tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN June 23, 2016 6:01pm-7:01pm EDT
no. we'll do all this. we'll go way round. no. so he went around. so the idea that nations don't set laws, establish who can and can't enter, is not biblical in my opinion. nations do that. they've done it since time immemorial. there's nothing wrong with it. we just need to have a fair system that give us people an equal opportunity to apply. and those who meet the standards can be accepted in numbers that don't excessively exacerbate the wages and incomes of poor americans. i truly believe that, of all races and ethnic groups. particularly our minority groups suffer the most from that. one more thing. you know, jesus talked about the poor a lot. and we should think about that and give real thought to it.
in my view, i've changed. i've supported virtually every trade agreement that has come forward. but i do believe that trade agreements aren't serving the american people effectively. [ applause ] i know the ideals and the belief in free markets. but our competitors, our business allies but economic competitors, they don't operate the same way we do. so it's not a purely level playing field. when president obama signed the korean trade deal with our good friends in south korea, he promised we would increase exports to south korea about 12, 11, $12 billion a year. last year, since 2011 when he signed, last year we had a $20 million increase. we've had no increase in our exports to korea. they had a 12, $15 billion
increase to us. the trade deficit with korea doubled. becauses h s hait is hard with kinds of mechanisms to export to china and korea, but we opened our businesses and it results in a flood of imports, often manipulated through currency to make them more expensive than they are in the united states, often subsidized, often part of a project to devalue them. this has consequences, these errors we've made. it's not working the way it's been promised. and we found the flaws in the trade deals and there are computer models that lay out these projections. it's just not a right thing. we need to listen to the american people about this.
there's nothing wrong with a lawful system of immigration that serves the american people. there's nothing wrong with saying trade agreements shouldn't just benefit the corporate elite but also give a fair chance for a manufacturing plant and the american worker to have a good job in this country. [ applause ] now, the supreme court is 4-4. it's unbelievable, we've had this long battle for all these years. so many of you have followed it closely, and you understand it very clearly. and now, with the loss of often the fifth vote, justice scalia, we are facing a critical time. someone said the other day, it's like this, we actually have two branches of government at stake in this election, don't we? so the courts are at risk here too. i was the ranking republican on the judiciary committee. and it fell to my lot to handle,
lead the republican views on the confirmation of two highly accomplished women up for the supreme court. and we tried our best to do the job with integrity, with fairness, but with rigor. and i felt like so many of you, the court hasn't been performing in a way we like it to. so what is at stake here? we had a lot of complaints and a lot of issues that were raised. but i wanted to share one with you that i think defines who we are and defines the challenges we face. and it's something that you in this room need to understand and really kind of committee ourselves to being successful on. justice sotomayor, we found that she had given a number of speeches, over a decade, in which she discussed the court
and the philosophy of ruling. she quoted a philospher, a legal writer, in this way. she favorably quoted him. she would always say there is, o quote, no objective stance but a series of perspectives. it still makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. a judge to say there is no objectivivity, just a series of perspectives, and the aspiration is just that, an aspiration. this is a secular mindset and i believe it's directly contrary to the founding of our republic. if you look -- [ applause ] why do we have free speech?
