tv 2016 Presidential Race and U.S. History CSPAN November 26, 2015 10:35pm-11:41pm EST
russia is still attacking the moderate believeorces that we could be part of a genuine transition. we do have ways of de-conflicting. putin ath president the g20 meeting. the horrific attack on the airplane in cairo will bring home the necessity of the strategy. >> i congratulate my friend for his comprehensive approach and stressing that it is an isil first strategy. for the united kingdom not to act is itself a policy position that will have consequences. jihadists are fighting what
we stand for. they have chosen the confront us. prime minister: i think my friend brings a great clarity to this. is itself action choice and that choice has consequences. the advisors take the same view. >> there are understandable knee-jerk reactions on both sides. there are those who say intervene at all costs. say do nothose who intervene no matter what the
evidence is. the liberal democrats have set out five criteria on which we can judge the great. the prime minister recognizes that airstrikes alone will not defeat isil. he will have to give much more evidence to this house to convince it that the ground operations have the capability and the credibility to do what needs to be done. what role will saudi arabia play in delivering this victory? there was a reference to humanitarian aid. can help af aid family doctor bomb. there is no reference to establishing safe havens for innocent civilians.
minister: his party is clearly wanting to engage with the arguments. the national security adviser was pleased to brief them last night. i am determined that there should be no knee-jerk reaction. what happened in paris could just as easily happen in the united kingdom. the threat we face is very severe. on humanitarian aid, we will continue to deliver that.
the danger of a safe haven becess is that they have to enforced and that can require the taking out of air defenses which would actually spread the conflict wider. the presence of ground troops. want is the growing part of iraq to be a safe haven because we will have a political agreement in place for a cease-fire. on the question of saudi arabia? iny have been helping us funding the moderate syrian opposition that needs to play a part in the future of that country. they strongly support the actions that britain is proposing to take.
>> my friend is right that troops on the ground are ultimately essential. i would like him to convince me that the free syrian army atually exists rather than label that we apply to tribal forces. there a moderate group that we can back? it is almost the law of human toure that people rallied the most extreme forces. prime minister: i respect the point of view he is taking.
he is absolutely asking the right question. forces.e moderate they have a particular role in thesouth of the country on border with jordan. they have taken the fight to isil. they have prevented isil from taking vital ground. we can see the effect with kurdish forces. administering territory. this point. there is one sure way to make way fort there is a forces who don't back assad to join isil. and that is if we do not support the moderate forces. most people in syria want to have a pluralist country where they can get on with their lives.
that is why they deserve our support. >> the prime minister makes a strong case to the house today. members on both sides will want reassurance that his government will show the persistence and patience required over many months to get agreement on the political strategy. what reassurance can he give? minister: the commitment that i can give is that this is the number one national security and also the refugee crisis is a massive question for all countries in europe. it deserves the maximum amount of attention and resources that we can get it.
angle,t on the political we didn't suddenly respond to the syrian refugee crisis. we have been giving that much attention over the last four years. it will require persistence in terms of the military action that we take. there has been a 30% reduction in isil held territory. the strategy is one that does take time. you cannot expect immediate results. over time it will make us safer. if the attack had happened in london, i believe that today the british people will be outraged and dismayed that our allies did not have our back.
we know that you need a voice -- vote in this house. expectation us your of what the committee has stated? will the opposition benches come to the aid of our allies? minister: this attack could just as easily have been in london as it was in paris. we should recognize what a close alliance we have with france, with the united states. vote, we can't hold
it if there is a danger of losing it. it's not because of government pride. it is about the importance of our national security and the message it would send to our enemies. want to make sure that we have brought together the biggest possible coalition of members of parliament from all sides of the house. motionromise will be a that stresses the political strategy. there are many points raised by the labour party that has been addressed. everyone has to come to their own decision. adon't want to give anyone way out of making a decision. that would be right.
