with the case to an force that provision the irs targeted a fundamentalist school called bob jones university said did not envy it - - shipment of african-americans as a part-time student on the campus of bob jones university and racial mixing did not admit to the student body but still retaining racial policies. that is what got the attention of people like jerry falwell who said it is easier to open a massage parlor of course, jerry

falwell has his own segregation academy and this is what gets him and others motivated. as the architect of the religious right has corroborated is emphatic about this point i was trying to kick these people ever since of goldwater campaign and i tried everything i could think of. school prayer, prayer, abortion, nothing got their attention until the school issue and that is what galvanized them into a political movement. the second part of the story , the bob dylan case

with the evangelical leaders but was also savvy enough to realize he needed day different issue to have grass roots evangelicals from the religious right and in 1978 the answer finally comes to him and particularly in minnesota and iowa something remarkable happens there are three seats up for office. and the governorship rollup for grabs. and in iowa dick clark was the incumbent and going into the election no poll showed

clark ahead by fewer than 10 percentage points during those final. but what happens in iowa and minnesota is pro-life catholics would deflate the church parking lot on the sunday before the election and in iowa clark news is too rare pro-life republican and in minnesota the pro-life republicans capture of three elections. the governorship in both senate seats. all of them on pro-life. when i was doing research at the university of wyoming in the laramie, the

correspondence crackled with excitement. because he realizes he has got his issue to galvanize the new movement of the religious right and uses that to the phone advantage of the 1980 election that goes against carter as the evangelicals who was running for reelection against ronald reagan used commercials are more tenuous than carter's. for whatever reagan's quality was the episodic churchgoer and as governor of california passed most liberal abortion bill and the country but by 1980 came around to pro-life of them was good enough for falwell and other leaders of the religious right.

but carter's faith politically is also compromised by billy graham's. a lot of people do have a lot of respect for billy graham but he repeated the threat out that 80 campaign gives assurance to carter himself or to his aides of his support but then days later he makes phone calls to people like reagan's campaign share offering to do whatever he could. this is all in the book i just give you a little bit. then of course, carter is defeated it goes back to receive begins to distort his post presidency and i will try to wrap this up quickly to take questions.

and we stand here in one glorious manifestation of his post presidential years. and jimmy carter coming from the former president of emory university the only person for whom the presidency was a stepping stone into does capture where jimmy carter has done apparently he is not terribly fond but i do think it has captured. i called the book "redeemer: the life of jimmy carter" for a couple of reasons. in many ways he redeemed the nation after the sins of watergate. i try to impress to the students that they don't quite cast how low we were as a nation from confidence in ourselves and our

confidence in institutions with the presidency and johnson lied about the unknown in nixon lied about pretty much everything. and carter comes along and says several never knowingly lied to the american people again. what a radical idea that the president would not my. we were not used to a sort of thing but also jimmy carter has many faults but i try to treat them fairly but no one died of a chess seriously questioned is

moral core and they're going to read a few short passages from the epilogue from the claims of june 2nd then mr. carter would do here is is baptist country the roads are bracketed by red soil and buildings sporting names like shiloh variant baptist church, and missionary baptist church and greater good hope baptist church. love jesus no matter what in

an end but others did take freeze your savior and to oppose each commandments on the chain link fence for travelers passing through time. those crossing into webster the boyhood home of jimmy carter in the business district in the former seaboard coast with a campaign headquarters in 1976 and known museum. it is no longer the hub of excitement that it was to

learn more about the democratic nominee for president and then carter held that the train station and i have the mother who joined the peace corps and one sister races motorcycles another who was so holy roller preacher in their brother then pausing for dramatic effect i am the only sane one in the family. and then talk about going to church but meeting with him after church because he wants to you give me a book because he cannot find a new copy of the book.

and then goes on to another event. and then to head out of town also known as old plays high way. said the young jim may carter walked as of bordet to sell for pocket money it has been characterized by the insatiable ambition to rise above his circumstances as the country boy as the navy's midshipmen as a respected world beater and humanitarian and carter had referred to martin luther's notion that each of us is responsible to guide with the ministerial authority actually impeded carter fell to newt the control

criticism with the popular understanding to earn salvation protestants are equally susceptible end as i pass it is difficult to escape the impression that carter was driven into almost obsessed by the righteousness. he always believed in the value of work and the farm to sustain profitability it would lead to better opportunities and hard work might wind praise or promotion on the campaign trail working harder than your opponent to shake more hands would lead to victory.

with long hours resolve to read every piece of legislation to ensure success and reelection. it disrupted that calculus the retractable odds the chronic energy dependence and the islamic revolution in iran the political opposition from his own party that simply would not yield to hard work for longer hours. that shattering electoral losses in 1980 not only was the end of his political career by repudiation of the notion that if you just work harder and longer for his efforts would be rewarded. the electric now recognized he was doing everything humanly possible working as hard as he could to solve these problems. after serving his defeat

carter reaffirmed his commitment as a way to redeem his losses and the carter center would be an activist institution and habitat for humanity was not nothing if not an activist organization in the former president would not retire quietly into private life and there was work to be done eradicating disease monitoring elections elections, building houses and teaching sunday school with military confrontations and making peace. if carter could work hard enough he could accumulate enough merit to cut the balance of history in his favor. to a remarkable degree his commitment was success although they continued to

criticize and ridicule his presidency the story is regarded more favorably. of his activities after leaving office earned him praise and grudging admiration with that ultimate delegation and at what point does he earned a reprieve? when can he relaxed? certainly not on the sunday even after teaching sunday school imposing with a tour is the only questions for a biographer and habitat for humanity donors as i was down highway 61 and carter bodice beating off on a crowded schedule. the former president pushing 90 years old still a restless man but still the

frenetic benevolence that continues says martin luther recognizes centuries earlier those that subscribe to the righteousness never be certain they have accumulated enough merit jimmy carter does not lack so much for passion. the man whose probable election in 1976 brought the nation from watergate's and he earned his own redemption. carter himself however would be the last to know. thank you. [applause] >> we will take a few minutes of questions. and you don't need to grab the microphone.

>> talk about the current use of evangelical in the '60s it with differentiate but now it is all in the newspapers. i again to go back for the evangelical. >> that is a great question. jerry falwell himself said that 1.to a fundamentalist is an evangelical is something -- someone is mad about something but falwell always wanted to identify himself because he thought evangelicals were prone to compromise.

it is the reverberations of the tea party stuff. he thought there were too willing to compromise and he wanted to maintain a hard edge. so the terms are somewhat interchangeable with that militancy rather than evangelicals. but you are right to there is not a great deal of theological issues. >> can you tell us your opinion on the juxtaposition of antiabortion expansion of alcohol and guns in georgia of legislative session? >> there are other people better qualified to comment than i.

water use suggesting? >> that over here is antiabortion and alcohol and guns are on this side it is the opposite. >> ic with libertarians sentiments? >> that is fascinating to me. i don't want to be pretentious but it does strike me as curious that people who attend to talk about less government and less interference of private lives are willing to work for the hautboys that are more interested if. it is the great paradox that nobody has explained to me how that works. arguably on the other spectrum as well that those that repeated the have more

favorable regulation to have of your pro-choice position so there is that contradiction but evangelicals frankly it proved this coming it is not necessarily a logical issue and they have to be averted were other things happened in the late '70s to account for that series by m man named francis and schaefer and c. everett coop really does educates evangelicals about the abortion issue and this was the pattern of moral decay. but throughout the '70s through 79 is not the evangelical issue.