because we believe in the debate and the expression of ideas, truth could be ascertained. we believe there was a truth, first of all, there is one. and the god creator in heaven who ordered this universe with moral laws just as well as gravity laws. [ applause ] so our system was set up to allow public discussion of the issues and the freedom to express your views. it wasn't to print child pornography. but it was to allow free debate on the important issues facing our country. and then you have congress, and the senate had unlimited debate, and you could took as long as you wanted to, so congress could debate all the issues, bring in all the facts that people chose had to bring in, and then make a truthful, honest decision on what was the best interests of the united states. and what about your trials and
lawsuits? you have the right to express yourself through the opening statements and the lawyers' statements. witnesses are compelled even if they don't want to, to come testify under oath to the truth. and juries are set there to hear the evidence and objectively designed what's true. right? not my perspective today is. you know, this is a dangerous philosophy. it's a contrary to who we are. it's a problem for the courts because once they take that philosophy, they're no longer bound. professor van allstein, bound by the words of the constitution, wrote one time, do you remember how the constitution ends, it begins with "we the people," it ends with, if we do ordain and establish this constitution." this one. not the one that the judge may
have wished to have passed, but this one. and if you start eroding your commitment to what the constitution says, there's no principle subject that can't be undermined in the future. i really think this whole court system is important and the real value and battle that we're engaged in here is one to reaffirm that there is objective truth. it's not all relative. [ applause ] and that means some things are right and some things are wrong. and we're getting too far away from that, in my opinion. it's not healthy for any country and it's really not healthy for democracy like ours that's built on the rule of law. thank you all for what you do. i appreciate your allowing me to be a part of this. hopefully we can try to put this country back on the right track. and i think we'll get a lot better toward that end if we
listen to what the american people are trying to tell us in washington. thank you all and god bless you. [ applause ] >> please help me welcome to the stage cwa executive director kendra bartlett. [ applause ] >> thank you. it's my privilege today to be able to introduce the next speaker. when i was asked to introduce representative gomert, i called our state director in texas and said, tell me about representative gomert. she said, he's a sweetheart. and being from texas, i know that that means we really like him. representative gomert has represented the first district of texas since the year 2005. and we -- one thing you can
always say about representative gomert is he will always do the right thing. so please welcome representative louis gomert from the first district of texas. [ applause ] >> thank you. well, it's great to be here with you. i love being at faith and freedom events. ralph keeps having me, i just told him, i hope you get to have one next year after i finish speaking. but anyway, we got a lot to talk about. don't you love jeff sessions? we've been in the trenches fighting together, and i love being in the trenches fighting with him. he's a great, smart man. even though he does talk with a southern accent. as jeff foxworthy said, when people hear a southern accent, they immediately deduct smart points. i get that.
i think there really is something to that. but he mentioned justice scalia. aren't we grateful that god allowed antonin scalia to be on the supreme court? what a blessing he has been. [ applause ] and i can tell you, i counted him as a friend. i hope he felt that way. but where we are in the country right now, we didn't deserve him. he was a man of principle. but of course i loved both his principle, i loved his plainspokenness, and i loved his sense of humor. there's no better memories i've had than to sit down at a meal with justice scalia and swap stories and jokes, because he loved good jokes, good stories. and i told one, and it's tough sometimes when people like jokes to find one they haven't heard before. but anyway, he says, oh, well how about this one, this probably happened back down in
texas, back when they used ha hangin'. he said, a defendant had been sentenced to hang, and on that saturday morning they brought him out, 2 or 3,000 people gathered to see it. the sheriff brings him up on the gallows. he says, we have a tradition in our town, before we hang somebody, we give them a chance to address the crowd, would you like to do that? he said, no, not really. he says, i don't think you understand, you're about to meet the supreme judge, your maker. and most people think it's a good idea maybe to apologize, ask forgiveness. you have a lot of victims' families out here, people you've harmed and murdered and done things too. don't you feel like you would like to apologize before your hanged? he said, no, not really. and so at that point, somebody in the audience yelled, will the gentleman yield? and he looked at the sheriff and said, i don't know what that means. he said, oh, the guy that yelled that, that's our local
congressman. and that's congress talk for he wants you to give him your time to speak to the crowd. and he said, could i do that? the sheriff said, well, yeah, i guess you could. do you want to? he said, i sure do, on one condition, that you hang me first. so anyway, that was justice scalia. what a delightful man, who cared deeply about the constitution. now, i am going to get to something right now that -- and this apparently is what i'm famous for, and it drives the left nuts. but i'm going to talk about something that enough people are not talking about. and what happens when a very important issue is afoot, and good people, smart people don't talk about it, then the wrong people get their ways, and they do great harm to this nation and to the individuals in this nation. you've heard of something called
transgender. we've got to talk about it, okay? and this is not me speaking. you may have seen, i brought a manila folder. i've never done that before. i always have a little card that has my little outline, it reminds me to get back on track. this time i've got articles here. and like i said, i have not done this for. what one transgender man said is the leading expert in the world, when he was talking to me, i think he's the best in the world, he was the head of psychiatry at johns hopkins medical facility. i vaguely remember reading somewhere that back in the '60s johns hopkins was the first hospital to start doing sex change surgeries. i've read that, maybe you have. but i did not read anywhere until walt hire directed me to
walter mchugh's article in "the wall street journal," they stopped doing this years ago, the sex change. dr. paul mchugh, he's now retired as the head of psychiatry, but he's still associated with johns hopkins. these are his professional views. i was hosting "point of view" in the last couple of weeks for kirby anderson. i had dr. mchugh on, i would walt hire on. his article, you can find this in "the wall street journal," may 13th. he says, policymakers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment, and prevention. this -- yeah. [ applause ] this intensely felt sense of
