anything that resembled the american spirit that i had ever witnessed for sure, and i realized from that point on that the united states and israel don't merely have an organizational relationship because we have mutual interests. we have an organic relationship because both of our countries were founded by people who had the vision to give their children and their future generations something of liberty and of freedom and to give them the ability to have religious liberty so that their beliefs would not be trampled out by voices voices of tyranny. i also do not believe it is possible to understand, even comprehend the united states of america without believing that it involved the providence of god. and i do not believe that it is possible for anybody to look at the remarkable, stunning history, not only of ancient israel but of the modern nation of israel, and somehow believe that that could be without the providence and the hand of almighty god. there is simply no other explanation. i am one who believes, and this is not a political view, this is deeply personal, and whether i am in politics or not, i still hold this view. i held it when i was a teenager, i held it long before i ever got into politics, and 100 years from now i will still hold it. in a different citizenship, no doubt, 100 years from now. it's this belief, that though we may break many of our promises to god, he never breaks his promises to us. never, ever, ever. [ applause ] >> and for those of you who embrace and believe in the bible, and i would assume that most of you in the rjc do, then i would have to say that i affirm the reality of genesis chapter 12, verse 3, god says those who bless israel will be blessed and those who curse israel will be cursed. that's either true or it is not. i believe it is true. since 1973 when i was there for the first time just a couple of months before the yom kippur war, i have been back dozens and dozens of times. i have lost track of how many. i no longer keep a running total. i was there twice this year and three times last year. i have escorted thousands of americans to go to israel because i want them to see it in person. i want them to understand not only the land and its people but i want them to understand its history and its future and for them to understand that, if something happens to israel and it loses its liberty and freedom, then the united states better buckle up because it's coming next to there. and that's what we have to consider every single day of our lives. the recent deal that was done with the iranians is not a bad deal because it's a politically bad deal, not just a bad deal because it's a terrible idea for world peace. it's a terrible idea because it represents a direct threat to the united states because, in every situation, the iranians have put the tip of their sword in israel, but the full thrust of it will not be satisfied until it goes through the very heart of the united states of america. [ applause ] >> i sometimes hear people, even republican candidates for president, who say things that i find just head-scratching. when they say, well, i think there is possibility for peace in the middle east but only if israel will sit down and try to work with the palestinians. i want to say, where have you been for the past 70 years? [ applause ] >> and i most certainly don't want to hear anybody say that the israelis just need to give up some things and then they can have peace. i want to remind you that it is israel that has consistently and repeatedly given up, given up and given up and gotten nothing in return. [ applause ] >> last june, naftali frankel, one of three young israeli boys was going home from school. he was kidnapped at a bus stop and was savagely murdered by palestinian thugs. the day before they found his body, i was in the home of naftali frankel just outside of jerusalem visiting with his absolutely amazing mother and father. i was there because i wanted to express to them not just my sympathy but my support and my commitment that there cannot be ever a concession that israel would be expected to continue to give up not just land but to give up their sons and daughters as long as the palestinians continued to teach their children in schoolbooks that it is okay to kill jews. that is not a concession that any nation should ever be willing to make. and no american president should ever put the pressure on israel to give up land that god gave them the title deed to, whether it's the land of israel, and that includes judea and sumeria. [ applause ] >> and i don't want to hear a secretary of state or a president give a lecture to israel in the midst of them defending themselves against unwarranted, provocative rocket attacks and somehow say both sides need to settle down. again, my wife and i were in israel last august, when hamas was firing rockets out of gaza, aiming specifically, intentionally for civilian targets because they wanted to bring as much carnage as was possible to the innocents of israel. and my blood boiled because i was there when john kerry gave a press conference in which he called for both sides to tamp down the violence. and i wanted to say, mr. kerry, maybe you should come and see what i am seeing, because what i am seeing is this. hamas is putting children and unarmed women in front of their weaponry. the israelis are putting their weaponry in front of their children and their women trying to protect them. there is not an equivalency here. this is not sameness. this is not about both sides trying to somehow calm down. this is about one side trying to murder innocent people and another side trying to protect their families as they have a god-given right to do. [ applause ] i realized that for the past several years there has been, both on the democratic and republican side, the notion that we would be able to achieve middle east peace by something called the two-state solution. i want to be on record, and i know that this would not even be something that would be grae agreeable to some of you because there are many republicans who think that