>> i think the prime minister for his statement. the discussions that we have had in recent days in this house. thank our brave servicemen and women. experience theng consequences of appeasing and indulging terrorism for too long. the action foreshadowed today is against isil terrorists and nobody else. will he confirm for us the targeting of terrorists and that there is an endpoint?
we stand ready to do what is in the interest of our national security. minister: he speaks for the whole country and thanking our armed forces. we are talking about here is action against isil not action against anyone else. we must be clear about targeting. clear about the endpoint of what we're trying to achieve. i have just returned from the middle east. regional allies believe that in the absence of a good strategy, we risk repeating the errors we libya. iraq and key questions remained unanswered.
the ideology that all extremist groups have been using. look again at that figure of 70,000. we have been told very directly through recent contact that they were very few moderates remaining on either side of the civil war. without these answers, airstrikes would only reinforce the failure in the region generally. too many aircraft are chasing too few targets. minister: there are too many terrorists that are threatening our country. but he is right that we have to combat the ideology.
we have taken more action on this than many other countries. money andsil of resources, i couldn't agree more. if there is more to be done, i would be the first to push for it. they got their money out of the banks in mozilla. money from owning an occupying such a large amount of territory. the 70,000 figure is not my figure. they come directly from the security and intelligence experts who advise me. filtered through a joint intelligence committee process. set up under the butler inquiry. determined that we learn the lessons of the iraq war. but we should act to make a
difference, we must. >> the prime minister was commended for not lashing out after the provocation in tunisia. planeal threat is the isil which is to escalate a regional war into a world war between christians and muslims. repeatt our actions now what we did in 2003? divide betweene muslims and christians. that is their strategy. moreur action lead to threat of homegrown terrorism? prime minister: i know that the
honorable gentleman deeply wants us to have a peaceful world. isil have taken action against us already. murder ofbehind the the people on the beach in tunisia. they butchered our friends and allies and citizens in paris? in terms of a battle between muslims and christians, that is what we want to avoid. we want to stop this extremism. they kill muslims in vast numbers. we can't subcontract that work out to everyone else. for those of us that were in , and we voted at that
action, ike military would like to thank the private .r. for his openness this is a very real and present threat to citizens of the u.k. bring a specific military capability through our precision guided missiles. when we join this military action, is the prime minister satisfied that we have manufacturing capability to sustain and fulfill our military objective? minister: we do have sufficient stocks. what happened in 2003 did poison
the well in many ways for the debate about these issues. i've tried to go about this in as different away as possible. the publication of as much of the evidence as possible. strong arab and muslim partners. we mustn't let the actions of 2003 hold us back from taking the proper actions today. we are letting down ourselves and the people we are here to represent. >> isn't it essential in any prelude to a war to be sure of factallies, isn't it a
that turkey has been buying oil for my soul? they have been bombing the kurdish people. they shot down a russian jet ton though russia is wanting fight isil. ally has got the opposite objective from us. us,ies to the right of enemies to the left of us, keep out. minister: we should be clear about our allies and our objectives. not just united states and states but also the gulf and others in the region who are coming together in an alliance
so that we can be clear about our objectives. the military targets that i spoke about it also the political strategy. turkey, they have taken action to try to stop the oil smuggling. trying to seal their border. of course they should do more. last night to french military officers told me how much their country would really appreciate fully andoined them taking the fight to our enemies in syria. pinpoint accurate bombing would demonstrate our determination to destroy the scourge.
applaud the prime minister for trying to get parliamentary approval. this highlye bring powerful gesture to vote in this house as soon as next week. prime minister: my honorable friend has served in conflict zones. the importance of making decisions after careful consideration. 2002was on this bench in when tony blair presented the case for war in iraq. i voted against that war. ministersk the prime
that he should examine his conscience. examine all choices short of bombing. it is a case of life and death. it is also a matter of integrity. minister: there is no part of me that wants to take part in any military action that i don't believe is 100% necessary for our rose safety and security. he refers back to the iraqi vote. greatt that was a difficulty for the house and the .ountry we must not let that hold us back from making the correct decisions this time. paris could have been london.