being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. the first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken. it does not correspond with physical reality. the second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes. he says the transgendered, the disorder assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature. namely, one's maleness or femaleness. other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia, where the assumption that departs from the physical reality is the belief that the dangerously thin are overweight. so he goes on and discusses that. but then he says, for the transgendered, the argument
holds that one's feeling of gender is a subjective sense, that being in one's mind cannot be questioned by anyone else. the individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this personal truth but an affirmation of it. here rests the support for transgender equality. the demands for government payment for medical or surgical treatments and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges. he says, with this article advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states to pass laws barring psychiatrists even with parental permission from striving to restore the natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. the government can intrude into parents' rights to seek help in guiding their children, indicates how powerful these advocates have become. now, he's saying that
psychiatrists must challenge this. and he makes the great point i brought up on the radio show, what an incredible irony, that states have passed laws that say you can't take a child to a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, for what is only in their head to get them help for only what's in their head. no physical manifestation. as he says here, this orders of consciousness, after all, represents psychiatry's domain. declaring them off limits would eliminate the field of psychiatry. you get that? doesn't that make sense? he says you aren't hearing it from those championing transgendered equality, but studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. when children who reported transgender feelings were
tracked without medical or psychological treatment, 70 to 80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings, 25% did have persistent feelings. what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned. holy smoke. think of the damage we're doing to kids, not just the poor girls or women that have been sexually abused, having a man walk in on them in their most important privacy, that's bad enough. but what about the damage to the little child that is confused and we are not allowed to help that confused child. he points out a 2011 study in sweden produced the most illuminating results yet, evidence that could give advocates pause, unfortunately it hasn't. he said the study, up to 30
years, followed 324 people who had sex reassignment surgery. it revealed beginning about ten years after the surgery, the transgender began to experience increasing mental difficulties. most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. this disturbing result has yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. i didn't read this, but it turns out johns hopkins, the first hospital in america to do sex change surgery, quit doing it years ago, because they found we're not helping and we're probably hurting, so we should not, as they have said, be cutting up normal organs. folks, this is serious.
and i know it's unpleasant to talk about. and that's why so often we lose. people are afraid of being called crazy or phobic of some kind. i have one phobia. and that's a god phobia. i have a fear of god. and we're told that's the beginning of wisdom. i've got a long way to go, but that's the beginning. [ applause ] he finishes his article, he says at the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered sex change is biologically impossible. do you hear that? this is what one transgender sex change victim is saying, sex change is biologically impossible. people who undergo reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice-versa. rather, they become feminize men or masculinized women, claiming
this is a civil rights matter is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder. now, when i was interviewing him, i said, well, you know, the new dsm-5, the diagnostic statistical manual that over the years changes and evolves, and it has what is the accepted diagnoses that a physician can prescribe or list. and they've changed this mental disorder of transgender to the term transgender dysphoria. and dr. mchugh said on the radio with me, he said, that dysphoria may be more descriptive than disorder, because dysphoria, you know what euphoria is, this is the antonym. it means you have a general
feeling of dissatisfaction with something, in this case your female or masculine gender. it's a generalized sense of dissatisfaction. and for that you want to cut off organs and destroy people's lives? now this administration says we're going to have the va do sex change operations. really? do we not have enough veterans committing suicide without you increasing that 20 times? [ applause ] enough is enough. and we have to stand up for our veterans. we're the adults. we have to stand up for our children. and let me just give you this last final story. some nice people talk about, wow, even when he was a judge, he made international headlines. i had a guy come before me for stealing a car. i was a felony judge. and the state legislature had just made that a mandatory probation. well, i look at this guy, he's
got this long rap sheet, all of these convictions. i wouldn't have given him probation. but that was mandated. but i get to set the terms of condition. and i didn't bring this up, but his lawyer brought it up first, that my client has aids and so, you know, we want to make sure that if you send him to substance abuse treatment, that he gets this medication, that keeps him alive. i said, i understand, the state will take care of that. one of my jobs is to make sure the conditions of probation, that i protect the public safety. and it has occurred to me that, you know, when you go for surgery, a doctor has to by law give you all the risks of which they're aware of the surgery. and then once you've been informed of all the risks, you have to sign a statement of informed consent that you understand those risks and you
wish to go ahead with the surgery, and otherwise the doctor is liable to you. i said, i got to thinking about this. i said, i don't know where you got the hiv virus and for our purposes it doesn't matter. but i bet when you became hiv-positive, you wished the person that gave it to you had told you about the risks inherent to having sexual relations. and so here is one of your conditions of probation. you will not have sexual relations with anyone unless you first advise them in writing that you have aids, that they could get it, and they could die. doesn't that sound fair? he nodded, yeah, that seems fair. and everybody thought that seemed fair. and then we had all of these gay rights groups came after me, grievances filed, aclu filed an appeal, all this stuff. it made international news, which is how i found out about a gomert relative in europe.
