Speak for them. What ukip has become, weve become the party that stands for aspiration. I reckon the earlier people get up of a morning to go to work the higher their propensity in british wlikts to vote for ukip. Im talking about people for the last ten years mean they can earn enough money to get by but they cant earn enough money to get ahead. And corporatism and overregulation and big Global Politics dont work for them. So weve cut through. Weve cut through and weve got these people voting for us in britain now in very large numbers. In fact, what ukip has done is to cross the glass divide of british politics. And if i can say one thing about american politics, an observation, and i accept that im a foreigner, i accept that im a guest and i dont want to meddle. But let me say this. If the Republican Party is going to win the,w next president ial election i think the Republican Party needs to get the kind of people voting for it that were voting for it 30 years ago. Do you remember
Conservatives and social conservatives and National Security conservatives. We stand strong for Economic Growth but we also stand for life and marriage. [applause] we defend the Constitutional Rights but we also stand and lead the fight against isis and a nuclear iran. [applause] we need all three legs of the proverbial republican stool. Not one leg, not two but the way we get to 51 is we bring together conservatives and libertarians and evangelicals and women and young people and hispanics and reagan democrats. [applause] and how did we do that . We do that fundamentally, by standing with the people. And not with washington. [applause] washington wants obamacare. The people want liberty. [applause] washington wants amnesty. The people want rule of law. [applause] washington wants power over the internet. The people want freedom online. [applause] and dont believe president obama when he says that if you like your internet, you can keep your internet. [laughter] Hillary Clinton embodie
In todays show. It is tuesday, october 8, 5 00 p. M. In washington, d. C. We begin with the Supreme Court, which is beginning its new term with a case that could further open the door to Unlimited Money in american elections. The cases mccutchen versus the federal Elections Commission, with mccutchen arguing that limits on how much an individual can spend in total donating to political campaigns every two years is a restriction on their First Amendment rights to free speech. Currently it is regulated how much money can be directly handed over to political candidates. Every two years you can only give at most 2600 to anyone political candidate. You can only give that most 32,400 to anyone National Party committee. Limits also exist on aggregate contributions, limiting an individual from donating more than 48,006 hundred dollars to the totality of candidates here she supports and 74,600 to the totality of Party Committees here she supports. That means the federal Elections Commission reg
United on eight justices who did endorse the disclosure current requirements. Only Justice Thomas dissented in that decision. I know it doesnt look very hopeful i think that congress is the way theyre on a deeing regulation trend until the Supreme Court. What can change normal terms of obama or anyone else couldnt even get through nominations for regular courts though Supreme Court. The president ial elections do matter. Hi, im jim. My question deals with roberts vote on the health care issue. Do you think he was motivated by the fear that the court began to look like a political entity rather than a jurisprudence entity . Youre welcome to speak to this too. Its probably one of the most common questions we get, isnt it . Yeah. Do i think so . No. I take him at the word. I take him as sincerely trying to grapple with the issues presented in that case. I think he was first inclined to vote with the four conservatives and strike the law down as violating the Commerce Clause. When they cam
Investigative agencies. With a raid into was a situation that was really upside down. Normally they would try to find evidence and then find out what is going on and they found nothing. They couldnt find any crimes. So they did file a report saying that we dont have anything on these guys and they had seen most of them as being like dirt farmers. Sort of an agricultural bounty of afghanistan. [inaudible question] is rhythmic that all of these legal issues arise in context with the situations for all of us. And its great that we can learn about our systems of justice from this. Particularly for the folks that are being prosecuted. Given that the administration has made clear that even if they are found innocent, they have shaped the case. And if you do conclude that this is theater for the entertainment of americans are we finding that the real aim for one of the things coming out of it is there is a use of these to control how this is told by the media and exemplified by how tightly th