.. i just want to move on, if i may. mao in the third part of my remarks, i want to address this issue. some people might accept the criteria i've set out but say it is not our job to intervene because western intervention always makes things worse. i think we have to confront this issue directly because it will be concern not just to people in this house but of people in the country. i understand this argument but i don't agree. intervention always has risks but a dismembered iraq would be more dangerous for britain in my view, not less dangerous for britain. my honorable friend said very powerfully isil on check means more persecution of the innocent. there is this point, mr. speaker. if we say to people we will pass by on this one it surely makes it far harder to persuade other arab countries to play their

part. people across this house have been saying it's got to be done in the neighborhood, we've got to engage the region. if we say i'm sorry, this has nothing to do with us, we're not going to intervene, it surely means we have less moral authority to say we want you to play your part as well. finally mr. speaker, we should pride ourselves on our traditions of internationalism because that is when britain is at its best. being internationalists and not withdrawing from the concerns of the world. mr. speakerer, i want to say something about the underlying reasons for wariness and i think we should confront it directly. that is the 2003 war in iraq. i understand why some who are in this house at the time will wonder if this is a repeat of that experience. in my view it is not and it is worth setting out why. first, as the prime minister said, this case is about supporting a democratic say the. it is not about overturning an existing regime and seeking to build a new one from the rubble, much harder undertaking. secondly, there is no debate about the legal base for action

in iraq as there was in 2003. thirdly, there is no argument about whether military action is a last resort. whatever side of this debate we're on, nobody is saying let's negotiate with isil. they are not people you can negotiate with. fourth, there is broad international support, not a divided world. all 28 eu member states and the arab league providing support and five arab states taking part at inaction. and fifth, there is no question of british ground troops being deployed. so i understand the wariness there will be in the house and in the country about 2003 and whether this is a repeat. but on those five grounds, it is not, and it is demonstrably not. i give way. >> i thank my honorable friend for giving way. does he not agree it is our failure to properly reconstruct iraq after the war which actually increases our responsibility to act responsibly an to engage other partners in the region to create a more stable country for future

than we've seen over the last ten years. >> i completely agree with my honorable friend about our responsibilities or indeed our responsibilities to the people of iraq. mr. speaker, i'm not going to give way again. mr. speaker, the late robin cook said in his resignation speech on the eve of the iraq war this -- our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multi-national agreement and a world order governed by rules. mr. speak her, this is multi-lateral action prompted by a legitimate democratic state.e multi-lateral action prompted by a legitimate democratic state.e multi-lateral action prompted by a legitimate democratic state. and a world order governed by rules, if it is about anything, must be about protecting a democratic state which is what this motion before us is about. i believe although this is difficult, it is the right thing do. there is no graver decision for our parliament and our country but protecting our national interests, security and the values for which we stand is why

i will be supporting the motion this afternoon. >> point of order, mr. bill wiggin. >> mr. speaker, you have noticed my constituents expect me to be able to get into the chamber and hear my prime minister. no such obligation rests on this poor man behind me. will you find a safe place for this camera crew so that he can film without getting in our way? >> i'm grateful to the honorable gentleman. as far as i can see, camera crew is certainly not interfering with the business of the house and everybody is safe. i'm grateful to the honorable gentleman for his point of order to which i have responded. order. can i just point out to the house that no fewer than 77 honorable and right honorable members are seeking to catch my eye, in consequence of which colleagues will understand my decision to impose with

immediate effect a five-minute limit on back bench speeches. sir richard ottererway. >> mr. speaker. i congratulate the prime minister and the leader of the opposition for the constructive and measured way in which they have introduced this debate today. mr. speaker, this intervention is different in two respects. for the first time war is being used -- war is fought using social media as a tool. t power of the internet is becoming increasingly apparent. we've all been shocked by this slick propaganda. for most of us, the first we heard of isil was through youtube. mr. speaker, this is the world we live in today. the second is the young age and radicalism of our opponents. albert einstein once said old men start wars, but younger men