anyway, because they read about me in a european newspaper. but anyway, so i had judges across texas say, would you, louis, that was really smart, i love what you did. i said, you want the forms? are you crazy, i don't want the grief you've been getting. anyway, that was i believe in is the 1994. now most states have made it a crime, if you have aids and you knowingly expose other people to that intentionally, that's a crime. but somebody had to stand up back at the beginning and be called crazy and be called a homopho ho ho homophobe and all these other things when all i was doing was caring about the people that could be harmed if i didn't speak up. that's why you're here, that's why we've got hope, because we know the creator, and we know the source of our strength. my time is up. but your time is not.
let's stand together and make our voices heard. thank you, god bless you. [ applause ] >> hello. for those people who expected the fellow on tv, tv makes you look a little older, but i'm not that old. but anyway, i am friends with ralph reed, i've been friends with him for years. he wanted me here because of my southern accent, south bronx. but i think -- good, we've got those slides. hopefully i can make this work. we're going to go through some poll numbers. and although i've done polling for over 30 years, our job is to change the polls, to make them come out the way we want to do that. i did recently -- last year i did some work for prime minister netanyahu in israel. he said i was the best irish
pollster he ever met. i said, how many have you got here? i thought that was a complemeim. when we began netanyahu's race, we were opposed by barack obama's people. they set up a super pac headed by jeremy byrd and four americans. the whole goal was to beat prime minister netanyahu. they have 11 political parties. the day after the election, netanyahu's campaign manager told me that v-15 had spent twice as much as all 11 political parties combined to try to beat the prime minister. there were plenty of times we were losing in the polls. but at the right time you know, sometimes, god bless, the good guys win, and thank god he won. we're going through the same thing here in the united states because now it's time we take a look at making sure that president obama does not have a third term and we make sure that hillary clinton loses this
election. you can clap at that. [ applause ] the numbers i'm going to show you are on our website. it was from our may survey. it shows you the trends going on in the country. for full disclosure, recently i've got -- i've known donald trump for years. he's a good man. he's always been honest and polite with me. he's been a strong supporter of republicans i've helped over the years. but i recently joined his team. i'll be doing a little work for them. good. this works. i'm very high tech. you'll see that that is barack obama's job approval rating. in spite of what the media tells you, he has not been in positive territory except last month by one point since he got reelected. the majority of american voters are polarized on the job this person is doing. what's important for us to remember is, if he's -- when you think about people getting elected, ronald reagan made sure he did a such a good job, george
bush got elected after him. right now, if he goes into positive territory, it's more likely that hillary clinton could be elected. and there you see his job approval. you'll notice there that it's split with independents, 49-47. republicans were unanimous, 86-14, he's doing a bad job. and the strongly disapprove is more intense than the strongly approve, 34-20. opinion of hillary clinton. this is one of my favorite numbers. because you'll notice there, as people -- as the campaign has progressed, her negatives across america, her unfavorables have gone up. at the time we took the survey in mid-may, it was clear she was going to have more problems. and one of my theories about polling on hillary clinton is, her negatives are hard to go away, because you've known her
for 25 years. and when we hear -- you've really known her. when you hear about -- when you hear about the scandals with e-mails, the national security scandals of the clinton foundation, it brings back memories from 25 years ago of travel gate, whitewater. it's been constant for 25 years. when you ask them what they like least about hillary clinton, it's no surprise the number one answer is, dishonest. and her negatives, with undecided voters, she has a 71% unfavorable rating. independents, 60. even with hispanics, 49, and african-americans, 27%. at the time we took the survey in mid-may, donald trump's negatives were still high, but they were coming down. and since we took the survey, "the washington post," abc, fox news, have demonstrated his negatives are coming down precisely because he's taken the battle to hillary clinton. as he contrasts with hillary clinton, he can get better.