>> bill clinton spoke and the current president that showcases that conversation he does not go to the service publicly for literature or bible verses that carter was able to open >> a wonderful question. podiatrists this issue in the book arguing guide in the white house with that ministerial association related to establish this idea of presidential

politics and what he did was tell voters to vote when they went to the polls. when i have that paradigm with politics up and tell 76 which was carter, how many people here could tell me what lyndon johnson's religious affiliation was? most people say baptist. but most people don't know that. but in a backhanded way nixon produces it because when the '76 campaign will sit around they have to have some sort of sense up in the

moral compass in the the question has persisted and is dying away now endless million to that is but one of the problems is we don't know how to ask the question. to be more of a reliable. the other way is it is not a good question because of flawed assumption to be affiliated that is simply false.

in that way get away from that question in the further we are. but carter's campaign is the reversal in the fact that we spoke about it so freely with his appeal. >> i've loved your closing sentence. maybe he was the last one to no. what's was his feedback? >> steve is more likely to review the and i am. we just sent it to him last week. iodine to space make city is not the last one. [laughter] >> but to be clearer that carter is animated or of

assessed at don't think that is the bad thing. the world is of better place i don't question that for a moment. but even approaching 90 years old has no indication to lets up. but i think of the most recent book he has not been an advocate for choice. >> carter's relationship with the southern baptist convention by rights is a dysfunctional marriage in

the then occasional attempts at reconciliation. it began to go south and he saw that as the real wake-up call. one of the southern baptist leaders comes shortly thereafter and his conversation with the president i am paraphrasing a but it's a lot of us pray they will abandon your religious secular your humanism's and then he says with a secular humanism?

[laughter] and then the central issue for him as people low one of the first things the new conservative leadership the baptist convention did in 1979 but mr. carter does not go along and i applaud him for that. >> his own church split over integration? >> that was long before on the national scene but it was a civil rights era where

there were doing something called visitations in churches on sunday mornings and then to turn away a major source of embarrassment. , and another person in the congregation voted from the plains baptist church. instill after leaving the white house. in part because of the racial inclusiveness. event a priest in macadamia researching jimmy carter you were in a position to talk a

religion in america. [laughter] but that is too broad of a question but one example is the ruling that said a town in new york can begin public meetings with prayers and the rationale is it is unconstitutional because it is so ceremonial it doesn't mean anything anymore. and those were not raised religious households get that is what they know from watching the news. [laughter] [applause] >> i would hate have paid to

do that from a different lecture but that issue could not be more right. in the separation of church and state but there are two fundamental characteristics of baptism one is the separation of church and state going back to roger williams as a very perceptive question but roger williams talks about separating via guardian of his church by means of the wall of separation. but it comes from roger williams.

the puritans were not members of the sierra club. when they talk about wilderness, that was a place of desolation, a danger were evil lurks. williams talks about protecting the garden of the church from the wilderness of the world and says in a fact let's protect the integrity of the faith by not confusing it with politics over the state in that is the formulation in my judgment how this plays out. allotted you remember next door the monument of the ten commandments and i was one of the few baptists a round

because roger williams was absolutely right because when you do that thing you trivialize the faith. so the judge ruled, i will get it later. i forget right now we're was unconstitutional because it kyle they did the establishment clause and workers were preparing to remove the monument to other protesters screamed get your hand off my god. said is something of an image that is precisely the point. when you do that sort of thing that acknowledges

meeting was you trivialize the faith and that is the danger. i am not worried this system will start crumbling because the city council in idaho or upstate new york opens with the a prayer i am not worried about that but the intended faith that is the real danger like the decision that just came down. great question. >> thank you. [applause] >> this has been a fascinating book with jimmy carter. you want to give a copy of "redeemer: the life of jimmy carter" and he will be signing books.

>> they were always very welcoming to me. and i have to tell you that publishers and authors do all kinds of sorts of things to be able to speak at this marvelous place. and it was lovely and as david said, brad and melissa had carried on the wondrous tradition that began with the energy and ingenuity. and they are keeping going and tonight is a testimony to the

job that they do and the reverend that they did for books that we all share. richard nixon is a hard man to let go of. [laughter] i first remember him as a child in a black-and-white fuzzy television, seeing this odd man. he was on the ticket with general eisenhower. there was some problem of taking money from this secret funds. he was blaming his daughter's dog. and i thought, isn't he interesting. well, he never stopped being interesting. richard nixon was never boring. and if david mentioned, he was probably as interesting in his after presidency as he was during his presidency. i chronicled in the book, beginning when spiro agnew got into some trouble. and i said to my editor at the

new yorker that the legendary william shah said what do you think of writing next. i said, i don't know. i think that we will write something about changing vice presidents and presidents within a year. this was back in 1973. we agreed that i would write a journal, not a diary, but we would interpret it and talk about it. and we knew where it was going. as we said at the time, we don't know how to change vice presidents. we didn't know how to do anything. we didn't know how to change vice presidents, we didn't know how to impeach a president, we didn't know how to get another president, it was all kind of made up as we went along. and the loose way that the word impeachment is tossed around is

disconcerting. i have so much to talk about, so we might have to get to the later. but if there is such a thing, the way that richard nixon was almost impeach was really the model, a change from the center, it was bipartisan and it was a very fair and methodical way. so richard nixon had no choice finally but to resign. he held out and he held out and the republican senators and to conduct the trial. they went to get this thing over with and they wanted gerald ford in there before the election. so we held this iconic goodbye as he ran into the helicopter to go to san clemente, his western white house where he would retire and never be heard from again. and so we thought. well, that is not the nixon that i know. when he got to california he was

understandably deeply depressed. he had worked for decades to get to the highest place that he possibly could that anyone can in his country, politically. and it was a dog on smash. and he had done a fair amount to bring it on. but he always believed that people were out to get him which is what really brought about his downfall and this became a big problem for him. he was depressed. he was not well. he had a trip that he took toward the end. but he was not going to give up. he had never given up all his life. he had been seen as lesser and lower than others. he was poor. his family was dysfunctional.

there was no word back then about this, but they were a dysfunctional family. but they admired the constitution. he had been down upon as a kid, he read a lot and he was not popular. he never really had friends. in a strange person to go into politics, but he was determined about everything. so he was determined that this would not be the end of richard nixon. no, no, he was going to work his way back into respectability. to you can imagine that this was a situation that sort of crush most people and so he drew up a plan. he always had a plan. and they chew up a plan called wizards. this was supposed to be the resurgence of him as a statesman. he was smart enough to know that

how do you get to be a statesman. well, people are going to listen to you on foreign policy and not just education or environment, there are issues for him. they had great triumphs with the soviet union and the opening to china and china was really the one dearest to his heart. and so he began to make speeches and he began to take trips and he went to china and he issued pronouncements as if he were still presidents or he thought he was and he never quite really changed. and then of course deleted to the press and it would be in the papers and he had the famous interviews with david frost, which were not as per trade.