fight them. well, not any longer. the isil and al qaeda commanders are in their 30s and the old men are the refugees. >> will you give way? >> a very important point, one of the most powerful weapons of course is social media that isis's been using. what does he think governments around the world like ours an like the u.s. should be doing to make sure that social media is not being used and that sites are being blocked and actually isis is stopped from getting their publicity out there in the domain. zbri >> i agree with my own friend. i think the government should be addressing this and recognizing that self-power is now a tool of war and is something that should be addressed very seriously indeed. but mr. speaker, i was saying that our opponents are young and radical. up against them are the slow, clunking democracies of the west and the civilized world.

but these democracies are our strength. this building, our electoral mandate, they give us legitimacy that isil and similar rebel groups will never have, and that is what will ultimately undermine them. >> he makes very important point. of course an important part of all this alongside the military action that i hope we will endorse today is the soft approach, is the diplomatic roar of the united kingdom related to in many of the sunni tribes that are in the area that isil have control over. now isn't it important to recognize that isil with the use of social media and their very strong media operation are effectively an opportunist front for what has been a civil war. we can't negotiate with isil but we do need negotiate and talk to these people in the sunni areas who have tribes in those areas. >> i agree with the honorable member. indeed if he anticipates what

i'm coming to in my speech. mr. speaker, the western world a agonizes about how to respond intelligently and responsibly to these threats. i thank the prime minister for the rational and measured way for which he's assessed the situation an for the leadership that he has shown. a coalition of the winning has been assembled. the response has been prepared. mr. speaker, our thoughts are now with the men and women of the armed forces. this isn't going to be an easy campaign. it's going to be messy. it's going to be untidy. and there will be, i fear, be fatalities. but this intervention is the very least that a country such as britain and the united kingdom should be doing. we're a world leader in the eflt eu, in nato and the g-8. we hold down a permanent seat in the security council in the united nations. and we derive benefit from all of these positions but it also

gives us responsibilities and we have a duty to act. but i have to say, mr. speaker, it is of some regret to me that while i recognize the politics that we're not authorizing action in syria today. the border between syria and iraq has virtually disappeared. it is a sea of human misery. there is open cross border movement of people, both legal and illegal, military organizations, innocent citizens, homeless, terrified refugees. it is a seamless conflict over two countries covering thousands of miles and presenting a vulnerability in isil's stretched resources which we are not capitalizing on. we have long encouraged the arab states to get involved. now they are and the irony is that we're pulling our punches, as they do. this is the first time that there has been an international coalition in syria and we should

be a part of it. and the leader of the opposition said in his speech that he thought it would be better if a resolution was tabled at the united nations before intervening. given that russia has already said it will veto such a resolution, it is incumbent on the leader of the opposition to say then what his position would be. so what is the hesitation over syria? we will never end this conflict by turning back at the border. and perhaps the deputy prime minister who winds up the debate can say what is the role for the free syrian are army which has just been given half a billion dollars by the u.s. congress to equip its fight. they have been fighting isis for months and like the peshmerga in northern iraq, they are fighting for their homeland. we're all agreed that air attacks alone aren't going to bring this war to an end.

isis will clearly go underground and it will need forces on the ground to ram home the advantage that air cover provides. we all accept that there aren't going to be british or american troops on the ground but the peshmerga are willing, the free syrian army is willing. they have strong contacts with each other and they stand shoulder to shoulder in their exchanges. strategically it makes sense to bolster moderate forces to take the fight to isil. and this, mr. speaker, means supplying funds and equipment to the free syrian army. they have shown themselves to be reliable partners over sustained period of time. but in the longer term, this will strengthen their antiasset capability and bring them to the negotiating table, something that we have been talking about for over three years. and no one should be under any illusion that the attacks on innocent citizens in syria