his numbers can improve. bernie sanders. i'm going to miss him. you know what's amazing? he did well not because he was bernie sanders. i mean, think about it, they were voting for a 74-year-old senator from vermont. he did well because he was the not hillary clinton candidate. he was the one who was running against hillary clinton and going the longest. what's amazing in our surveys, 4 to 10 of the bernie sanders favorable voters favor smaller federal government with fewer services. they were voting against hillary. that's the generic ballot for congress. you notice the last time the republican numbers spiked up, it was november of 2014, when we realized if barack obama was still president, we couldn't give him the keys to the car. right now, you'll see it's that same kind of back and forth, so it's up for grabs. when you go into the actual senate races, et cetera, it's
very important that we try to keep the senate majority, and the house maintaining should take care of itself, but they need to develop their own agenda. the next slides will go through the message slides. approve/disapprove of the affordable care act, obamacare. in spite of what the president says, it's costing you more and you're getting less. and the undecided voters for president, they disapprove of obamacare 52-38. do we want smaller federal government, fewer services, or larger government with many services? it's been constant, 5-3, we want smaller federal government with fewer services. and when you look at -- again, when you look at those undecided, for president, they
favor smaller government, 45-29. independents favor smaller government, 57-28. moderates, 47-53. we're all up here inside the beltway. i'm an outside the beltway pollster, as you can tell, i don't live inside washington. america wants a smaller government. and we need to run on that. and no matter what they tell us, the country's on the wrong track. two-thirds of the voters consistently tell us the country is on the wrong track. 67% this month. the media polls have this. the key to us winning are those voters who think we're on the wrong track and they're not voting for conservatives, they're not voting for donald trump. that's where we can go to get the election. because the person who is going to get us on the right track is not hillary clinton. the undecided voters say we're on the wrong track, 68-18. independents, 69-22. even among democrats, you have 46% saying the country is on the wrong track.
we need to let everybody know, the country, for the last eight years, we've had a flat economy, no growth, our national security is in jeopardy, we're still worried about terrorism, and certainly our values are declining in the country. and if we go with that message, we should be able to win. and we should draw a real clear contrast on that. this is a question we started asking last september. we used to ask about, well, if obama is president, do you want your member of congress to be a check and balance. of course they did, and that's how we got the big majorities. this question we started asking last september, would you like the next president and congress to continue the policies of president obama or change direction and move away from the policies of president obama? 56-34, they said change. and it's been constant. every vote we can get exists in that. we need to draw a clear contrast with barack obama and the democrats on policies, on the direction of the country, and not be afraid of it. the voters are with us.
the undecided voters, they say change, 55-23. the independents, 55-28, change. moderates, change, 50-36. african-americans, 16% want change. hispanics, 45-40 want change. men and women both want change. when you look at these poll trends, and then you look at the ballot for president, it was closing at the time we took the survey, was closing, and we wrote an article on our website saying the race is tightening, this is donald trump's to win, because there are so many voters who want smaller government, they want change, they know the country is on the wrong track. and since we took this poll, fox news had us ahead, had us a little behind as of yesterday, but we'll come back and get that, because hillary clinton is stuck at 42%. she was at 46 in this poll. she lost since then. even when abc and "the washington post" polls, they come back, the media polls tell
us we're even or ahead, we can win this race. it's months to go, it's a long race. with that, it's your job to make sure we win this race, that donald trump is selected the next president, and we keep conservative majorities in congress and the senate. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome from focus on the family, tim gabelein. [ applause ] >> good morning, everyone. it is great to be with you. you know, for those who are sitting closest to the podium or perhaps watching on your screens, the words "faith" and "freedom" are below me. there is a reason in the american context that these words go together, isn't there?
let me summarize it, if i may. are you ready? no freedom without faith. do you agree? [ applause ] i think it is possible that louisiana governor bobby jindal, a really good man, said the most important thing that has been said in the run-up of the republican primaries and caucuses. when he said very simply and very elegantly that america did not create religious liberty, that religious liberty created the united states of america. [ applause ] in the american context, in the american context, our founding fathers and mothers disagreed about the biggest things that
you could possibly disagree about. should there be a standing army? should we have one system of money exchange or 13? should there be a permanent national bank? in the founding era, those were gigantic issues. in many ways they remain big issues. for all of their disagreements, they did not disagree about the biggest issue there was. and it's the way that 1776 directly connects with 2016. our founding fathers and mothers believed, and categorically, that you could not have liberty and freedom over time without virtue in the people and especially in the leaders.