you can look it up and take that apart. they just lucked out a few words that were inconvenient to the story. and then he began to get bored and san clemente. he moved to new york where he lost the california governorship and the presidency in 1960 and everybody thought, well, he's gone. but he was never gone. he was so much fun. and he was so interesting. in any event he moved to new york and he and pat nixon, she was thrilled to be out of politics at last. and they bought a brownstone. and they had been living at various co-ops and so forth. and he would have contact with

the bankers and publishers and whatever. and this was just in the last two years that we discovered during his presidency, which i found was interest them. so he would have these dinners and everything was clockwork. at 7:00 o'clock he met people at the front door and they went upstairs and he really prided himself on the dry martinis that he made. this was not a man that was good at small talk him up but he chatted away. the house will run up in chinese the core and the appetizers were chinese. the waiters were chinese. the dinner was chinese. and then after dinner they would go upstairs and it wasn't organized subject at dinner and then they would go upstairs and there would be some were chatting and nixon would look up

at 10:30 p.m., he would look of a clock and say, oh, it's 10:30 p.m., and i promise that i would hit david cohen to the house of prostitution by 11:00 o'clock. so everyone new to it. but these individuals were all over new york and they all wanted to come. and so he became a celebrity. and after a while he talked about the atmosphere for his grandchildren, on whom he dealt it. and there was another generation to cultivate. so he had a series of dinners in saddle river where roger stone, he was an operative who invited journalists and he could be very impressive. he spoke just with a microphone

and he talked about foreign leaders he had known and everyone was very impressed. and he had something that he just sort of love. henry kissinger sort of choked as he gave this little talk. bob dole had a tear coming down his eyes and he bob dole had been asked, would you like him to make an appearance in kansas and bob dole said a flyover would do. [laughter] and so nixon would have seen straight through these guys. he knew that kissinger was bad mouthing him and he understood everything that was going on and

he was on to them. but he would've been pleased with this. and i have to say that i kind of miss him because he was so interesting. so why did i write this journal in the first place? per spoke to mr. shaw in the bathroom, he had this idea for keeping the journal at the time. and we didn't know what was going. so we came back to washington and this is also why we are here again. my mentor at the time, john gartner came to me and said elizabeth, write it so that four years from now people will know what it was like then. it cannot be recaptured. and i don't know that i wrote it any differently with them in mind. i didn't know whether i would be around him for in 40 years. but it does happen that in order years from now this is not an anniversary book and the book was out of print.

and so i wrote to peter mayer of the press and i had a very distinguished book list and he wrote back and said yes, we are going to reissue the book in hardback. well, my heart skipped. and then i said, welcome i will write an afterward to clear things up. and it was a 10,000 word addition, part of which i told you. and i also look back on what was watergate? with all due respect it wasn't to reporters doing outstanding reporting. it wasn't petty crimes or a weekend. the break-in that was caught, and i learned this as i was doing my reporting many years later, it was actually the fourth attempt of the burglars to get into watergate. the first time they planned a grand dinner inside and they didn't get up to the building

and there is just one thing, one thing led to another and they ended up there that night. so the next time they went out and they got their but they didn't have any equipment to pick the lock. so one of the burglars was back in miami and got a good lock pick and they came in and they actually got in over the memorial day weekend. but as is often the case, they screwed it up and they put the tap on the wrong phone and the pictures were all blurred heard one of the burglars took this to john mitchell, the former attorney general that was then head of the committee to reelect the president. and mitchell reportedly said

that go back and get better pictures and fix the tap. then they went in and they were caught. and so when you think about watergate, we think about this. we had a white house that when the president came in with a lot of people he hated, they hired this bunch of strange people end his first job was to track ted kennedy because he thought that ted kennedy would be his opponent in 1972 and he learned to get the goods on him. always willing to get a good on people. the main person he wanted to get the goods on was daniel ellsberg

who had leaked the pentagon papers. kissinger was very worked up about this and had gotten nixon worked up. and there was actually then committed the most dangerous. he was far more concerned about having been found out then the watergate break-in. and the plumbers were looking for leaks and they went out to california and they raided the offers of daniel ellsberg's psychiatrist. so imagine that. and there was just one problem. they broke nok and they had their picture taken and they were so proud in front of the doctor's office door.

and they were using cia equipment and cameras. the cia got these pictures and said, this is a violation of the fourth amendment beyond anything we can imagine. that is what the cover-up was really about. and fortunately for the country, the plumbers must have everything they did and we would've been in far deeper trouble. and that was just an amazing time, things were coming at you all the time. with all due respect it would've been total chaos in some ways. we have the morning paper and we've had the morning papers and the evening news. and you won't believe what we just heard and it was just like that all the time. there was the famous saturday

night and i was actually on a television program at the time and we were sitting there and it was like banana republic, the president has ordered this and that, the chinese general to fire archibald cox and he has refused and he has been hired. and so he refused and he was fired. so this went on through the night and the bulletins were coming in. and it was banana republic. it was very disturbing. downtown san diego. the fbi surrounded headquarters of the often and so it was kind of crazy. and so we just never knew what was coming next.

i did a reflection on the freighter about what kind of people were these and how did this happen and i would say we didn't have the time to even think about that then. i tried to and i had various reflections through the book about what are we to draw from this and what kind of country is this and how can this be. and i said that too much is going on to put these things through. we are absorbing events one after the other and trying to prepare ourselves for a bigger struggle to come. so the administration said to me that the story of the nixon admin at region is those who were in over their heads. and that does not explain it. it was a fanatic quality and the weaving together of their public policy and piety which may have deceived even then. and they cannot escape the thought that the president set

the tone and my feeling throughout this is that you can look at many situations and say, well, you don't have to do talk about who knew what when. how did this come about. and one cannot escape the thought that the president said that his own. a man with a striking amount of connections, he seems to have gone through life as if in constant combat. confusing legitimate opposition with vendetta. most of us have an inner jury, those whose judgment we trust and who we count on to level with the. nixon does not seem to have had an inner jury. he was also very interesting but very strange. just to give you a flavor of what it was like to try to

follow him and see what he's trying to tell us, there was a rather famous event or he spoke to a group of editors and just to give you a sense of the language of this, david told me when to pull the plug. we were in this disclosure stage and we talked about how the break-in was june 17 and nixon came back from florida where he also had a place near his one friend. and he came back and we know that he called john mitchell. but this is when the cover-up began. but we didn't quite know that then because the transcripts didn't come out until later that

summer. and it told us a lot, but there was a lot more to come in the last couple of years. and tonight he said that he did call them in order to cheer him up after watergate. and he goes into detail and he talks about how there were 18 and a half minutes missing and they tried to pin it on his secretary, rose mary woods and it didn't work, she couldn't do it. in the end it was nixon at camp david and erasing 18.5 minutes from that day with the cover-up. and i put that all together later. and so we are further and further from the point and they explain these little things that they had.