remain 99% the work of the syrian regime. they have now killed an estimated 170,000 people, of their own people, against just a few hundred by isil. mr. speaker, war is a terrifying business, particularly to those who have experienced it. on occasions, it's a thnecessar evil. but no matter how necessary, it is always ghastly and horrendous. it is with a feeling of depression and trepidation that i will be supporting the government tonight. >> although i support this motion, authorizing military strikes on isil in iraq, and although i fully support my party leader's caution over extending it to syria without u.n. backing, the blunt truth is that simply allowing isil to retreat across an invisible border to them which they control into syria and regroup is no answer. but first, why british military

action against isil's barbaracy but not our son's butchery. shouldn't the long ill-fated legacy of invading iraq warn us to stay well clear. in 2003 i backed toely blair over iraq because i honestly believed saddam had weapons of mass destruction. he was wrong. he didn't. which has made me deeply allergic to anything similar if the region, certainly anything remotely hinting of cowboy western intervention. >> do you you also accept that the intervention in 2003 was welcomed by a lot of people of iraq and particularly the kurds. >> i agree, absolutely. but even libya, supposedly a surgical operation, consented to by this house in 20 1 is hardly a good advertisement for us with chaos now in the country.

>> in supporting the motion, indeed i think as broadly we are across the house, it is one of the lessons of the 2003 intervention of iraq that we should have designed in the reconstruction of iraq as a democratic state from the outset rather than leaving it until after we've achieved some military effect. >> indeed. i mean we tried to but the americans took no letters, frank frankly. of course assad's forces have unleashed waves of terror but his jihadist opponents, too, have committed terrible atroc y atrociti atrocities. that's the context which has given birth to isil. not because the house prevented the prime minister from arming moderate rebels in the free syrian army. had the prime minister got his way last august, where might those british arms have ended up? probably with isil. instead of trying to bounce parliament into backing military strikes in syria last august 2003, we should have been

promoting a negotiated solution right from the beginning. this was always going to be the only way to get asaisadassad, a important, his backers to shift toward compromise. syria never was some simplicity battle between evil and good, between a barzou daragbaric dic his people. the incendiary internal islamic context, sunni versus shia, saudi arabia versus iran, also a cold war hangover, the u.s. with all its considerable military and intelligence assets in the region, versus russia with its only mediterranean port and intelligence capability in syria. even more crucially, assad is backed by 40% of his population. his ruling shia aligned people fear being oppressed. they don't like his repressive

rule. they fear becoming victims of genocide and extremism. assad was never going to be deteed defeated militarily and he isn't now. if somehow he was toppled, violent chaos in the syrian quicksand would still have ensued. the arab lead enjoy brahimi, along with the u.n., set out a political solution which should always have been the imperative, and that means negotiating with assad's regime and with the russians and iranians standing behind him. failure to undertake this is a main reason the civil war if my view has been so prolonged and why isil has been allowed to float. he uses the justification for

exterminating all his opponents and any religious group that stops a caliphate. britain has the intelligence capabilities which those on the front line fighting isil do not. in northern iraq, only u.s. air power at the request of the iraqi government, the kurds and the minorities facing genocide by isil's remorseless advance and very significantly with a military participation of half-a-dozen nearby arab countries has knocked by isil's well-equipped army. it wouldn't have happened otherwise. that iran gave its de facto, if covert, blessing is of significance. opening an opportunity for future engagements and collaboration which could be transformative for the whole region, israel, palestine included. britain should also help local iraqi and kurdish forces fighting isil with air strikes, drones, military equipment an other support but not with troops on the ground. countries in the region have to take ownership of this battle

because isil threatens them all. but the elephant in the room for me remains syria. isil will never be defeated if it is constantly allowed to regroup from its syrian bases. without either u.n. or syrian government authorization, air strikes in syria may be illegal although they could well be justification under international law for such strikes even without u.n. agreement. and u.n. authority for air strikes in syria won't be granted without assad and putin's agreement. maybe president rapani's too. that's very difficult, to many very distasteful butness's. what's the alternative? although syrian's russian air supplied defenses have been hit by the fighting they are quite sophisticated. even the u.s. had to pre-inform damascus about the timing and location of its air strikes this past week or so, yet engaging doesn't mean befriending. rather, akin to churchill in 1941 who said if hitler invaded