and they preoccupied themselves with a question that directly relates to faith and freedom, and is as timely and relevant in this gathering today, in this remarkably pivotal year among all years in american history. the question was, in the american experience, how do you nurture, unusunourish, and creae virtue that is necessary for the sustenance of liberty and freedom over time? and they said that in the american experience, that came from the judeo-christian tradition, from the holy scriptures, from a very wide berth, for the religious liberty and the work of churches and synagogues. they said, here is the individual, and here is government. and in the middle we need a lot
of civil society, a lot of nurturing of the virtue that will sustain and create and extend freedom over time and through all the years. and they were as rig then as those principles are today. why do i begin remarks the road to majority and faith and freedom in this context? i go back to that remarkable dissent written almost one year ago today by the late, great justice scalia. and before i continue my remarks, i would like to have us give a standing ovation to the remarkable life and legacy of justice antonin scalia. [ applause ]
god rest the soul of that great man. he wrote if his dissent to the obgerfeld decision, where five supreme court justices arrogated to themselves a new creation of marriage, a new definition of family and marriage and therefore parenting. he wrote in that dissent overwhelmingly not about marriage. and he wrote overwhelmingly in that dissent not about human sexuality. in justice scalia's extent in obgerfeld, one of the most important dissents written in the history of the supreme court, justice scalia said that when five unelected supreme court justices find in the constitution and redefine for a
whole nation a new definition of marriage, he said, what you eventually end up with is the taking away of the ability of the decision of the american people of self-government. what justice scalia in that dissent calls our first liberty. the gift from providence of self-government. my friends, if our religious liberty is insecure, if our rights of conscience which come not from government and come not from the constitution but directly from providence himself, if our religious liberty and rights of conscience directly related in this wonderful relationship between faith to freedom, if our
religious liberties are insecure, all of our other liberties are insecure. and for that reason, religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the number one issue for men and women of faith in the united states going into the 2016 elections, because the issue of religious liberty and rights of conscience directly relates to the question of family, marriage, parenting. it directly relates to the question of our first freedom, self-government. and if you take away our religious liberty and you restrict our rights of conscience, you end up with a country very unlike the united states of america. so let me close my remarks by saying the following.
in 2016, a year unlike any other year, if we all live to be a thousand years old, we will never forget the events of 2016. let me close by saying despite this period of time when it's tempting to be a defeatist and discouraged and in despair, let us remember the following, that despair and discouragement and defeatism among men and women of faith is a sin, because it negates the reality of hope. and for those of us who are christians, it is the hope of jesus christ. and why should we, why should we, in 2016, during this very difficult time for our country, our culture, and our civilizati civilization, why should we as men and women of faith be
hopeful? because we know that our redeemer lives. god will never be outmaneuvered. thank you, god bless, and god bless the united states of america. thank you so much. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, tim head. [ applause ] >> once again, we're catching a lot of different perspectives here, right? we're getting charts and graphs and getting a little bit of pep rally. hopefully you're taking notes as well as getting a little cardiovascular here. we are -- the faith and freedom coalition, among other things, we work on legislation here in washington, d.c. we also work in state capitals across the country. we have grassroots organizations
in cities and towns across the united states. but really, one of the core functions that we believe not only is to, as we say sometimes, to inform and to inspire, but then to ignite people to action. and so one of our -- really our biggest and i would say actually our core function is to mobilize christian and faithful catholics across the country to engage in the civil arena, to engage in their government, to have their voice heard loud and clear. in 2014, the faith and freedom coalition was engaged in all 50 states. we actually wound up with a total of almost 102 million distinct voter contacts in each of these states across the country. we focused in particular in four or five strategic states, including elaborate digital outreach, phone outreach, even
block walking, in kind of pinpointed communities and neighborhoods in suburban and also rural areas. so i want you to understand that whenever we come to conferences like this, we're obviously looking to kind of glean -- glean information. but really none of this stuff ultimately takes root or takes effect if each of us don't carry that message. you have to hearken back a little bit to what senator lankford was talking about earlier in the program, that we have to heed this call. i actually was in ministry before i joined faith and freedom a couple of years ago. and it's not an uncommon separate train of thought as to sunday morning or saturday night mass, that we have to understand that faith must lead to action. and so we urgently and
desperately need your help in your own town or community, wherever you're coming back to after this weekend. our hope, just throughout the weekend, as you're finding, noticing different people, either with faith and freedom shirts or badges or whatever the case may be, just staff members, we would love to talk with you more about how you can specifically personally be engaged wherever you're from.