this little pill box on my desk, he said it was nixon who started this and i remember them saying that we should all do this and we should put the flag decals on our cars, don't let them take that with us. and so they had appropriated that symbol to this day. so he said that president johnson had much matter material and there had been reports about it. and he said i am not criticizing , far be it for me from me to do a thing like that, that would be wrong. and the conversations with mitchell didn't exist and he said it was one of the great disappointments because i wanted the evidence out.

he said the plumbers were established that were endangering national security and senator baker agreed. when asked what they were doing, they were critiquing the johnson administration and of course it raise questions about the vietnam war and kissinger continued for about five years and then in the end i got about the same deal when they first came in. when asked how watergate could happen, the president replied 72 was a very busy year and the measurements have been taken in this trip to the south and he said the backup plane hadn't been brought down so they had

used as much fuel at the time. he asked if it went down then they don't have to impeach me. and so he talked about the vice president, which he had held out from the government and then he said i want to say this to the television audience. i've made my mistakes. i have never profited from public service and i have earned every cent and in all my years i have never obstructed justice. then came the famous immortal line that we welcome this kind of thing that people have to know whether or not their president is a crook. well, i am not a crook. now, this is the president of the united states. and when you remember dignity, it appeared at times to be funny

but we didn't know that some people's phones were tapped. some journalists phones were tapped. a friend of mine learned that her very intimate conversations with her close friends were being listened to at the justice department or in the right situation of the white house. the paper hadn't come and they said that they took the papers and nothing became preposterous because it was all preposterous but also scary. the president suggested that they blow up the brookings institution because he believed and he was told by these individuals that some papers left over from the pentagon papers are still there and they

should go in there and get those papers. the president suggested this that they blow up the bookings institution. so someone tried to top it. but that was rare. and then we also have a president who drink a lot of the time. slur his words and he was also on a medication that was really for convulsions and it was not meant for depression. but suddenly they were given him this for depression. and it enhances the effects of alcoholism. he would pick up the phone at 3:00 a.m. and called david cohen and he would say fire everyone on this's floor of the state department. and he would say that is not appealable. but it was up to people like him

in such folks to decide whether or not to carry out these orders, which was a scary thing and we didn't know it at the time. and as i told you i have a passion about the subject of impeachment and it is turned around so easily now and it is so very dangerous and it's a very serious business and serious people went about it seriously. he would have been impeached by the house, but some people were so afraid and he still had a following. he was not an easily dismissed figure. but he had a substantial following and republicans are very torn and they wanted him out of there. and they also didn't want the followers to be coming at them for reelection. and so they were saying where is the smoking gun. i happen to hate the concept of a smoking gun because that simplifies it.

and there was a whole array of things. but this one thing was found that shows him ordering obstruction of justice and that gave the republican senators excuse to say that you have to go, because they didn't want to deal with it any longer. so what is the moral of the story? the moral of the story is watch out. we had several occasions when distinguished novelist had said oh, there is a new nixon. but there was not. and so reading the stories with some care is important. we had some reforms that stayed with us and some that did not but there was campaign finance on the agenda. many of the things we were involved in and i have a passion

for the subject and wanted to keep the book alive. i hope you and your children to read it. those that have no idea what happened during the ordinary time. the constitution was truly at stake. and i hope if you've read it before that you would enjoy it again. i found myself shrieking and laughing as i read it again. and i hope that i've made some little contribution to history and to your children's understanding of our history. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, elizabeth. you helped us from generation to generation and this is perfect for lots of reasons. we will begin the question and answer period. so just go to the microphone and if you feel comfortable, please say your name. elizabeth will then begin to answer your questions.

>> don't be shy. >> tom hughes, don't you have a question? you always have a question. [laughter] >> hello, my name is gregory and i'm from the caribbean. i'm from a different part of the world. the most important thing is do you believe based on her own experiences that what happened to nixon and while reagan could also basically potentially result in impeaching him. >> iran-contra. >> yes, but it is an important question here. a constitutional question, in my opinion. do you believe that watergate

might potentially show that there are problems with the u.s. constitution that may be there is too much power within office of the president and if you have people there surrounding the president, that things can get under control of it parliamentary system and so i was wondering if maybe it's possible that you could talk about that and what you feel about that. >> i thought about it a lot and i read about it as well. the founding fathers were pretty smart men, but there is a lot they couldn't anticipate. and they certainly didn't spell out what they meant by impeachment, they said high crimes and misdemeanors. so we've spent a lot of time discussing this. and it was really a kind of heady constitutional discussion that went on.

and you are right, i cobroadcasters with judy woodward on pbs and they made the decision that it was impeachment. but it was a serious problem and it off the books operation that went against a congressional law. a lot of it was a series of events and across the board and i'm often asked unexpectedly what about now and that this is nothing. we have had nothing remotely like it where the president himself condones not just criminal activities but this whole atmosphere of fear and vengeance and enemies. and there was nothing like it and i pray that there will be nothing like it and i think we

just have to be sure to hold the president accountable and then get after the congress if they're not doing their job. especially on one particular issue that i don't have to even mention. because they're so obsessed with looking for that they sometimes end up finding it. so it should balance out in the end. the constitution works and it varies, but it works. i can't think of a better system and i'm also very concerned with ideas for tinkering with the constitution and that is a whole other subject. and we don't want to play tough politics with the first amendment or any of it. >> hello, my name is richard. you think that there's any truth to the thought when nixon had phlebitis that he was sort of not taking his own life, but not necessarily writing to live?

>> know, nixon was not a quitter. and then he finished when he quit. and i am not a quitter. and he never quit. he was just down and out as a person could be when he landed in san clemente. imagine the shame and the horror of team driven out of office. but he didn't quit. so i have some admiration for that. it would have depressed most people and he just kept going. >> as you say, watergate did show that the constitution would be upheld and i also feel that

watergate probably coming after the vietnam war also wore during the end of it, that it really took the respect for our institutions, which has been a long-running ring and the problem is government ideas that have been floating ever since. so in other words ronald reagan and the current republican party. >> that is a long way from there to here. richard nixon was probably the last republican president who believes that government can do good things. he was a liberal and he was a centrist kind of by circumstance and aimed at the conservative side but he had a democratic congress who is very strong on a number of issues and so he

compromise. a lot got done domestically and he wasn't really interested. but no, i think the you can take watergate as you want to see a you can also see it as institutions work in the end and this man and this government, there were three articles of impeachment. the first was obstruction of justice which was a procedural thing in very serious. it was abuse of power. to me, that is where the story really was and it should be today in certain circumstances. not here, but maybe in certain states. but the administration of this person, these things went on and they were very careful with what they put in this abuse of power. and i think that we will be able to recognize it when we did.