i can't stand here and say were safe from all these threats. i stand here with advice behind me that this action will could degrade the threat. >> given britain's historic connections with the region, i strongly endorse the prime minister's view. we must increase diplomatic efforts to resolve the syrian conflict. intensify discussions with president putin. he will be key to any resolution. it was thanks to the intervention of the royal air force and other air forces that iraq was prevented from falling
into the hands of isil completely. it makes no sense to stop at the iraqi border today. minister: the point he makes about iraq is particularly potent. that was stopped through this, of actions. it is important to discuss these issues with the russian president. i agree with the prime minister that the process must play key part. will he address the vital that our ability to continue to back key political and diplomatic roles will be
compromised if we join the bombing? minister: does taking action against isil make a lessical agreement more or likely? in my opinion, it makes it more likely. withed to have syria territorial integrity. while she and i may disagree about many things, moderate sunni forces in syria need to play a role in that country. >> the moderate and cautious toroach will have led people
approve taking the right move. make, weision we must decided to attack isil. some of these decisions must be generalshim and by the and not necessarily this house. minister: the judgment was the right one. isil has been pushed back. house, iming to the reserve the right to take action in britain's national interest when i need to immediately. action, iitated believe there should be a vote in the house before we take action.
i find it rather anxious that we are saying something must be done. that is not a was basis for the best decision. action aboutved the strikes that have hit civilian areas? we need to be conscious of the ment.of recruit prime minister: this is not a something must be done strategy. it is about careful , diplomatic and
humanitarian as well as military. nothing also has consequences. carefullynsider very the dangers of recruitment. exists, we are at a greater risk. >> i commend the approach of working with our allies. obama to askdent him when the united states is going to show more resolved. conflict theynia mounted 130 sorties a day where is in syria they are perhaps doing an average of only seven
sorties a day. should we expect more from the united states? minister: we must have a clear strategy. in terms of what the americans are doing, they are very much of the burden of attacking isil. the greater part that we play, the greater influence we can have on the course of the campaign. the greater accuracy we can insist on. >> the prime minister has made a very powerful case this morning.
and inevitable consequence of our intervention will be the migration crisis getting much worse. is the rest of the european union ready for this? also, he says we are servants of the people. him to talk to leaders of the muslim community so he can put the case to them? minister: i do believe we are all speaking with the same voice on this. he is right to raise the issue of migration. solution to that is a
political solution in syria. all of thesess issues with members of the muslim community. will look very closely at the specific idea he put forward. i support an iso-first strategy. how can we succeed if it is not shared by turkey, which seems to be more interested in bombing isil?than bombing minister: we've seen a growing understanding that a true enemy is isil. you see a growing understanding
from turkey and others that isil is in a threat. have robust is the intelligence that supports these findings? what efforts is he making to persuade the iraqi government to support the sunnis these that will be crucial to our strategy? minister: the prime minister of iraq is a great improvement in terms of wanting a better society interact. we do need more progress on that.
so that there are troops that will be trusted by local people. we're doing everything we can. training thes iraqi security forces. this is all cleared through the authorities. placechanges were put in as a response to the iraq war. i had very happy for that to happen. i don't want to be accused of inventing intelligence or overstating it. i am trying to understated. what i am clear about is that we
face a threat and we must deal with it. >> the prime minister has made a compelling case. i will be joining him in standing with our allies but with the many thousands of muslims who have been enslaved and tortured. ust reassurance can you give that our forces will be bombed by russia? minister: this is a different question that the house is considering. i would appeal to colleagues right across the house. in terms of the moderate forces, this is the remaining disagreement between us and
russia. there are some signs of that changing. we need to encourage that. in the process is that we've had in the past, the russians have accepted that the free syrian put apart part in the future of syria. >> i would like to thank the prime minister for coming here to deal with these issues. this house has been asked to commit to military action in the past. that has ended badly. yetn't believe he has answer our questions adequately.