hell, he told his private secretary, is germany ready to invade stallen's russia, i would at least made a favorable reference to the devil in the house of commons. handled sensitivelily, this could be an opportunity -- and i urge the prime minister to take it -- to kickstart a proper syrian peace process and diffuse the deep and inflammatory divisions between muslims in the middle east. iranians and shiites sponsoring hezbollah and other militias,  sponsoring al qaeda and isil where they've unleashed a monster which threatens to devour them all. by acting carefully, by making common cause with both saudi arabia and iran to combat a common isil enemy, britain could possibly even help re-align middle east politics. overcome to bitter and violently corrosive sunni-shia faultline

in the region, an even bigger task but an immensely valuable one. >> mr. speaker, i don't think there is any significant controversial for the moral or legal case for what is proposed so in five minutes i won't set them out. the world would and better place if isis was destroyed and britain would be a safer country, without doubt. i do think the legal case for intervention in iraq is clear with the government inviting us. i think it is pretty clear in syria because of the genocide and the humanitarian disasters being inflicted on that country. and i do agree that it's artificial to divide the two problems. the line is a theoretical line on the map now and there is absolutely no doubt that isis has to be defeated in both countries. >> given that one of the principles of counterinsurgency

is to deny the enemy a home base, isn't it absolutely essential that we back the american efforts in syria, otherwise we will never defeat them if iraq. for people to suggest that we can't go into syria is actually tying our hands behind our backs. >> i agree with the honorable friend. president obama has been quite open he will at least -- the alliance we're joining, he's going to actually launch attacks on isis in both syria and iraq. and it is quite -- well, unrealistic to proceed on any other basis. so the real debate which i briefly would like to contribute to which i think divides the vast -- is the only issue for vast majority of people in this house and for the vast majority of ow constituents is where are we going, what is the long-term purpose, what is the strategy, how is our foreign policy politics and our diplomacy going to be better on this occasion than it's been for the last 15 years. the disaster of past occasions

is not that we attacked pleasant regimes, we attacked evil men when we attacked hussain, when we got rid of gadhafi, when we attacked al qaeda in afghanistan, and we would have been if we'd attacked assad's nuclear chemical installations last year. and this is no good game back. i supported two of those, libya and syria last year. and i was dubious about one of the others and i opposed iraq. that isn't the point. cases, the military deployment produced a situation at least as bad as it had been before of and actually, largely worse. we did not create -- i have no time, i'm sorry. we did not create extremist jihadism. we did not create these fanatic

fundamentalist pressures. but we made things worse and made it ease yes for them to spread by some of our interventions. so we all agree we must not repeat that, we need to be re-assured. and i congratulate my right honorable friend, the prime minister, on his speech where actually he spent the very great deal of his time trying to reassure. and i left with the feeling that certainly i should support this motion because some of our best allies are taking part in this intervention. but i still think we're at the early stages of working out exactly where we're going. and i do think that our almost symbolic participation in these military attacks and the six aircraft and our intelligence are no doubt valuable to our allies, but we're symbolically joining with them. the main hope i have is it gives us a positive influence on the diplomacy and the unfolding politics that have to take place to try to get together what,

again, seems to be agreed on all sides is necessary, is the widest possible participation and settlement between the great powers of the region in order to get what we all want -- lasting stability and security in what at the moment is is a very dangerous region of the world. i congratulate those responsible. americans, no doubt, forgetting the sunni allies and the arab states in to what is taking place, which makes a big difference from previous occasions. all these things have problems. saudi arabia, qatar, other arab states actually support other extremist islamist organizations. sunni organizations. and they have to be persuaded not to. isis is the worst of the sunni threats to the region but it's not the only one. and their enemies include al qaeda. but other groups as well.