and so it doesn't discourage me. i didn't think it was a triumph because we all know things that need to be done and i always thought that gerald ford did the right thing and as he said, enough of watergate is enough, enough wallowing in watergate and the country had moveon. and i agree with that. and so we would've been able to pay attention to this and there was a very distinguished judicial friend who could've been held to this account and we could go on and on that way and i think it worked out kind of a way that it should. a lot of these people went to jail. most of them went to jail and

they all went to jail. so there was an accountability that went on. >> hello, my name is ted and i was a college student back and i can still remember watching president nixon resign. i've read quite a few books on watergate and i just want to ask you as an author one of those books, is there anything that we don't know about watergate or anything that you think still needs to be answered that has not come out? >> i do not think so. because i think in the end it was the little details. and so what is the difference? the story is what nixon and the white house were doing and it was the intrigue of who was leaking to these good and

hard-working reporters. but no, there's nothing that i'm curious about if some little detail that we don't know. we have enough to understand and i hope that is what this does. it follows the events and also reflects on them as they are happening. and then i go back to what was watergate, who was richard nixon, and i think that i got him at last. he was a rather complicated, very complicated person. but he was fascinating. and so i think that he is the most fascinating president that i know of and he was extraordinary. so no, i'm not a conspiracy type anyway. i think we have the big picture and that is the important picture. >> my name is jack hopkins and

in chris buckley is wonderful phrase, i am a self-loathing republican. it happened during the watergate, and so forth. and therefore i was in a very tense position. but taking this microphone for two reasons. one is the compliment you. i think the you have dealt evenly with president nixon. he was an extremely complicated man and a wonderful intellect, by the way. i admire his mind tremendously, but he had a care or fun we all have to admit. the second thing is i have a lot of differences with bob and i hated his guts. however i am convinced that he was the man who stopped those idiotic crazy presidential vocal orders more than anything house and i think he gets credit for that. and he did what a good chief of

staff should do. he disregarded his orders when necessary. thank you. >> not a lot was stopped after all. some of the middle of the night calls were, i think, and they would say what we do now? but except for the brookings institute order, i don't know of any during that time. there was a plan that was drawn up early and even j. edgar hoover thought that this was a bit much and he would not implement it. but bit by bit it was implemented. so they there were not a lot of people that understood boundaries around the place. >> as you know, i am like you and a watergate junkie. there are a lot of us around.

i agree with you that it wasn't destined that nixon get caught and get taken out of office and it may not have happened except for a series of lucky happenstance is and having the right people at the right place at the right time. so i agree with you. but i'm still troubled about the gerald ford question. because the first one who tried to do something about stopping the watergate investigations was gerald ford when the first investigation started. and that is going to be my bottom-line question. do you think that he was -- that there was a quid pro quo and there was a deal somewhere along the line. i know many people have looked at it, including the board of directors of the profiles

encourage award it had awarded that honor to gerald ford, they came out and decided what you said on the day that he help the country avoid this fight. but do you think that there may be more that we don't know? >> i don't think so. the question is was there a deal and it was very much a question when ford pardoned nixon. had they made a quid pro quo. and there are many investigations of it. but nobody has found anything and ford, as president had bought before the subcommittee to testify on what had happened. gerald ford was picked, i believe, a lot of people were nominating themselves because he was safe and he was old gerald

ford and he had been a critic of nixon and he was a decent guy, a decent man, a good guy from michigan and ohio, having a partiality for midwesterners. but he was no sparkling figure and i described the scene here in the white house when nixon was going to announce who is going to be his vice president after they got rid of spiro agnew for accepting cash and the vice presidential office from some contractors like that. so he was out. and i remember and i described the scene at as he was talking in sort of building it up and people stand up and applaud and i thought, there has to be a mistake. he must be confused and sure enough it with him.

and he turned out to be just right for this. he was steady and he set the right tone and it was right to say let's put this behind us and keep going and there was a big discussion, a big argument as to whether or not he should be prosecuted. i don't know what would have been gained by that. i don't know how the man could've been shamed anymore. but his impeachment was closing in on him and he said some of the greatest quotes from jail. but i don't think there was anything there or towards that.

>> i just wondered if you had a theory on why nixon was so paranoid. >> i stayed away from that kind of battle here and it just began very early, he felt that people were looking down on him and he was resentful. his family and his father kept talking about the various businesses. and it was very difficult for him to win her approval even after he became president, i think she finally said something nice. he had two brothers who died and she was focusing on them. so who's to know what happened.

he grew up presenting and he didn't know when to stop. there was a wonderful soliloquy that he did after he went to san clemente. and he gets carried away and he realized he did it much better than i'm doing. so it was just so clearly there and he was very bigoted and i went back and read conversations with members of congress on what they wanted to do and this was a scary prospect. they said that we heard that lbj used kind of bad language, but he was a piker compared to nixon. and there was just a lot of crudeness that went on with the hatred of blacks and jews and things like that.

the language is not fit to repeat. so it happened from a very early age and he got away with a willing people away from being his rivals and he just didn't know when to stop. >> first a story. many of you will remember a fellow by the name of harold carswell who was an appointee to the supreme court that was rejected because it was said that mediocrity is entitled to representation. and richard harris wrote a book in three articles for the new yorker and turned it into a book and it's sort of a case study of how he was defeated. everyone mentioned in that book

in every organization mentioned in that book who oppose him was audited on their tax returns and that was under richard nixon and john calmly and the secretary of the treasury and that is indeed what happened. some of those organizations, the tax-exempt status was threatened and it is a wise example of how we move to vendetta and enemies. my question is this is also a remarkable time of great public service and going well beyond what was expected and people shared a lot about that. people want to know that there

is such a thing as public service and outstanding public service. >> we don't know where it's going to come from. but i dedicated this version of the book to those who rose to the occasion and as the publishers put it on the copyright. but that was one of the most important things that happened here. there was a lot of fuss made over the urban committee hearings because sam talked constitutional law but he was a that of a ham. so he did show the country those who are populating the white house or running around and fixing material in the potomac

river. he talked about some material that had been found. but it was when it got to the house at about very serious and very important and there was a relatively new chairman of the house judiciary committee and he was from newark and nobody could find anything and he was a very quiet man and modest. and frances o'brien was a very bright guy. i don't know really how they found each other. he lied and said he was 34. and he was really kind of the brains behind this thing.