the two-state solution is in fact a solution. i consider is no solution whatsoever. there cannot be two states holding for the same piece of real estate, especially when one of those states does not believe the other one even has a right to exist, much less exist peacefully. [ applause ] in fact, when i take groups to israel and i take americans, most of whom are there for the first time, i always get a palestinian map, easily found in the old city. i'll get the map out and i'll show some skeptical american who says, well, i think we should have a two-state solution. i say, really, let's see what the palestinians say about it. why don't you find israel on this map. and they look and they look. i say, well, where is it? and they say, well, it's not there. and i said, and that's the problem. if it were left to the palestinians, it wouldn't be there. and that's why you can't have two governments wanting to own the same piece of real estate, so why don't we leave it in the hands of the government to whom it was originally given, and why don't we leave it into the hands of those who will protect not only the antiquities but respect the religions not only of the jews but also of the muslims and of the christians. i ask you, how many synagogues are being built in saudi arabia? i ask you today, how many churches are being allowed for construction in tehran? we know the answer. none. but today, as a christian, i am free to go to israel and to express and experience my own spiritual journey, as are muslims, as are jews. in no other country on this earth are religious traditions respected, appreciated and protected like they are in israel. [ applause ] and this is why jerusalem can never be a divided city. it must be a unified city. [ applause ] >> and it's why that the next president of the united states, if his name is mike huckabee, will do something that presidents have hinted about and talked about but have never done because they're afraid it's an act of provocation. my friend, act of provocation is when terrorist groups continue to fire rockets into civilian territory. the united states needs to finally make the definitive statement of who it's taking sides with and move its embassy to jerusalem, and once and for all declare we know who our peace partner in the middle east is, and it is israel. [ applause ] my many trips there have led me to this conclusion. if i had never believed the bible before, i would have to believe it from the visits, because i have seen the dry bones come to life, and i have seen the desert bloom. places in israel that in 1973 were rocky, barren, earthy nothingness are now lush with vegetation, lush with life and neighborhoods and families. and a nation that once was struggling is now stunningly alive, with some of the greatest levels of technology and advancement that can be found anywhere on planet earth. this is nothing short of the miracle that i spoke of when i started here today. but this is not a miracle that we should take for granted. and if the united states ever has one strategic foreign policy decision to make, it needs to make the strategic foreign policy decision that it recognizes who its friends are and who its enemies are. and making a deal with the iranians instead of standing with israel is an inexplicable and absolutely unacceptable act of idiocy and insanity that we must reverse. [ applause ] >> and i don't want to see another american president ever put more proper on israel to stop building bedrooms for its growing families in judea and sumeria than it's putting on iran to build bombs that would be used against those children growing up in judea and sumeria. [ applause ] there is only one other thing i would like to ask you to do today. vote for me. and if you would like to give generously to my campaign, okay, i'll accept. and with that, matt is going to come. i think the remainder of my time i'll use to answer your questions. i may regret this, but we'll go for it anyway. in politics we call this q & a, matt. everyone thinks it's questions and answers. if you have ever run for office, you know that it means questions and avoidance. fire away. >> as i mentioned in the earlier session this is the result of the last couple of weeks we've been soliciting a whole bunch of questions from our members and our attendees, and we have curated them here. so let me take one of ones that came up quite a bit. it plays of, obviously, a theme of what you were talking about before. the democrats have played upon the fears of the christian right by promoting the view that for many support of israel is based on a theological and messianic foundation. you are in a unique position as a minister to comment on this. how do you respond to those who say that support for israel is based on a messianic foundation. >> it's a wonderful question, matt. i have been to israel many times with jewish friends when i was the only, i guess, gleam in the entire group. i was the oddity in the bunch. and i remember in one of the trips -- it's been several years ago -- and one of my jewish friends with whom i had made this trip said to me -- he said, mike, i don't understand something. maybe you can help me figure this out. he said, evangelicals in the united states seem to be sometimes more supportive of israel than american jews. i said, yes, i have noticed that. and he said, a lot of you have a greater fervor for the protection and the future of israel than even many of the jewish people do. he said, explain to me why. i said, it's really simple. i said, because you need to understand that, as an evangelical i embrace everything that you embrace in your faith. your faith is the foundation of what i believe. and there wouldn't be a faith for me if it weren't for the faith that is built upon everything that is in the jewish tradition. a person can be a jew and not have any connection to a christian. perfectly, perfectly possible. it is not at all possible for me to have a christian faith and not have an absolute relationship with those who are my jewish brothers. it is as simple as that. [ applause ] >> is your support for israel based on more the shared values along with, obviously, the theological, but also the support for israel nes tacessit the time for the coming of the messiah. >> i knew a lot more about it when i was 18 than i do now. you know, the older we get, the less we seem to know with certain levels of surety about how god is going to let the world come to a conclusion. i don't know. here is what i know. i know with all my heart that god is going to keep his promise to his people. and i believe he has made a covenant with his people, the jews. and he will keep that covenant. and i don't want to do anything to in any way violate that covenant, stand in its way. but even if there were no covenant, even if there was no theological basis for me to have a relationship with israel and the jewish people, i would have a relationship and i would still have the same views because, as i said in the beginning, there is no country on this earth with whom we have a more organic relationship than we do with israel. there is no country that more mirrors who we are as americans. and there's frankly no country with whom we have a more vital strategic role in sharing intelligence and military opportunities because we face the same ultimate enemy that is trying to kill you and trying to kill me, and that's radical islamic jihadism. if we don't understand that is our enemy. we are not each other's enemies. we are each other's friends. radical islamic jihadism wants to kill all of us starting with israel and ending with the rest of western civilization. that's what's at stake for my kids and more importantly for my five grandkids. [ applause ] >> i wanted to see if i could, because there were a couple of questions about this, and it's an opportunity to have a pivot on domestic issues. obviously as a governor of a deep-south state i think we would be interested to get your opinion and thoughts on the state of race relations in this country. >> i thought we were moving in many ways in a positive direction in race relations, and this will come as some surprise to some of you, but after the election of barack obama, who i did not vote for and i campaigned vigorously for the person who beat me for the nomination in 2008, john mccain. but after the election, as a child who grew up in the '50s and '60s and saw what real segregation did to people and saw what segregation did through the jim crow laws. i was hopeful that an election of an african-american president would be a new day in america for race relations. to be honest with you, i thought that, in my lifetime as a kid i never thought i would live to see that day. and it was a part of me as an american, forget that i was a republican, i'm an american first, and i was proud to see that our country had moved past judging people by the color of their skin, and i thought that this is an opportunity for america to move forward. and i think barack obama could have been one of the great presidents of all time. but he chose not to be. because what he chose to do was to bring a divisive spirit and attitude to the job of president, the likes of which i've never seen in my lifetime. and today i think that we are as divided on race as we have been in decades. i do not believe it is a permanent division. and i believe it can be repaired. but it has to be repaired because we go back to the dream of dr. king that we will judge people not by the color of their skin but by the character of their heart. and that ought to be the basis of all american relationships. [ applause ] >> one of the other questions that came up quite a bit, as i think you can tell by the response you've gotten in the room, is that many in this room applaud your position on israel and on security and the role of america on the international stage, but may disagree with you on social issues such as pro choice and gay marriage. how would you convince people who are staunchly pro choice for pro gay marriage to vote for you. >> i probably wouldn't. if those are the issues upon which you're going to select a president, and that's the determining factor, you think that's the single most important factor in selecting a president, you're probably not going to vote for me because i am pro life. i believe every life has value and worth. i think every life has intrinsic value that we should never deny. i don't think that the captain of the football team is more valuable than the down's syndrome child. i believe they both have equal worth and value. i don't think -- i don't think that there's such a thing as a human being that's expendable or disposable. i think it's a dangerous place for us to go as a culture and a civilization when we begin to evaluate the worth and the viability, the value of one human over another. and so my pro life position is not just about the baby in the womb. it's about the life of that individual throughout all of its existence. from the time it's conceived until the time god brings its life to a natural conclusion. i can't change on that. i am not going to change on that. if that's the deciding point, i lose you. i understand that. i would like to think that, even if you disagree with me on that issue or the issue that i believe is another very divisive issue for some, and that's same-sex marriage, i believe that marriage is the union of one man, one woman, life partners, through which we create the next generation. and then we train that generation to be our replacements. if that is the sole issue by which you judge a candidate, again, i lose you. but on the other hand, if you look for a candidate who has those convictions because they're deeply held and you know where i am coming from and you know that they're not political positions for me and you would rather have someone that you disagreed with but someone that isn't going to change his mind every election cycle like barack obama did when he said his position on marriage was the same as mine in 2008 before he changed it three and a half years later. so, if you want consistentency, i can give it to you. if you want someone who is