the participation of the shia is even more problematical because there's no real shia engagement. and that takes us on to the crucial matter of iran. a lot of what is taking place in this region is a proxy struggle for power between iran and the shiites and the saudis and the sunni. we provide ancient sectarian warfare which most sensible muslims, the vast majority, hoped were long since dead. iran is a key influence because it is actually a close patron of assad in syria, of hezbollah, and of the shiites in iraq. including the shiite militia who are the only effective armed force at the moment for the so-called iraqi government. somebody has got to get the

iranians and the saudis closer together to support moderation and to decide what stability replaces things. the kurds, we ally ourselves which, which i am delighted to see, but their aim of kurdistan makes problems for turkey and turkey is a key ally as well if they're going to make any progress. i congratulate the prime minister for addressing all these. i wish him well over several years to come because no genius is going to solve this problem in a very short time. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. before i make my contribution today, i want us all just to take a moment, if we can, just to think about and to pray for the hostages who are currently being held by i.s. the hostages who have been

muqtada al sadred in the most horrific circumstances, and i want, particularly mr. speaker, to think today about allan henning. al lan allan is a taxi driver and he's not my constituent but he lives very close to where i live at home. i know allan and his wife and family are being held in the thoughts and prayers of everybody in my city, everybody across this country and i hope also by everybody in the house. allan went out to syria on a humanitarian mission. he went out to give aid to the men and women and children and babies who were being slaughtered in syria and he was there as an ambassador from our country and i would just make a personal plea today to the people of i.s., whether it falls on stoney ground or not, that they should release him. he should come home to be with his wife and his family and the people who love him. mr. speaker, there will be a lot said today about military power, about air strikes, about troops on the ground.

>> i'm very grateful. i'm an old friend. i associate entirely, as i'm sure the house does, with her remarks about the hostages. but i think we also need to be very careful about language. because when we talk about humanitarian intervention, i mean military intervention, it also does put at risk those people who are doing purely humanitarian work. >> my honorable friend as ever makes a good freiend makes a great point. allan was there for humanitarian spo, not military support. i think this motion is rather a minimalist motion and i have no doubt that if the future we will have to return to this issue and we will have to debate it again. i agree with my honorable friend that in fact if we simply take action in iraq, then. i.s. no doubt will go back into syria and we will be faced with some very serious problems.

>> honorable fend, riend, on th point. i think we may well end up having to go into syria as well. but what i want to know is, if that happens, how are we going to ensure that bombing in syria doesn't have the perverse effect of strengthening assad which the prime minister has said is one of the begetters of isil in the first place. are we going to have a much more sophisticated strategy than just bombing in syria? >> again, my honorable friend makes an absolutely relevant point. i think most of us who have been involved in these issues for some years have seen some times the unintended consequences of action that we've taken and that's why a far sighted strategy about what we do, what the impact will be, how we build resilience, how we build coalitions and how we take that forward will be absolutely essential. i wanted at this point really to thank the prime minister for the work that he has done in building the alliances, building the coalition. because i think that's a significantly different place

that we're in today than we were in years past. and i think that the idea that the west on their own, american, britain, can take a war to the middle east is completely wrong and the idea that it's the states on the ground who have a personal responsibility for the safety of their own region to take this action with our support or with our backing was absolutely the right place to be and i know how difficult it is to build those alliances and i want to add my thanks to that. what i really wanted to talk about, mr. speaker, is not the military action. i want to talk about the causes of terrorism and i've mentioned that many times in this house. i think that unless we deal with the root cause, the poisonous ideology that's being promulgated by the extremists that seeks to get vulnerable young people and groom them, that's a very clear word, groom them into this extremism, then we will be back here time and time and time again. now is the moment in which we need to be really serious about this agenda. the latest estimate is 3,000

people simply from the european union going out to fight in iraq and syria. young, vulnerable men and women. people can be radicalized in all kinds of environments. they can be radicalized at home by their family. in a youth center. they can be radicalized increasingly on the internet and social media and indeed they can be radicalized sometimes in religious institutions. but it's very interesting, mr. speaker, that the estimate from the home office at the moment is less than 2% of radicalization is being carried out in religious institutions. it's actually happening in those end spaces at the part of every sij o single one of our community. >> will you put on record her interest in the work that the active change foundation, who not only the not in my name campaign that the prime minister and president of the united states have talked about but also working to do exactly the kind of work she's talking about and should do more of. >> i'm delighted to place on