brothers spokesman speaks. also, the founding fathers and the 2016 presidential race. also representative buddy carter of georgia. tomorrow night a look at thegration policy with meeting of the hispanic national bar association. that will be at 8 p.m. eastern. >> john hinckley was the person who shot president reagan. it was a short trip from the white house. john hinckley had been stalking jimmy carter. ronald feynman, author of a
book on assassinations and the .merican presidency physical threats made against the president throughout american history. >> 16 presidents have faced threats. long, robert wallace whogeorge shot and paralyzed in 1972. so i cover candidates as well as presidents. >> coke industry spokesman steve thear recently spoke about second-largest private company
in america. the network of political think tanks supported by the koch brothers. this is 45 minutes. >> on behalf of faculty and staff, i would like to welcome you to this morning's event. our mission is to educate and empower all citizens. the institute is nonpartisan and does not endorse candidates. is steveing's speaker lombardo. he is the chief commute occasions officer for koch
it was about 30 years ago that i walked across the stage on this campus and accepted a diploma from saint anselm college. it was a special place and it is great to be back. the size and scope of the facilities are just amazing. i graduated with a degree in politicale silence -- science. the ethics classes, the integrity. with me my whole life. been back. is amazing growth on campus
as vibrant as ever. i have worn many hats. i am currently communications industries.koch areprincipal stockholders charles and david koch. i will talk you about the people i work for and what we do. we can have a discussion about that. i will take questions. there are some friendly faces and some not so friendly ones. based of what you have read and seen on tv, you come in with a the kochn about
brothers. do you want to live in a country that maximizes piece and stability and well-being, i am pretty sure your answer would bs. if i ask you do you believe in integrity and respect, and that these are important qualities to have both as a person and as a nation, i'm pretty sure your answer would be yes. but i asked you what was the best way to promote these qualities, the answers would vary. that is because there are many different and competing views on how to achieve those goals. that is what i want to talk
about this morning. vision is a vision that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. with minimal interference from government. vision leaves most decision-making to the individual. a much different division believes that government must actively intervene. the government usually knows better than the individual. jeffersonago thomas predicted which of these would have the upper hand. he said, the natural progress of to yield for liberty and government to gain ground. it is sad to say that the addiction has come true. does that sound extreme, or perhaps extremely inaccurate?
consider a few facts about our nation. occupational licensing can make it very difficult to get opportunities. here braiding sometimes requires more time and investment in emt training. days toge, it takes 372 become a licensed cosmetologist. the government's response to uber. threatening the long-standing monopoly that municipal taxi companies have enjoyed across the country.
system can send someone to someone life because has been busted for selling marijuana three times. these are real-life consequences of a top-down command-and-control system. politicians try to protect their supporters from competition. mentality, this reluctance to allow people to charles koch fuels and the company he has been running since the 1960's. we are in the energy business. and that includes oil refining. we also invest heavily in
biofuels such as ethanol and .iodiesel's we make dixie cups and plates and paper towels. we also make electronic components. have you heard of lycra or stain master? polyester are used to produce clothing. many other everyday products. .e also produce fertilizers we develop pollution control equipment. we are based in wichita kansas. we employ about 60,000 people in the united states.