he had to find a council and there was a really sort of partisan staff left over from those who had been defeated. and he understood that this had to be a theme of nonpartisan that was there. so he and his brother john went out and they found the counsel for the committee who had been in the eisenhower justice department and the bobby kennedy justice department and he was a real hero but nobody would call him a flamethrower or partisan figure. and they understood that this had to come from the center and they have to be in to accept it and that is why the vietnam war and other things suggested to be

part of this, they had as much trouble pushing aside those that wanted to go to the far right who could find no wrong with nixon. and then you have these murders that you really didn't know about and there was a man, and butler was one. and we were very serious. and he was a real conservative on the democratic side. and paul was very involved in this article as well and they

were beforehand part of every figure, they had not done anything outstanding. they were just sort of plainspoken and they all rose and took it very seriously. and they reached a bipartisan agreement that the country accepted and i can tell you afterwards that i had dinner with one of these heroes clear up some questions for the books and they invited me to this cocktail party on the hell and it was a party and he started telling these stories about how people really wanted to get on the judiciary committee because they were such wonderful people

and you could take such neat trips around the world. and so some of the best that went on would not be fit to repeat. but they were pretty normal people who when the occasion came, they really rose to it. this was true of the staff and it was a very complicated thing to keep under control. i can remember seeing in my mind's eye the committee and watching it on television. you may not remember. you didn't see any cameras because frances o'brien got the idea that he didn't want people to -- he wanted people to be right in there with the committee. he said, do you want to cover it, then do it through a hole in the wall. you're not going to be in the room. things like that most people don't think of. and mainly it was the character that came out. they all knew the gravity and it

will show you that they were individuals who truly couldn't make up their mind. the deal was i wasn't going to write about until afterwards. but they were very serious to what is a crime, what is a high crime map what is a misdemeanor. what does that mean? you have to burglarize something or is it beyond that? what is accountability? this is a very serious set of questions. and it was sort of a model and impeachment. the stuff that goes on now just sort of got ruined when they talked about the impeachment with clinton and lying under oath and it was really too bad that this thing got out of control and was used so loosely. public servants, regular people and they made it happen and they help the country together while

they did it. [applause] >> the public memory goes to those who rose to the occasion. elizabeth will be sitting here and signing books and they will line up this way. as usual, please help us with the chairs and thank you again. [applause] thank you, eve >> and now live to london for british trimesters question time. members returning today from their month-long summer break. each week the house of commons is in session, we bring you prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons live wednesday morning since he's been too. we invite your participation by

using twitter, hashtag pmq. live to the floor of the british house of commons on c-span2. >> i will undoubtedly do so, mr. speaker. >> order. questions to the prime minister. >> not here. >> question number two, mr. speaker. >> prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure that the whole house and the whole country will join with me in condemning the sickening and brutal murder of another american hostage, and share our shock and anger at it again the piston been carried out by a british citizen. all our thoughts are with the british hostage and his family, the ordeal is unimaginable. but let me be very clear.

this country will never give in to terrorism. our opposition to isil will continue at home and abroad. it is important that we are clear about the nature of the threats we are facing. it makes no distinction between cultures, countries and religions. there's no way to appease it. the only way to defeat it is to stand firm and descended very straightforward message, a country like ours will not be cowed by these barbell at -- barbaric killers but if they think we will weaken in the face of the threats they are wrong. it will have the opposite of that. we'll be more forthright in the defense of values, nobody under the rule of law, freedom, democracy that we hold dear. i am sure a united message to that effect will go forward from this house today. >> mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today.

>> mr. speaker, can indulge with the prime minister as suggested about the american hostage. can i say to the prime minister, when he some years ago, he said he wanted to stop the conservatives going on about your. what has happened? >> a lot of things have changed in europe, not least the eurozone crisis which had been used but is beginning to reappear. this has created an enormous attention within the european union come those countries within the eurozone that need further integration and of those countries outside the eurozone that want to have a more flexible relationship with your. and its absolute right we debate and discuss these matters in the south that above all it is right we include the british people. and under my plan they will have a decisive say. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. will be prime minister join me in congratulating all the businesses in my constituency

who had over the last year reduce unemployment by 36%. does he agree with me it's evident our long-term economic plan is working? >> well, i'm delighted to join my honorable friend in that way. unemployment is coming down right across the country. in east includes the number of people in work is up by 400,000 since the election, private sector blood is up, the number of business is up, investment is up in the news today we have about the gdp figure revisions showed that since 2010 this country has grown faster than france, faster than germany, faster than any major economy apart from canada and the united states of america. there should be any complacency because the job is not yet done but our long-term economic plan is working and it is the way to secure a better future for our country. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i joined the prime minister and expressing the universal sense of repulsion

as the barbaric murder of steve sotloff and expressing deep concern about the british hostage being held. this will be a terrible time for his family. and people across the country will be thinking of them. and mr. speaker, this is a pattern of nervous behavior i isil of the innocent. distance, yazidis, muslims, anyone who does not agree with with their vile ideology. and i agree with what the prime minister says, events like this must strengthen, not weaken our resolve to defeat them and he can be assured of our full support in standing firm against them. >> here, here. >> can i thank the leader of the opposition of what you said in a way in which he said but i think this house should send a united message. i think what has happened to the two hostages so far and what may happen again in the future is utterly aborted and barbaric and these people need to understand we will not waver in her aim of defeating terrorism. and that is not something that

divides this house politically. it is something that everyone and i suspect the entire of our country agrees with me. [inaudible] not just in britain but across the world. does you further agree with me that we and countries in the region have a final humanitarian and security interest in overcoming isil? can i ask them what progress is being made to mobilize other countries including turkey, saudi arabia, qatar, and regional bodies especially the arab league against isil? >> i think the way the leader of the opposition is approaching this. isn't on the right. we should see this crisis as one where we are there to help the people on the ground and the countries in the region that want to solve this crisis. we should not see this as one where it is a semi-western led intervention. we have the kurds and defending communities including minority communities from horrors of isil. with the government in baghdad which badly needs to get itself

together so to represent all of the country and then we with allies and neighbors can do more to make sure that this appalling organization, isil, feels the full pressure of international and regional and local condemnation. that is what should be done. as he says we should be using all the assets we have focusing first on humanitarian aid and saving people from persecution, hunger and starvation, using our diplomatic and political pressures to make sure there is a government in baghdad that can represent all the country, and marshaling working with others so the maximum under pressure is put on. if we continue in that way always asking ourselves how can others in the neighborhood do their work, how can we help them and had to be best if in our national interest and deeper people say that home, that is the right approach. >> i agree in building the partnership is vital in the weeks and months ahead. the u.n. is a key part of building the legitimacy and effectiveness of the alliance

against iso. in addition to u.n. security council resolution passed in the last few weeks, can he tell us what plans he has to use the uk's share of the skewed council to build the international consensus he talked about? >> well, so far we've used the united nations the pressure on isil by making the people should not be providing resources or sanctuary to these people. indeed, they should be cut off. that is been the approach so far but we do have an opportunity through the u.n. to marshal international support and backing for the views that this isil so-called islamic caliphate is unacceptable and needs to be squeezed out of existence. that is what we should do and we should aim to get the maximum support through the u.n. for the measures right across the board that are being taken. >> turning to the threat we face in britain, people will been shocked and disgusted they were british voices on the video and the british citizens are part of isil. on monday the prime minister announced he would reintroduce location bars for suspected terrorist. he has our full support. can you confirm this will go

ahead? can even indication of the timetable for bringing these powers for? >> i can't confirm it will go ahead and it is going to require legislation to the key is to put the desires and advisor david anderson is the independent reviewer of terrorism, to put those into action. what he is spoken about is some combination of exclusion and relocation. it is that that needs to be reintroduced into the terrorism prevention and investigation measures but i think we should try to do that on a cross party basis to send the clearest possible message editing urgency is the order of the day. >> try to the best way to deal with terrorists of course prosecution -- on monday also proposed the possibility of blocking british citizens from returning to the uk. given there's some doubt cast on ms. kinney say a bit more on whether he believes this is legally permissible and again whether there are plans to take