going to change with the latest political poll, i'm quite certain you can look on the stage and you'll find somebody whose positions have shifted through the years and will shift for you for the right level of support. look, i believe the next president has many jobs. one of them is to be the commander in chief, not the meteorologist in chief. somebody who actually believes -- [ applause ] >> -- somebody who actually believes that the greatest threat to civilization is a beheading, not a sunburn, and i wish the president understood that. and someone who, if he goes to a foreign country, will not stand up at a podium and apologize for the prosperity and greatness of america but will say, i will be happy to receive your thanks for the greatness and prosperity and generosity of america because it is precisely that generosity and that prosperity that bailed out the butts of so many of people across this world, whether it was famine, earthquake, tsunami, it didn't matter. it was always the americans who showed up to help and to generously give of themselves. instead of apologizing for who we are, i think we ought to be proud of who we are and say we are happy to be a light to the world. we're not part of the darkness. we're part of the light. >> we've got time for one last question. you had mentioned that, without question, you would move the embassy to jerusalem. >> yes. >> we have, as an organization over the course of the years, had many candidates and some who have even gotten elected president who have said that and it hasn't happened. how are we to know you'll really get it done? also, as president, how concerned are you about the international regional and international ramifications obviously that would be an extremely controversial move? >> the excuse has always been offered that this would be provocative and would evoke so many reactions. let me just be blunt. the iranians and, yes, even the palestinians already want to annihilate israel, already hate israel. already have nothing but contempt and disregard and disdain for israel. do we honestly think there is anything we'll do that will ameliorate the anxieties and fears that have been directed towards the people of god for all these years? no. for me this is not just a political issue. it is a deeply personal, a deeply spiritual, it's a matter of conviction. as i said, i didn't start building my relationship with israel because i said, you know, someday i'm going to run for office. i might run for president. i have to go up there and make all the jewish republicans really happy with me. i better say the right things. maybe somebody can coach me on what i'm supposed to say and hand me some talking points. folks, you've heard today what i believe. i back it up with 42 years of being an advocate of israel. long before i was in politics. [ applause ] >> i was taking the same stands for israel, i have, i am, and i assure you that i will. and i thank you very, very much for your opportunity to be with you today. god bless you. thank you. >> thank you, governor. watch your step. there you go. thank you. >> thanks, matt. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. thank you very much, allen. i appreciate it. allen, you're a dear friend and a great leader here in the rjc. it's great to be back here with you. i was here with you four years ago. i remind you of one of the things i said four years ago. it wasn't that big of an issue four years ago. that is, commander in chief is not on entry-level position. we had a lot of wonderful people come up on this stage, but very few of them, very, very few of them, have the national security experience that's necessary to take on the responsibility that is confronting this country today. we are at the beginning, and maybe, well, i suspect we're still at the beginning of world war iii. i was in israel not too long ago, and i remember speaking to someone whose name you would know, who is a very close advisor to the prime minister who reminded me a year ago, he said, tell the people of the united states that we need to elect a war-time president because we will be at war. and that means someone that has the experience and knowledge but also someone that our allies know and our enemies fear. i don't know if you know this, but several months ago i was listed in isis magazine. i was in "isis" magazine under the headline, in the words of our enemy. and it was my picture, and it was a quote from me defining who they are and saying why they must be defeated. no other presidential candidate on either party is on the list of isis enemies. they know who i am, and i know who they are. that's because i have been fighting radical islam before it was fashionable to fight radical islam. allen mentioned my work on the armed services committee where i worked with joe lieberman trying to transform our military from a cold war force to one that was going to deal with what we called asymmetric threats, now called terrorism. after the events 9/11 i realized that while the president is a great man -- president bush is a great man and was fighting valiantly, wasn't telling the whole story about the nature of our enemy. so i dove deep into understanding islam, not just today but history and understanding what we were dealing with. it became very clear to me what we were dealing with, so i got engaged. i authored the syrian accountability act. yes, president bush did not support it initially. i continued to push to contain assad, who was influencing lebanon and threatening the northern border of israel. i provided leadership on that and pounded weigh at taway at t president to support this bill. we eventually passed the bill and colin powell said it was the principle reason syria got out of lebanon. we acted and led against a virulent enemy. when after that i authored another bill called the iran freedom and support act. why? because in doing my homework i realized the principle threat in the region is one that started it back in 1979, and that is iran. it started this explosion of radical islam. but this from a very unique perspective, from