record my appreciation for her organization and my commitment. i want to come to the prevent strategy. we debated that across this chamber many times. in fact in his statement on the 1st of september, the prime minister said, and i was delighted, "we should be clear with the root cause of it threat, a poisonous ideology of islamic extremism. we should be clear this has nothing to do with islam." i'm grateful for that and also for the many statements that religious people in this country have made, imams have made when they've seen the atrocities. we are moving now from condemnation into a proper narrative about the fact that it is not justified by the religion. but i think we have a long, long way to go on this. i would just urge the prime minister to be braver, tore more courageous, to say that we need to support credible scholars to develop a view of islam in a modern 21st century democracy where muslims are in a minority that's more relevant to every day life. that again will protect and build the resilience of those young people. it is difficult work. you'll be accused of trying to

tell people what to believe in their religion which is no place for a government to be in a democracy but it's work that's urgent and needs to be done. i would ask him and the home secretary to come back to this house with a proper plan for how we are going to conduct the counternarrative on the ideology. the home office is small. it's not doing the kind of effective work that it can do. it needs to be bolstered and it needs to take in the best ideas from around the world from all of our partners to build this narrative in a practical way so we can show people that this is not the future for our country. i'm afraid i don't have time. i just wanted to give two examples as to why this work is so, so important. members will have probably seen in the newspapers today the case of a human rights lawyer in mosul. she has been taken. she was brought before a sharia law court. she was tortured for five days.

sentenced to public execution and she was murdered on monday. she was a brave human rights lawyer. that's what a caliphate is. that's what this ideology is. it's medieval. it's about human trafficking, it is about exploitation. then we have people in this country like the young man from brighton whose mom said he was brainwashed. i have no idea. that's the reason. i want to see the prime minister back in here with a proper counter narrative and i will support you. >> miss campbell. >> i, too, remember the speech made by robin cook in 2013. i remember it with great admiration and perhaps a little emotion. not least, of course, because he resigned from the government because of his views and he then joined the rest of us who voted against his own government in the lobby that evening. but this is not 2013. this is not 2003. i beg your pardon. it is an entirely different set

of circumstances. and of course, an important feature of the different set of circumstances is the fact that we would be responding to a request made by the lawful government of syria, a government concerned to ensure -- of iraq. i have syria on the brain and i'll come back to it in a moment. lawful government of iraq. a government who is very existent and whose existence for the country they are very responsible is undoubtedly at stake. and there is a legal basis in my view. there is a legal basis beyond any question that's been referred to by many of those who have spoken already for what we are being asked to endorse today in the how was commons. >> given that air strikes alone will not achieve victory over

isis, who -- who has the plans and the determination to win on the ground now? >> that i hope is the product of the alliance which the united states through president obama and also the efforts of secretary of state john kerry have been putting together. and as an illustration of that commitment is the fact that five countries in the region have joined in this support of the air strikes which have been taken so far. i'll come back to the question, if i may, about the long-term -- if the -- i'm afraid, no, i must move on. no, i'm very sorry. i'm afraid i must move on. i'm afraid i must move on. the point i want to make is this, that we are faced with circumstances in relation to

iraq for which -- in which its very survival is at stake. it's upon that we should exercise a degree of responsibility in this matter because, of course, although it is not the sole cause of the circumstances in iraq at the moment, there is no doubt that the military action in which we join with the united states against saddam hussein has been a major contributor to the circumstances we now find ourselves in. let me deal with the question of syria. i'm content that were there to be a motion to the effect that we should take similar action in syria, there exists a proper and sound legal basis for that action. indeed, the very factors which justify intervention in iraq would be of equal weight in relation to syria. and these, of course, are to put it shortly, the kind of barbarism which has been displayed. the fact that the regional