this forward to? >> the short answer is i do believe it is legal but it will take some work for this reason that we already have the power when people are trying to return to the united kingdom if it is a foreign national we can exclude them even if they've lived here for any number of years. it is a national you can strip them of their british citizenship and excuse them. it is a naturalized britain you can under our new laws passed recently through this house, you can strip them of their british nationality. but i do believe there is a gap where you have someone born, raised as a british citizen like the individual we discuss on monday from eyewitness single want to return in order to do harm to our country. of course, the best thing to do is to gather evidence, prosecute convict and imprison incredibly there may be occasions when what we need to exclude and so, therefore, we should fill the gap and i believe it is legal impossible to do. >> mr. speaker, of course will look at the practicality of legality of any proposal he comes forward with. finally, can ask them to revisit the case or strengthening the

present program for resources and committee engagement? after all that is essential to stop people being indoctrinated into this voices ideology. we do need to -- across the world against isil and strong and considered actions here at home. it's what the world needs. it's with average people expect and then pursuing this o course you will have our full support. >> i thanked him for his support. on to prevent a program will we have done is try to divide up the different outlets of it. there is one part which is about unity cohesion which is best led on by the department of culture, department of communities and local government to the of the park is run by the home office through the present program. that is what we've done. what i think we need to be clear about is it's not enough to target those who preach by the extremism. we need to go after those that promote the extremist narrative and life view that gives the terrorists and the men of violence support for what they

do. it's not unlike the cold war where we did not just pursue those who wanted to do such harm. we were set to challenge all those who gave them suffer. that is what we need to do in this struggle which i think will last for decades and we need to show resilience and as you said unity in pursuing it. >> in this parliament our coalition government has increased health spending by over 17 billion pounds a year. [shouting] as a direct consequence to that, the block grant to scotland which supports funding in scotland has increased by 1.7 billion pounds a year. does by right honorable friend agree with me that this -- propaganda about the nhs? >> my right honorable friend is absolutely right, because of the decisions we took, long-term decisions after a careful

assessment to increase been on the health service that is given extra money for scotland has been on the nhs so that is one of our examines claims. a second claim that somehow a westminster government could privatize half of it in a just and scotland is complete and utter nonsense. the only person who could privatize parts of nhs scotland is alex salmond. you can tell someone has lost the argument when they start making ludicrous ideas about what they would do themselves. >> there's been word in the court over the past week about a rise in malnutrition. going back to children going home after the school holy. -- holiday. [inaudible] it's his job to do something about this. >> i think it is welcome all entrants will preschool meals as they go to school this week, and

that will be welcomed to many comes up and down the country. the evidence is 99% of schools are providing those preschool meals. i have to say the best way we can tell people is get more people into work, and we are coming to make a our economy continues to grow and make sure it delivers for hard-working people. i know the labour party want to give his narrative up and running about in equality but let me give them some statistics to show why it is not true. there are 300,000 fewer children in poverty than when labour were in office. [shouting] in equality in our country has gone down and not up. one of the series courses of poverty, long-term youth unemployment, is now lower than when this government came to office. that is how we're changing people's lives and changing people's life chances. >> a prime minister a great friends in the middle east to share a basic commitment to pluralism, democracy and peaceful change from syrian national coalition, palestine to

the elected government of kurdistan and libya and we hope iraq must by now be fighting british support inconsistent, fragmented and and strategic. isn't it time for more consistent strategy? >> i don't agree at all with the honorable gentleman. i think this government has massively increased our engagement with the gulf and middle eastern states. everybody knows that our view is that you in favor of democracy, of human rights come of the building blocks of democracy but also of naïve interventionists to believe you can drop democracy out of the back of an airplane. it needs to be built. they know that is what you do we engage with all of those states en route to maximize not just our influence by the chance of regional stability in that vital area. >> does the prime minister share public concern that terrible abuse can happen to children? most recently a 1400 sexually abused girls.

yet directors of social services and other senior officers pay no penalty, and often move on to even higher paid jobs. surely, it's the context of the people at the top mean they cannot be stacked in such circumstances, maybe the contracts need looking at. >> i agree entirely with what the honorable lady has said that first of all what we've seen is deeply shocking, and as i said i think it demonstrates a failure in the local government system there in the children's services department and in policing, and all those issues need to be addressed which is why vast the home secretary to chair a group of ministers to look at how we learn the lessons even before we get our child abuse inquiry fully under way. we are -- where she is right is that local authorities when they employ these people should look carefully at the contracts and make sure that the people don't do the job properly, they can be removed. it's of vital.

you cannot please all of this from white help your local government has responsibly for the people it employs and should hold them to account. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i concur with the prime minister's earlier comments on bad behavior and say we all stand right behind him. track of his net migration in uk has continued at the present level we can fill a city the size of leads every three years. it's not only unsustainable but potentially a stabilizing to the country. does my right honorable friend i agree with me that the sooner we adopt of these only system for all foreign nationals, the sovereign parliament to decide his those are the best? >> first walk in a thank my auto honorable friend for what he says about the stamp of us all take against terror and terrorism. on the issue of immigration, we have done a huge amount to restrict migration from outside the european union and the

figures are down almost 30% since this government came to office. we are closed and 700 bogus colleges. we introduce an economic limit but i agree we need to do more. of course, freedom of movement is important principle but it is not an unqualified right and it should not be the freedom of movement to claim benefits and we should make sure when new member states join the european union, we don't necessarily have transitional controls that simply last for a number of years. where transitional controls that make sure they will not have full access to our markets until their economies are of a different size and shape. >> the most recent uk ambassador to nato has today said that an independent scotland would be welcome in nato and that she is voting yes in the referendum just like so many other undecided voters who want a better scotland. earlier this year the prime minister get a commitment on scottish television to take part in a program with undecided

voters before the referendum. will he be doing that or running a we just as he ran away from the foreign minister in the debate? >> on scottish television i asked a format and, indeed, they seem to run away themselves. [shouting] on nato, i refer to listen to loren roberts, the segregation of nato is absolutely clear that scotland will be better off inside the united kingdom and the united kingdom will be better off with scotland. and the problem with the right honorable gentleman when it comes to all of the big questions, what currency with a separate scotland use? will we be the position in data? what would be the position in the european union? they've not been able to provide a single credible answer. >> does the prime minister agree with me that one, it is accepted to hold an opinion, it is not acceptable to promote boycotts

of goods produced in israel are kosher goods and bits of policy of -- with judaism and also in turn anti-semitism. what reassurance can the prime minister get my constituents that this government will address boycotts and anti-semitism and united kingdom? >> we have been very clear that we don't support boycotts and we don't support measures that are intended to delegitimize the state of israel which has a right to exist. we argue has a right to piece within its proper borders. and i do think he makes an important point, which is wished absent a clear that you can criticize israel and israeli government for its actions without being anti-semitic. but what we've seen in recent weeks is a rise in anti-semitic attacks in the country but as i said on monday that is completely unacceptable. >> could i refer the prime