a shiite perspective, something we have not seen in world history. we have not seen a shia caliphate. that was more concerning to me. when i learned through intelligence, and you probably saw in today's paper the iaea said iran has been working on a nuclear weapon all the way back to 2003. back in 2003 i crafted and introduced in 2004 a bill to constrain iran's nuclear program at a time when our intelligence community publicly was saying it didn't exist. but i fought through otherwise. i pushed a bill and was opposed, unfortunately, by members of both sides of the aisle. but i said, the most important issue that we're going to be dealing with is to deal with apocalyptic islam. islam that is unlike anything we've dealt with with sunni caliphates in the past. in order to fulfill their destiny as a faith. if your destiny as a faith is to bring about the apocalypse, a global conflagation. why would you consider the possibility of giving such a country a nuclear weapon? ladies and gentlemen, we don't have this discussion. because we don't have leaders in this country who are willing to tell the truth to the american public. i gave a speech in 2006 to the national press club saying something that every presidential candidate now says as a matter of rote. that is that we have to define the enemy. we have to define -- i did that nine years ago. when i was up for re-election in a tough state and i didn't care, because i saw the threat of iran, a nuclear iran. i brought to the floor of the senate my bill, with a form of amendment to the authorization bill and tried to pass that sanctions bill. and i was opposed, unfortunately, by secretary rice and by the president. joe biden wrote a letter on the floor of the senate that morning of the vote. i fought and we came four votesert shvotes short. four of the votes. obama, biden, kerry, clinton. they voted against tough sanctions on iran. six months later we passed it, but it was watered down. those, ladies and gentlemen, were the sanctions that brought iran to the table for negotiations under this president. who quickly turned the tables on himself to concede every point to the iranians and now put them on a path to a nuclear weapon. the iranians know who i am. i have been out talking about not allowing iran to have a nuclear weapon for ten years. they know day one, when i say the agreement that is an agreement between the president and several other countries, not this country and several other countries, when i say that that agreement will be null and void and that we will have a policy that iran will open up all of their facilities to inspections by the united states and no one else, all of them, military, nuclear, all of them, and if they do not do so and begin the process of dismantling. i will do what is necessary to stop a third world war. i will destroy those facilities. now, people will say you're starting a war. i would just emphasize, no, ladies and gentlemen, by doing that i will stop a war just as much as israel stopped the development of nuclear weapons in two other countries. it didn't start a war. it stopped a rogue nation from having nuclear weapons which would start a war. so you're looking at someone who on armed services, who in the united states senate and afterwards at the ethics and public policy center fought and talked about the threat of radical islam, and now we have a caliphate, a sunni one, first time in 90 years, that has identified me as an enemy. why? because i have had the courage to go out and say what is necessary to defeat them. we have a president who uses the term "isil" and doesn't realize the meaning of is is. think about that for a minute. there have been other democratic presidents who had that problem. is in isil means "islamic state." we treat them neither as islamic or a state. ladies and gentlemen, you elect me president of the united states, you elect someone that isis knows means business. we will do what is necessary to defeat them. why? because they are a caliphate. the reason we have the incidents in france and the incidents in this country even as of yesterday, is because we have a caliphate that has gained legitimacy because of our policies, because the united states has practiced a policy -- you heard it the day before the paris attacks -- a policy of containment. a policy of containment for a caliphate is music to their ears. why? because in islamic law one of the central validators of a legitimate caliphate is the maintenance of your territory. and so the president is actually helping by having a policy of containment. in order to dis -- to create disrepute within the islamic world of this new caliphate it's essential that we take their land. and ladies and gentlemen, i will put the forces necessary. they want to bring back a 7th century caliphate? i will oblige them by loading up their bombers and bombing them back to the 7th century. [ applause ] >> we will take their land. we will arm the kurds. we will work not with iran, not with syria, not with russia, not with the shiite militias. not with the quds force. we'll work with sunni muslims in iraq to take back sunni ground. we have to understand whether we like it or not, we are in a holy war and we better act like we know what we're doing. [ applause ] >> so i encourage each and every one of you, you have a very tough decision to make, a lot of really good qualified candidates. but i can tell you, out there on the road the issue that is the issue is the issue of national security. and we're going to be going up against a former secretary of state, and you may say, well, she has a terrible record, but she has experience. and as we've seen from prior debates against folks skilled in national security, if the extent of the national security experience of our candidate is a briefing book, then i do not think that bodes well for us in the fall election. america is on edge. they want someone who is knowledgeable, someone who is experienced, and someone who can contrast with hillary clinton, on who has the right vision, who has had the right vision for this country