if we can -- one of the benefits to me of conferences like this is to connect with my peers. as you build relationships, and certainly the ambassador showroom just across the hall here, are great resources, various sponsors and organizations that we partner with, they can be helpful. they're either subject matter or technological expertise can be a tremendous, tremendous resource for you as you yourself are trying to engage with your local community, the organization that you lead, or maybe the church
that you're trying to kind of get a little bit off of the tipping scale. so i think that the networking piece, and even the sponsorship piece across the hall, we were trying to find resources to everybody here so that you leave the weekend with a full tool belt and a full arsenal. so with that said, as we're kind of coming to the climax, i guess you could say, there's a gentleman that i think in a lot of ways feeds no introduction, but nonetheless, the reform effort to restrain fiscal restrictions across our federal
for tax reform. [ applause ] there are a number of things at stake this election year. one of them the economy overall. and the first step to getting an economy back on track to give you some idea of how bad this is, the present economy. if we had grown -- we have been in recovery since six months into the obama administration, technically. it's been positive growth. the worst recovery since before 1960. if we had grown as rapidly as when reagan reduced tax rate, reigned in spending with the
democratic congress, reduced regulations with the courts and trial lawyers. if we had grown as rapidly during the obama recovery as the reagan recovery there would be 14.7 million more americans at work today. almost 15 million. 14.7 million american families have a father who is not working, a mother who wants to work and can't. a son, a brother, somebody in the family is not working. there is a reason why there is so much pain and agony today. this recovery is not up to par. had we not done obamacare, spending and stimulus and the 20 tax increases in obamacare, we could have grown at reagan rates. so what we need to do is get back to the lessons we learned successfully under reagan. step one, do not raise taxes.
if you stop tax increases you force a conversation about spending restraint and government reform. tax increases are what politicians do instead of reforming government. instead of making decisions. instead of prioritizing. instead of saying this didn't work. we are not doing it they said we'll keep going, raise taxes and do more stuff that might work some day. the difference between the two presidential candidates on taxes. dump wants a 15% business tax. corporate rate 35%. the average tax rate in europe is 25%. our -- stupider than france is not where you want to be on tax
policy. the corporate rate where we have to compete internationally is 10% higher than the european average. the number of countries like ireland are significantly lower than the 25. what donald trump has put forward is a 15% business tax for people who are self-employed. that would turbo charge the economy and is important. it gets rid of the death tax, finally. death tax was put in to pay for the civil war. i went to public school but
watched the history channel and learned that war has been over for some time. the death tax is still with us. the 3% federal excise tax on your home put in to pay for the spanish-american war is almost all gone. they spend it however they want to. there is always an emergency that tells you they want to do that. so the trump plan, 15%. corporate rate. four rates, 0% -- family earning less than $50,000 would pay 0% and you get a postcard that you send to the government that says "i win." 10%, 15% and 25% of the personal rates. no death tax. no amt. it is a fine pro growth plan. [ applause ]
>> it is particularly interesting when you look at hillary clinton's plans, plural. three major tax increases, business and individual that total by her admission a trillion dollars over the next decade in higher taxes on top of the 20 taxes that obama put in. hillary wasn't as clever as obama and her husband. bill clinton ran and said he'd never raise taxes on anybody who wasn't in the top 2%. that worked until he raised prices on gasoline. obama said he'd never raise taxes on anyone who earned less than $250,000 a year. that lasted three weeks into the administration. he passed taxes on middle income people and then seven of the 20 taxes in obamacare are direct hits on middle income american families. so when a liberal tells you i won't -- i'm only going to raise taxes on the rich.
they haven't finished the sentence. i'm going to raise taxes on the rich first. then you. hillary couldn't wait for the election to break her promise not to tax the middle class. worked for obama and my husband, i will, too. they had a tax increase on soda pop in philadelphia. asked about i it, she said that's a great idea. sanders was asked about a wage tax in europe. she said, i would sign that also. she came out for a tax on guns for those violating the second amendment and raising taxes all in one big stupid bill as opposed to dividing them up into different destructive pieces of legislation. so there is a very, very stark difference between the two parties, between the two candidates on whether taxes are going