2016 and fight for the values that have made this country exceptional, we will win the White House and turn this country around.”
SCRIPT:
PHIL ROBERTSON: My qualifications for President of the United States are rather narrow. Is he or she Godly, does he or she love us, can he or she do the job, and finally would they kill a duck and put him in a pot and make him a good duck gumbo? I’ve looked at the candidates, Ted Cruz is my man. He fits the bill. He’s Godly, he loves us, he’s the man for the job, and he will go duck hunting because today we’re going.
Ted Cruz is my man, I’m voting for him.
Cruz the reason we’re going to vote for you, all of us, is because you‘re one of us my man.
TED CRUZ: Thank you.
ROBERTSON: That’s why we’re voting for you.
It’s now or never.
https://www.tedcruz.org/news/phil-robertson-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/ [with this YouTube embedded], via https://www.tedcruz.org/news/ [with many more such]
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i-9D92bzu8 [with comments] [the 'TV Ad' version, with the 'I'm Ted Cruz, and I approve this ...' added at the start and finish, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG9V_ePjcX0 (with comments)]
further:
The short, weird history of the ‘Duck Dynasty’ political endorsement
January 13, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/the-short-weird-history-of-the-duck-dynasty-political-endorsement/ [with embedded videos, and comments]
Glenn Beck Joins Ted Cruz's Horror Show Of Extremist Media Endorsers
January 19, 2016
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/19/glenn-beck-joins-ted-cruzs-horror-show-of-extre/208046 [with comments]
Ted Cruz’s Career in Private Practice Complicates His Legal Record
Republican presidential candidate represented a Chinese company and personal-injury plaintiffs
Jan. 21, 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-private-practice-ted-cruz-often-left-his-conservatism-at-the-door-1453405929 [with comments]
The aspirations of 18 [sic - 17]-year-old Ted Cruz
Published on Jan 23, 2016 by Young Ted Cruz [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-4dmQMTiX_KIn4IgZHGD8Q , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-4dmQMTiX_KIn4IgZHGD8Q/videos ]
In 1988, high school senior Ted Cruz reflected on his life's ambitions while attending Second Baptist School in Houston, TX [when he was still 17 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz )]. Now, he is a Republican Senator running for the office of the President of the United States of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt-vG_TdOT4 [with comments] [embedded at and more at/via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-18-world-domination_us_56a5080ae4b0d8cc109a6bc4 (with comments), and http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-teen-world-domination-218148 (with comments)]
Glenn Beck endorses Cruz: Trump win is 'snowball to hell'
January 23, 2016
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/23/media/glenn-beck-ted-cruz-president/ [with comments]
In Iowa, Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck hit Trump as “Mounties” pass out Canadian birth certificate
Glenn Beck walks Sen. Ted Cruz through the presidential oath of office as he endorses the senator at a rally at Faith Bible College in Ankeny, Iowa, on Jan. 23, 2016.
January 23, 2016
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-rallies-with-glenn-beck-in-iowa.html/ [with comments]
Glenn Beck Administers ‘Presidential Oath of Office’ to Ted Cruz In Iowa
Media personality Glenn Beck administered a mock presidential “oath of office” to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he endorsed him on stage—and Cruz got the oath wrong when he took it.
23 Jan 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-administers-presidential-oath-of-office-to-ted-cruz-in-iowa/ [with (over 10,000) comments]
Trump Welcomes a Senator, Bashes Beck's Support of Cruz
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Dordt College, on Saturday, Jan. 23, 2016, in Sioux Center, Iowa.
Jan 23, 2016
Donald Trump is so confident about the loyalty of his supporters that he predicted Saturday they would stick with him even if he shot someone.
The Republican presidential front-runner bashed conservative commentator Glenn Beck's support of rival Ted Cruz and welcomed a figure from the GOP establishment, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, in rallies nine days before the Iowa caucuses open voting in the 2016 campaign.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump told an enthusiastic audience at a Christian school, Dordt College. "It's like incredible."
Beck campaigned for Ted Cruz and held little back in going after Trump. "The time for silliness and reality show tactics has passed," Beck charged at a Cruz rally. He warned that a Trump victory in the Feb. 1 caucuses could have lasting consequences: "If Donald Trump wins, it's going to be a snowball to hell."
[...]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-supporters-stick-shooting-36474598 [with comments]
‘We Are the Lifeboat of The World’: Beck Pleads Cruz Rally To Accept Even ‘Marxist Atheists’ Because ‘They Renew Us ‘
24 Jan 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/24/lifeboat-of-the-world-beck-beseeches-cruz-rally-to-allow-immigration/ [with comments]
Poll: Donald Trump gained 15 points on Ted Cruz in Iowa in two weeks
January 24, 2016
Earlier this month, Fox News released a poll [ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/08/fox-news-poll-iowa-polls-trump-vs-cruz-obama-ratings/ ] showing Ted Cruz leading Donald Trump by four points. The two had a sizable lead over everyone else in the state, and the poll was confirming what others were showing [ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html ]: Cruz had an advantage.
On Sunday, Fox released another Iowa poll [ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/22/fox-news-poll-iowa-presidential-primary/ ], with substantially different results. Now, Trump is up by 11 points, a 15-point swing in the two weeks between surveys. This poll, too, mirrors the recent trend: Trump has regained the advantage.