over the long term. that is what i bring to the table. i bring to the table experience, knowledge, and proposals that will keep this country safe at a time when that is the preeminent issue before us. one final issue that, on national security, is the issue of refugees. the issue of immigration refugees is as hot button an issue as there is out there. it may be as hot as national security because they are very much intertwined. i have taken the position that we should admit no syrian refugees. and unlike some candidates, i have not taken it recently. i have taken that position from the very beginning of this crisis. yes, i was concerned about those refugees causing problems here in america. and i don't apologize for the fact that we aren't -- we should not take any more refugees. i don't know if you know this, but over the last seven years of the obama administration this country has resettled 70% of the world's refugees in america. 70%. we have nothing to apologize for. we have done our part. it is now time for the world to do its part, but for a second reason, not just to protect us from potential harm from those refugees. but the reality is, if you listen to the clerics and the leaders in that area of the world, they will tell you that they don't want their people to come to america, they don't want their people to go to europe. they want them to stay in the region so they can return, the christian villages can return, the ethnic minorities can return. if we drive out all the people who are ethnic and religious minorities and settle them in places from which they will not return, and certainly if they come here they will not return, then we are helping isis accomplish what they want, which is to create hegemony in this reason. we need to relocate them in the region, and we need to have policies that protect them, which means no-fly zones. back in 2011 i spoke to you, and i called for the united states to get involved in syria with the rebels. and president obama refused to do so. i called for support and protection. the reason we have a refugee crisis is because we haven't been prohibiting civilians who are barrel-bombed by the assad regime. we could stop that but we don't. the president makes you feel bad not taking refugees but he has created the refugee problem. america needs strong leadership. it needs someone who is going to stand up and tell them the truth. in june of 2006 i told you i gave a speech at the national press club about naming the enemy. i will tell you what i did with that speech. two days later i was at the white house, and i walked over to tony snow and president bush and i handed it to him, and i said, we have to stop pussy footing around and tell the truth about the nature of our enemy. if we're going to defeat the ene enemy, erwwe're going to rally american people, trust you to know and deal with the truth, explain the difference between a sunni and a shiite, most americans have no idea what these caliphates are. no idea what eskatology is in the iranian side. having visited israel, they know because they know their lives depend on it. here is the problem. so do ours but our leaders don't treat it that way. you want a leader that's going to lead? look at the record. look at who has been with you. look at who has had the courage to speak out and hand to the president of the united states a speech and say, this is a speech you must give. i've led, and i'm prepared to lead at a time when our country is looking for a leader. i know you think, well, oh, look at all these folks out there and how well they're doing in the polls. let me share a little factoid with you. in the last "des moines register" poll 88% of voters said they were undecided. that doesn't mean they're not answering polls. they're answering polls. but they're undecided. in the last race in iowa 50% of the people who voted in the iowa caucuses decided the last three days. you're dealing in shadows and illusions looking at these polls and determining who to support based on polls that mean nothing. except encouraging people, because they do well in the polls, to collect a lot more money than those of us who don't. the reality is what matters is when the people of iowa vote. and i have a lot of faith in the people of iowa that they're going to vote for someone who they can trust. someone with experience at a time when our country is in trouble. someone with a record of getting things done. oh, i know i am known as a conservative. but did you know that i was the author of health savings accounts and helped push those through the congress. did you know not just the national security pieces but i was a leader on a variety of other different issues. yes, moral and cultural issues, yes, national security issues. i was the president's sponsor of pepfar and the global aids bill. led it through the senate. not conservatives to support it. worked in bipartisan fashion on other humanitarian issues. i worked on a variety of different tax issues. the most important thing that i accomplished was i was the lead sponsor and author of welfare reform. yes, the bill that did exactly what every candidate for congress -- every candidate for the senate, every candidate for president says who is a republican. we need to take programs, block grant them. send them to the states, cap the amount of money. require work and put time limits. i did that. i did it with a democratic president. we got 70 votes in a congress that only had 54 republicans. how do you do that? you lead. you don't make every crews aius about you. you make it about helping people and you work with folks and you listen and you build relationships. i fought barbara boxer probably harder than any two people ever fought on the floor of the senate on issues dealing with abortion. we were at each other's throats, but you know who my sponsor was for the syrian bill? you know who my sponsor was for the iranian bill? barbara boxer. how did that happen? because you can disagree without being disagreeable. we're not going to go out and have coffee together but we respect each other to