these are good, skilled manufacturing jobs. all kinds of jobs that are critical to operating a business. we strive to be the best among the best in our competitive set. we try to make the best possible products. here are a few facts. a 2015 epa report ranked koch the best u.s. company in terms of reducing pollution. the company is doing great work
and earn more than 1000 awards for safety and customer service. they are doing great things to really affect the world for the better. services is focused on biological crop solutions that increase crop yields and reduce pollution. this will help feed the whomated 9 billion people will inhabit the earth by 2050. there are many similar stories. too many to name here. i hope these examples illustrate that there is more to being a successful company than just dollar signs. industriescoke
isoch industries different how it is run. the business strategy he began to develop in the 1960's. this philosophy has enabled the company to grow tremendously. million to more than hundred billion dollars in 2014. 1960 of $100 in would've grown to 5 million. this is about the company to do more than keep pace with the dramatic changes that have happened over the last five decades. global competition has intensified. has beenlitical map
.rawn and redraw again new technologies have transformed industries and businesses. the pace of innovation has accelerated. managementbased enables coke to do it all while earning good profits. good profits. it is good because they benefit everyone involved and they are voluntary cooperative. it is also the title of charles koch's latest book. both you and they benefit. bad profit is created by market manipulation and subsidies. which brandhoice of of paper towel to buy. known as forcing you to choose one over the other. it is up to the company producing the product to earn your business by producing the
greatest value will using the fewest resources. these types of transactions are win-win. what we see all too often in is that politicians are rigging the system to benefit a few. profits earned that way are bad profit. the american taxpayers saw what happens in the government intervenes too much. the government chooses to award a particular solar panel company with hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, that was lost taxpayer money the company ultimately fail. politicians and created a
culture that encourages businesses to seek out political favors. joining in be together to achieve on the merits. what is outrageous about this relationship is that the largest beneficiaries of these federal subsidies are well-established corporations. boeing whoctric and would do perfectly fine on their own. what sense does it make to force millions of provide dollars of subsidies and tax credits? when government imposes taxes,ve regulations and it becomes harder for new competitors in the market. with less competition, consumers
pay more. you are left with a system of corporate welfare. it destroys opportunities for this vantage. koch industries opposes subsidies. we do take ethanol subsidies. we do that to maintain our competitive position. we oppose them and we lobby against them at every opportunity. this because we believe people should only succeed by creating value for consumers. instead our government is encouraging a system creates corporate welfare for the rich. this not only corrupts the business community it simultaneously destroys opportunities for the disadvantaged. is enriching the habs
at the expense of the have-nots. this is leading us toward a two-tiered society. mentality hasg spurred our interest in changing the criminal justice system. let me talk about that for a moment. when president obama or valerie praised koch industries . we have worked with the obama administration and the aclu among others to reform the criminal justice system.
if we really want citizens to play a meaningful role in society, improve the lives of others, and ultimately succeed, we can't lock them up and throw away the key. and forget they exist. and when they're released we can't treat them like second class citizens. consider these sobering statistics. we spend $80 billion a year on incarceration in the united states. which is three to four times per capita what we spend on education. three or four times what we spend on education. the federal prison population has grown 870% since 1980. the united states currently imprisons 25% of the world's prison population even though we only make up 5% of the world's population making the u.s. the largest jailer in the world. approximately 35% of federal
offenders are first-time onviolent offenders. more than half are in prison for drug crimes. african-americans who make up around 13% of the united states population account for almost 40% of inmates. to bring about a transformation on this issue we must all set aside partisan politics and collaborate on solutions. this is why for more than 10 years we partnered with the national association of criminal defense lawyers to bring about positive change. one of our focuses is on restoring all rights to youthful, nonviolent offenders. let me repeat, nonviolent offenders such as those involved in personal drug use violations. if ex-offenders can't get a education, or housing, how can we possibly expect them to
lead a productive life in society? why should we be surprised when more than half these people upon release are incarcerated within three years of their release? believe it or not, congress is actually mobilizing around the issue as well. the house passed a comprehensive criminal justice reform measure earlier this year. and the senate is moving a bill of their own both with bipartisan support. we are cautiously optimistic that 2016 will see a bill signed into law that will truly help some of the most disadvantaged in society. we can't just sit around and wait for government to act. they play an important role, sure. but companies like koch, individuals like yourself, need to walk the walk and talk the alk. earlier this year koch industries took an important step by deciding to remove questions about prior criminal convictions from our job applications. what this means is companies who decide to, "ban the box"
will now wait until prospective employees are being interviewed or have tentative job offers before asking about criminal histories. this gives someone with a criminal record a better shot at employment if they e not rejected at the very start of the process. gives them a chance to explain what happened. we think this is the right move and encourage other players to follow suit. we can't stop at criminal justice reform alone. that is not the only thing that needs fixing if we're truly going to help the disadvantaged. just as important is helping people improve their lives and addressing how government is making it difficult to gain employment or start a business to begin with. because of burdensome, occupational licensing requirements. i mentioned the example of cosmetologists and e.m.t.'s at the beginning but there are hundreds of these occupations and the government is helping establish businesses keep down the up and comers. think about taxing commissions
vs. -- taxi commissions vs. uber. those who are firmly in business don't want the newcomers to undercut them and destroy their profit margins so they team up with their friends in government for special treatment by placing obscene fees and excessive training requirements on these individuals trying to work hard to make a living. governments at every level have prevented the creation of nearly 3 million jobs and lowered entrepreneurship rates, harming low income communities the most. like our focus on criminal justice reform we're getting ready to address these issues in the coming months. we heard the white house echo similar sentiments in recent months so we're eager to carve out a pathway to reform on this front as well. so from all that you've heard clearly there is a lot more to koch than you may have thought when you walked in this morning. you're probably thinking, you know, well, mission accomplished. you know?