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/24/poll-donald-trump-gained-15-points-on-ted-cruz-in-iowa-in-two-weeks/ [with embedded video report, and comments]
Cruz Presidential Bid Aided by Billionaire Donors
Jan 25, 2016
Four of America's wealthiest businessmen laid the foundation for Ted Cruz's now-surging Republican presidential campaign and have redefined the role of political donors.
With just over a week until voters get their first say, the 45-year-old Texas senator known as a conservative warrior has been ascendant. The $36 million committed last year by these donor families is now going toward television, radio and online advertisements, along with direct mailings and get-out-the-vote efforts in early primary states.
The donors' super political action committees sponsored rallies Saturday in Iowa featuring Cruz and conservative personality Glenn Beck. The state holds the leadoff caucuses on Feb. 1.
The long-believing benefactors are New York hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, Texas natural gas billionaires Farris and Dan Wilks, and private-equity partner Toby Neugebauer. They honed their plan to help Cruz before he began his steady rise in polls — even before he announced his presidential bid in March.
"No one wants to lose," Neugebauer told The Associated Press when asked why he and others bet big on Cruz. "We didn't miss that an outsider would win. I think we've nailed it."
Voters will soon start determining whether he is right.
[...]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/cruz-presidential-bid-aided-billionaire-donors-36495897 [no comments yet]
further:
Cruz mega-donors’ path to ‘kingdom building’
The religious billionaire Dan Wilks had run-ins with the law.
Dan Wilks' desire to infuse American politics with his brand of morality last year drove him to join with his family to donate $15 million to support Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, making the billionaire one of the biggest donors in American politics.
01/14/16
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-dan-wilks-criminal-charges-217724 [with comments]
© 2016 TheBlaze Inc
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/ [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bOGNnWdNoE [with comments] [a pertinent excerpt at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt24T3vclh4 (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7vRVr3v_vU (no comments yet); Beck's comments along with his shared time on stage with Cruz at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmAt9tAiJLA (with comments)]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4501084 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4564232 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4644188 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=22198662 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=23094786 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=24074072 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=24778873 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=27317565 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32495173 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32560058 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33021774 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33123315 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33317293 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33317320 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33290830 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36332552 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36883853 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=38708998 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39252802 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39394970 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=40792689 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41666282 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43125574 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45826748 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46888982 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46972940 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47185263 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47185484 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48179158 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49837649 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52147306 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53837793 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53887297 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54350566 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55375076 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56245473 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56547799 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57045610 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57928259 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57930418 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58638252 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59055212 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59669924 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59670703 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61623333 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61715942 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63352633 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64771214 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65893563 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66390519 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66643520 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66689085 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67016836 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69305422 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69915729 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70444302 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73207417 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78913997 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81000795 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87878099 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88485649 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93870098 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95279189 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95666631 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=97217659 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107210424 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114206263 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116201583 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116598729 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116623042 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116812777 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=117320914 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118394550 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119569236 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119571039 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119715752 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119569277 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119575402 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119575960 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119601500 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119585452 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119586649 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119587198 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119594355 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119595240 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119675325 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119595725 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119596079 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119597512 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119598628 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119598697 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119601954 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119603422 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119606662 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119608203 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119613613 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119622828 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119624220 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119624818 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119626792 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119627060 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119627408 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119631679 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119634814 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119640269 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119649444 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119650038 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119687324 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119653399 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119653699 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119654421 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119659830 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119667667 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119672409 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119676427 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119677734 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119680626 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119684973 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119692930 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119693446 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119695012 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119712806 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119804484 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119698245 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119701976 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119708506 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119717193 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119709859 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119711932 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713043 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713169 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713248 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119713866 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119714108 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119715629 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119716614 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119720673 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119720999 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119721699 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119722255 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119723658 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119723753 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119735979 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119745220 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119736210 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119736963 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119737109 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119737174 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119740583 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119746538 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119748205 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119753434 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119756034 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119760224 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119760704 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119761214 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119761518 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119763464 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119764595 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119765835 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119772586 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119776280 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119789775 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119791116 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119791200 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119791314 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119793950 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119796331 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119815319 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119820000 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119825225 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119824856 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119830149 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119830746 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119835628 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119838720 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119850065 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119853495 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119896015 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119854500 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119855616 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119855658 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119889236 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119889808 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940183 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119893797 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900133 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900751 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119894396 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119896769 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119896897 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119899873 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900568 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119901112 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119900929 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119901436 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119904541 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119929171 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119904607 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119908244 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119908282 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119908971 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119911939 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119912408 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119913038 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119913179 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119913940 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120027977 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119915464 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119916080 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119918183 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119918436 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119919411 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119974049 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119976630 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119920845 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119924883 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120047785 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119920993 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119923006 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119925082 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119932050 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940032 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940050 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940261 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940862 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119940922 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119943960 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119944339 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945332 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945467 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945754 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945794 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119955887 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119970069 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119971909 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119972709 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119975532 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119975761 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119984228 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119993019 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999367 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999520 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999824 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119999955 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120000167 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120002208 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120002617 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120006994 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120005206 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120014285 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120020769 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120028028 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120028093 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120031416 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120031581 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120031663 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120037098 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120037654 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120038541 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120039120 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120041216 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120041968 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120056782 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120042114 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120052038 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120066171 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120066705 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120068194 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120043673 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120047379 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120048714 (and any future following)
(referencing http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120045315 and preceding and following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120049044 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120049688 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120052224 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120052458 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120064572 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120069277 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120053200 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120069377 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120069676 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120070011 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120070751 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120070772 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120073545 (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Trade Smarter with Thousands
Leverage decades of market experience shared openly.