stability is being heavily undermined. and just let's remind ourselves, some of that undermining of stability has an impact upon countries, for example, like jordan. a close ally and a fenecessary component were there ever to be a groebl slobal settlement for n the middle east. it is also to be recognized that those arab countries which have joined in, they have exercised a degree of responsibility in doing so. in many cases they are taking on elements within their own countries which would otherwise be opposed. how would any other country faced with that decision feel in the event that this motion were not to be passed? when you have, as has been suggested, that we need a united nations resolution before we could embark on anything of the kind i proposed, or indeed in relation to syria, you have to accept the reality that the

prospect of a united nations security council resolution is totally remote. indeed, even putting one on the table would be a wholly pointless exercise because of the attitude undoubtedly to be taken by russia and also possibly by china. but may i move on to a point which i think is of some importance. the language which has been used so far has been about destruction. i'm not sure it's possible to destroy an ideology. i'm not sure it's possible to destroy a cult of the kind which we see now exercising such maligned influence. but one thing you most certainly can do is to adopt containment and deterrence. to do that, you have to degrade the military capability. you have to create circumstances in which any return to barbarism will be met by swift and

effective action. and i think we will be better agreeing that we're not likely to embark upon the success or process of destruction but that we can have an effective doctrine of deterrence and containment. so there's no parallel between the iraq debate of 2003. but there is a parallel with kosovo because when kosovo was an issue, with very similar considerations like those that we are concerned with, not least, of course, with ethnic cleansing, then the international community, without a resolution, finds itself able to deal with that. a lot is to be said about the long term. we don't have that luxury. the urgency -- >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's so easy to despair. in politics especially, how

often do we obsess about the small differences rather than the biggest challenges? too often we are interested by the internal workings of westminster power and we stop looking outwards. we turn away from the world and inwards on ourselves. that's a mistake. our country is internationalist in outlook. . to us, all people matter, like our neighbors matter and our family matters. people in iraq matter. this conflict has innocent victims scared are out of their homes, women, men and children who take no part in violence but who will lose the most. isil have executed a murderous, disastrously effective xachb violence. the summer has seen them take control of iraqi cities, exploiting the fragile politics to terrorize devastating morale and showing that isil has a serious stock of military equipment that they are prepared to use to attack indiscriminately. they must be stopped.

>> honorable lady giving way. in the last 20 years, united nations has moved. it is now a responsibility on members to deal with genocide when it occurs in the world. and that doesn't, in my view, require a security council resolution. we need to do something when people are threatened in this world. >> i thankt honorable gentleman for his intervention. i'll say more about internationalism shortly. of course, some people will say this is not our fight. leave it to those closer by. for those who feel strongly, it's tempting to offer a counsel of despair and walk away. it is so much harder to set about dealing with violent threats in a context that's complicated and where risks are high. in response, i say we all want peace. the only question is how. the uk should not dictate the answer to this violence or carelessly interfere but that does not mean turning your back

while this violence persists. in answering the question should we do anything or nothing, we have to ask ourselves what good we can do. in answer, conflict in the middle east -- i give way to you. >> doesn't my honorable friend accept no one is talking about walking away. the only argument is, is bombing the way to resolve the long-standing political problems in iraq and the region. >> as i said, mr. speaker, in answering the question, should we do anything or nothing, we have to ask ourselves what good we can do. in answer, conflict in the middle east seems to invite comparisons. yet while we should learn for history, the search for patterns, repetitions can be misleading. there's no reason why the future shouldness airline be like the past. in fact, it's our job to make sure that the future is not like the past. those facts are as i have said. isil are a serious and growing force wreaking havoc on the

iraqi government and innocent people. the iraqi government have asked us to help. we have the capacity to do so. our government have made their aims clear. leader of the opposition has set the right tasks. we in this house must offer scrutiny as best we are able to do and make more likely the success of this operation. and a vital factor in the success of this operation will be cutting off the financial supply as my friend the member for lester west said earlier. there was a united nations security council resolution on this point on the 14th of august and it would be helpful to know what progress has been made so far. but there are some other facts that matter, too. this is not just a matter of security, vital though that is. there is also the question of politics and development. we need more than just a military response. peace requires not just the absence of violence but for other needs to be met, too. both basic needs to keep the vulnerable alive, but for all of those affected to see a way out