done a good job. well i bet you have another question. i'm sure youra saying, steve, everything you say is well and good and i'm happy you use resources efficiently and you care about the environment. i'm happy you're trying to help people get jobs and stay out of jail. but you're still trying to take over the country by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on elections. well it's a fair question and an important one and i want to address it this morning. what most people don't know in fact i didn't know until i started working with koch is that koch's whole foray into politics started in 2003 as the result of dissatisfaction with president george w. bush's policies. the out of control spending, the growth in the size and scope of government, and the counterproductive wars. the seminar the koch family started was a gathering of like minded individuals who were and
are worried about the country, the trajectory of the country, and it wasn't a partisan gathering either. it was about ideas. it's less about republicans vs. democrats than about working to promote policies that will help people improve their lives. if you saw charles koch's interview recently with anthony mason on cbs a few weeks back, you may remember him saying the democrats are taking us over the financial cliff and toward a two-tiered society at a hundred miles an hour and republicans are doing it at 70 miles an hour. mr. koch's political involvement had less to do in fact nothing to do with really maintaining republican party supremacy. for example, and more so with electing those individuals more aligned with policies that will help people improve their lives whether republicans or democrats or whatever.
charles koch describes himself as a classical liberal. let me repeat that. i saw media outlets report that charles koch considers himself a liberal, in other words a progressive in today's politics. because of the fundamental misunderstanding of what the term actually means, a classical liberal is someone who wants a society that maximizes peace, stability, tolerance, and well being for everyone. so requires equal treatment for everyone under the law. it promotes a society and business environment in which people succeed by helping thers improve their lives. regarding spending specifically let me talk about that. it is projected to spend more than $250 million through a super pac and other advocacy groups in 2016. it all depends on how much the contributors actually decide to
give. now that is still a good chunk of change but it's far less than the almost $1 billion figure that is often thrown around in the media reports. super pac money is often referred as dark because you don't have to disclose the donors. considering the heat the kochs receive for their political involvement including 153 death threats last year alone, not all donors are willing to put their names out there. i get that. . t it is also their right 40 years ago justice william brennan wrote when it comes to money and politics the first amendment considers political contributions to be the exercise of free speech. the supreme court has repeatedly recognized this right. just as important as the 1995 ruling in mcentyre vs. ohio, election commission, which protected an anonymous speech and prevented the government
from mandating the disclosure of identity in order to speak or support a cause. now, some may not like it and were free to debate the pros and cons of such a system. but the supreme court has been steadfast in its affirmation of the role of money in politics specifically one's right to remain anonymous. charles koch int, deserves a little credit. he personally remains transparent in his spending. what he gives personally to the foundations and to the pacs like koch pac and freedom partners pac is public. and that is not most of what he gives actually. most of what he gives goes to his foundation, which funds multiple endeavors throughout the country including contributions for organizations like the united negro college fund, youth entrepreneurs, salvation army. he also funds the charles koch institutn