work together on things where we agree and don't let it get in the way of policy. you want someone who can get things done in washington. you want a blue state? how many have won blue states as a conservative. no doubt about it, whoever the republican nominee is they'll be tac tasked as the most conservative person to ever run no matter wlo it is. how about having someone who is actually a conservative and is usually defending those positions. and did it twice. in 2000 i was the only conservative to win a state that george bush lost. i won pennsylvania and he lost. i have beaten democratic incumbents not once not twice but three have retired or been defeated by me in four elections. i have won a 60%, a 70% district, democratic district in a state with a million and a l million and a half more democrats than republicans. and i got things done. don't pay attention to the polls. pay attention to your eyes and ears and minds and hearts. do the right thing for the country. you want to lead? is that what you're here to do? or are you here to follow? are you here to lead? then lead. find the person who is the right person to take this country's challenges on and make a difference in washington and then do something about it. i'd be happy to take your questions. [ applause ] >> how you doing. senator, you paint a very compelling narrative about how you would use american power abroad to effect the policies that we care about. the question i want to get your thoughts on is, how would you rally the american people behind this cause, especially an american people which right now seems to be war-weary and not really interested in a lot of adventurism internationally? >> in 2006 when i was running for re-election in a bad election year, if you recall. i gave a series of speeches called the gathering storm of the 21st century. one of the things i believed in, and i believe even more so now is, if you tell the american public the truth about what we face, they know, they know. you look at the polls. the president calls it violent extremism. everybody knows that's a joke. americans know, but they really aren't informed. our leaders are not being honest with them. they're not telling them the truth about the nature of the enemy. they want to know. they want to learn. and they will follow authenticity. they will follow the truth. i really do believe that the moment has come in america, and i think between now and election day it will be even more obvious as the attacks ramp up. and i am not predicting it because, obviously, it's a horrible thing. but this president is not going to do anything to stop these attacks. he is not. he has proven himself incapable of dealing with the reality. i mean, to stand there today and say, well, we're not sure if it's terrorism. the president is not going to deal with this, and that means when the next president comes in, it's going to be worse. and in this election cycle, this will be the big issue. and having someone who, for, oh, let's say ten years has been out lecturing on college campuses across the country, even around the world, about the nature of the threat, about who they are and why they want to kill us and it's not because we support the state of israel, it's because we stand for values that are antithetical to their values. it's because they believe in a fundamentally different god. that's why. i hate to say that, but it's true. and the american public, in their heart, knows it's true. they're just waiting for a leader to tell them the truth. i think you will find that america will steel to this cause just like we have before. we've had leaders who have had the courage to confront them and the >> can you talk for a moment about, as president, how you would balance -- there's obviously a debate going on within our party now. the challenge between -- the balance between civil liberties and protecting our homeland. >> obviously, there are people here -- i know there's someone speaking later. i know senator cruz, senator paul, both have taken the position that we need to weaken our national security and our ability to protect ourselves for privacy reasons. to me, privacy reasons that, in the ten years of the patriot act, never bore out any instance of the invasion of privacy. i hear this all the time when i go out and talk to people. they say, you though, they're listening in on my phone calls. this has nothing to do with listening to anybody's phone call. this is metadata collection. people don't know what metadata is. what do you have to do? you have to explain what it is. it's data about data. it's the information of who -- what number called what number and how long the call was. that's what we're talking about. we're not talking about having recordings of people's phone calls. we're talking about having a searchable database that we can actually be able to determine if there's a network of calls or things going on and relationships of maybe people who we have identified who are spewing terror. and we now have lost that ability. because of, in large part, two republicans who are running for president. we have both of them who refuse to call edward snowden a traitor. yet the events in paris, ladies and gentlemen, occurred because they were able to learn from snowden how to not be detected in communicating. that's going to continue to be the case. i don't know what the definition of a traitor is. if edward snowden isn't a traitor. yet we have republican candidates who won't, because of civil liberties. here's the big problem that is going to occur as we have handcuffed our intelligence community's ability to be able to detect these communications. more of these horrific events are going to occur in the united states. and then there will be a call for a reduction in civil liberties. we had a situation where it was properly balanced and worked very hard on. and we have two republican candidates, i hate to say, who led the charge to imbalance that to the detriment of the security of our country. so i would restore that balance and make sure that we have all the ability that we