minister to -- does the prime minister agree that a common thread in the -- summit has been referred to earlier -- [inaudible] all to often be driven by considerations other than the best interest of the child? and reflect a sad lesson for all of us will be agreed to remand the modern slavery vote -- summit with reflecting the best interest of the child to all the relevant authorities and the service is? >> i am very proud of the fact that this government is introducing the modern slavery bill, a bill in strong support and i will care that the specific suggestion that he makes. let me make a brief comment on the other points that he makes. i think to be fair to the authorities involved in the case, they all want to do the best for the child but that is what they're thinking of i think what happened was the decisions

were taken that were not correct and didn't chime with a sense of common sense and that unfortunate been put right. what all of us in public life and public offices have to do is examine with the legal requirements or but also make a judgment and those judgments can sometimes be more important. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if even the respected hampshire police can use the european arrest warrants a great and injustice, can my right honorable friend have any confidence that other member states with less well-developed legal systems will not use the arrest warrants for worse purposes in the future? >> what i would say to my honorable friend, i respect his argument, police are, they can make their judgment and is a just and they don't always get those judgments right. the question i'd ask ourselves in this house is we have to think about a situation potentially where a terrorist has attacked our country and is on the run for europe to other

countries and how quickly want to be able to get that person back in front of our courts to face british justice. there's not an imagine a set of circumstances to this is exactly what happened in 2005 after the dreadful london bombing. so we do need to think about this. i am all for making sure that powers afloat from brussels to london, and they have been the case of justice and home affairs will we have repatriated over 100 measures. but i also want to be a prime minister who can with the british people in the eye and say we'll keep you safe from series crime, from terrorism and put people back in front of british courts as soon as possible. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister, we now know in the event of separation scotland would no longer -- that was a good laugh. [laughter] >> will no longer have a formal -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> response, an independent

scotland share the national debt. stomach. [inaudible] i think it is one of the most chilling things that has been said in this referendum campaign that a separate scotland would consider defaulted on its debt. we all know what happens if you don't pay your debt. no one will lend you any money and you pay an interest rate. we all know what that means for homeowners, much, much higher mortgage rates. for businesses crippling interest rates. those are the consequences of what the separatists are proposing and we need to get our message out loud and clear in the coming days. [shouting] >> spent for all the reasons that have been given, if we were to lose the unions that would not only be a disaster for scotland but a national humiliation of catastrophic proportions. but.

[inaudible] perhaps would've been a bit complacent up to now. me i urge them in the next two weeks to drop everything else, stand shoulder to shoulder to fight for the game we love and believe in? >> i think my honorable friend is absolutely -- >> order. just a moment, prime minister. mr. mcneal, you ought i decent chap, you are very over excitable, very over excitable individual. you should calm down. you aspire to be a statesman. try behaving like one. the prime minister. >> i agree with my honorable friend about the importance of this referendum. what i would say is i think the leaders of the parties in the south have all put aside their differences and said in spite of the political differences we have, we all agree about one thing. not just that scotland is better off inside the united kingdom by the united kingdom is better off with scotland inside. perhaps as well as the leader of the conservative party, as a member of parliament for an

english seed i say on behalf of everyone in england and was in northern ireland we want scotland to stay. [shouting] >> prime minister we're all very aware of your interest in the middle east and particularly iraq. what is happened since were last year for pmqs a particular the last 24 hours. [inaudible] christians have been displaced, they're been beheadings, they've been told to convert or die. it is time to consider further action for christians and additional sanctions against isil? >> i think we should do everything we can to protect them persecute miners including christians but also the yazidi communities and that's her we been using our resources but after nevada's most been humanitarian aid which we been delivered through a militant asset, through raf planes come working with others to make sure they are protected but we should also as part of the strategy work with the kurds and others so the isil can be beaten back and the christians and others are persecuted.

>> increasing numbers of british family are leaving the uk because they believe they will get a more fair trial in family courts abroad rather than family courts he. does the prime minister agree with me that parliament should look at the reasons for this? >> we do break into the debate in this house family law. this government has made some amendments to family law after long debates within government and in this house and it is arguing they should be for the parliamentary opportunities but, of course, there are backbench days and other opportunities to raise these issues. >> given the birthday present given to him from the member my clutch and come how many more birthday surprises ac expecting from the tory backbenchers? >> i'm sure i will get all sorts of pleasant surprises on my birthday. please don't spoil it by letting me know what they are. [laughter]

[shouting] [inaudible] failed to provide a plan b should scotland become independent. does the prime minister agree with me that a vote -- what plan b is before a vote? >> and i think my honorable friend makes a good point which is those who believe in united kingdom, we can answer all of these question. we can answer what they united kingdom will look like in the future. those argued the separation have answered these questions. the most recent effort to say that somehow scotland would go on using sterling but not be part of the monetary union got a rebuff yesterday from the european commission who said that on that basis they wouldn't be able to be members of the european union. so yet again another piece of the puzzle completely falls aw away.

>> mr. speaker, isn't the truth that isil won't be beaten without airstrikes in syria as well? and that means engaging, however unpalatable, with the assad regime in iran as well as of course the saudis? perhaps also resolving the bitter and dangerous shia-sunni conflict in the region. because ultimately isis poses a bigger threat to the nations in the region than it does to us. >> i make two points whose views on this our. first of all i would argue that assad's brutality has been one of the things that is help to generate the appalling regime that isis represents. the second thing that i would say is yes, of course what we want to see, what consistent across the piece on this is democratic government that a pluralistic and represent all of their people taking place. we want to see the in iraq urges

why we support prime minister a body in his attempt to build an inclusive government and we should support a 10th century to have a democratic transition to a regime that can represent everyone in syria. >> g. high the crime in the name of the islamic state -- [shouting] [inaudible] so i welcome the plans by my right honorable friend to seize british passports from dual nationals and remove razors in the uk from foreign nationals who have been fighting with iso- in iraq answered in order to keep such good from -- in the uk. what progress is a government made concerning jihad is with only british citizenship? first of all let me be to do my honorable friend for his great work represent the people of dudley south for the last four years. and all the work is done. i think he is right to say that people in dudley south, indeed

people across the country, take a basic view that if you leave this country, you travel to the heart of iraq, he declared that you are in favor of some so called islamic state and that is a country you want to be part of that you should forfeit effectively your right to come back and let it bring the that is what people feel and they feel it deeply and that is what it is right to look at how we can have legal powers not just to strip dual nationals of the british citizenship, not just exclude foreign nationals but those british citizens that make those statements should be stopped from coming back to our country. >> mr. speaker, a constituent is trapped in northern iraq, unable to travel home. in light of the threat from isil with the prime minister a look at this case and see what more can be done to expedite his return home as soon as possible concluding issuing a new travel document? >> i'm very happy to look at the audible ladies case and i'm sure