need. we are at war and again, i go back to the fact that our presidents have not been clear in communicating to the american public the nature of this threat and why it is so real. i will do that, and we'll have the supports necessary to have the intelligence-gathering capabilities to prevent these types of attacks. >> final last question. as you, in the fall, campaigning against hillary clinton, what do you see as her single biggest vulnerability? >> wow. that's -- i mean, it's a big list. >> top two, then. >> well, clearly, she's -- she's running as the secretary of state who put in the policies that have led to the collapse of the united states' influence in the world and a true train wreck when it comes to the security and stability of not just the middle east but now increasingly -- look at china and what it's doing with their islands. you look at what's happening in central and south america with venezuela and cuba. i mean, cuba and venezuela sponsor terrorism, help take control with the boliviarian revolution and marxist governments in south and central america, and our response is to reward cuba. this is a policy that is, if you were someone who wanted to see the fall of america and you sat and you said, what can i do and still have a straight face be able to say that this is actually good for america, what policies can i put forward that i could say are good for america but i know are actually going to be destructive of our country, you would follow exactly what bill -- what barack obama and hillary clinton have done. and so if the vulnerability, that's the biggest vulnerability at a time when that's going to be the biggest issue. and i don't want to be repetitive, but i will. we'd better have someone -- we'd better have someone who's gone up against that juggernaut. my first race, i ran against the author of hillarycare. and the campaign was run by james carville and paul begala in a state with a million more democrats than republicans. i've been against the clinton machine. and i've beaten them again and again. i've beaten them on the floor of the senate. if you want someone who can win and who will lead this country in a way that will protect and keep us safe, i would appreciate your support. thank you and god bless. >> watch your step. thank you. thank you, senator. >> intelligence experts discuss the topic of securing data in a data-driven century. we have it live this morning on c-span at 10:00 eastern. this afternoon texas congressman michael mccaul, chairman of the homeland security committee, gives a speech on national security and combatting terrorism. we have it live on c-span2 at 12:30 p.m. eastern. abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home. teaching at a private skull, she successfully lobbied for funds to create the first white house library. mamie eisenhower's love of pink and fashions created sensations. mamie pink was marketed as a color and stores sold clip-on bangs to women eager to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the white house historical association. and nancy reagan as a young actress saw her name mistakenly on the blacklist of suspected communist sympathizers in the late 1940s. she appealed to screen actors guild head ronald reagan for help. she later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women." the book makes a great gift for the holidays. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history. stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. the book is based on original interviews from c-span's first ladies series and has received numerous reviews including this one from michael beschloss, presidential historian and author who said, quote, c-span is a national treasure and its path breaking series on america's first ladies is another reason why. judy woodruff, co-anchor and managing editor of the pbs "newshour" says c-span has performed another valuable public service withity series on the first ladies. no where else can one find such a useful and insightful look into the lives and influence of these women who played a crucial role in the history of our country. and jane hook noted that c-span's first ladies is an invaluable collection of rare insight on our nation's first ladies and the important role they played in shaping america during their husband's presidency. share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. c-span's book "first ladies" is available as a hardcover or an e-book. from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. be sure to order your copy today. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website, c-span.org. >> speeches wrap up from the republican jewish coalition with chris christie and jim gilmore. both speak and answer questions for about 30 minutes. >> jeff, thank you for the introduction and to all of you, thank you for the invitation to be here today. thank you for your patience and endurance. put up with 14 candidates for president of the united states, but the role that you all will play as we move forward both through this primary process and through the process of electing a new republican president next november will be absolutely vital, so thank you for your willingness to be involved. this entire campaign changed a few weeks ago. since i entered this race, i've been talking about the need that the american people have and that the world has for a strong and resolute america. when i initially started to discuss this, it may have seemed somewhat out of step with the issues that were being discussed at the time. and in the first debate in august in cleveland, i asserted my position directly in a conversation with senator paul. the fact is, that america today is weaker and less prepared to protect our citizens than we were seven years ago. and i'd like to blame all of this on barack obama. but -- but we have had republicans who are complicit in this weakening as well. we've had republicans who had stood on this stage today and said they were for a strong america, yet voted this summer in congress to weaken america. voted to take away tools from our