of this conflict. in the past, the uk by the department of international development has put reasonably substantial stones into development focused assistance for iraq. this ended in 2012 when the bilateral program ended. however, this year there has been a budget for iraq of over $25 million. but only $4.3 million has been spent so far so i would ask whether we need to increase efforts to make sure that money committed can be spent effectively and soon. and we also need to ask whether this is enough support by way of comparison. we spend around $75 million this year in syria and a similar sum in yemen. i want to make two further brief points about development. firstly, on long-term needs. this budget is for a single 12 months. iraq emergency humanitarian assistance program to help 65,000 ordinary iraqis in serious need providing emergency medicines, food, basic shelter and to re-unite families.

but at what point can we see more longer term development assistance going to iraq, not just humanitarian assistance. not just emergency aid, but more to support the wider developments for those who are victims of conflict. i'd like to know if the government have discussed this possibility internationally. and i'd like to ask ministers if they know how many children are losing their education due to this conflict. schools in the kurdish region are being used for shelter, which is right, of course, but it means so many are losing out their chance and their hope for the future. also, what's the risk to wider health care needs? the iraqi government must be supported to maintain not just hard infrastructure that the country will need, power, transports and water, but also the vital infrastructure of public services. development assistance must work alongside military answers to isil. i'd like to know if the minister is working alongside the military in their planning.

secondly -- >> chatter in the house which is frankly discourteous. all colleagues should be heard with courtesy. please do so. allison mcgovern. >> thank you, mr. speaker. secondly, i want to ask about refugees. in the context of syria we were able to help a handful of the most vulnerable refugees to take refuge here in our country and i'd like to ask if we can do more. this is the most clolossal refugee crisis we have now and as a countries we must live up to our obligations and our moral duty to help those who have done nothing to cause an are innocent victims of this conflict. i would finish, mr. speaker, by just saying this. victims of violence in iraq need our help and our military assistance. but our job is far bigger than that. we must also now try, limited though our power is, to win the peace. >> dr. liam fox.

>> mr. speaker, it is very clear the threats that isil pose. humanitarian outrageously per trait perpetrated have been on our tv screens. they threaten an all-out religious war and they will be global exporters of jihad if we allow them. so the question to act or not act is a relatively simple one. but in choosing to act we have to act politically, economically and militarily all in concert. strategically we need full and greater regional support that we've had even up to now, which includes turkey which is a key player in the strong. and let's mention a strong nato ally. we also need a very clear view from the regional powers exactly what the political shape they want to achieve in the region is. because the lesson we learn from iraq, if anything, is that military victory, even where it is possible, is only the beginning of a much more difficult process. i give way.

>> i thank the right honorable gentleman for giving way. he mentioned turkey. does he not agree with countries including turkey, cyprus and others in the region must do a lot more to disrupt the flow of fighters back into syria and possibly a transit back to here. >> speaker, it is the duty of all those who wish to see international order maintained to do everything that is possible within their powers to disrupt the flow of exactly such movements. the second part, mr. speaker, is that all conflicts are ideological and this conflict is no different. we require political and religious leaders in the region to be much more vocal about the fact that this is nothing to do with islam. this is a cruel, barbaric cruel misogynistic creed. we need to make messages very clear to those in britain, those young, impressionable individuals who might be

considering becoming involved in such an enterprise, those who are already there need to understand they are not welcome back in this country. the full force of the law will be applied should they come back to this country. you cannot take a jihad gap of be applied. you cannot take a jihad gap here and come back to united kingdom. economically the question of oil has been mentioned. we have to stop financial flows to isis. they are very well funded. we have to stop groups in the region playing a double game. and publically providing them funding they require. >> makes very important points about the economic leaders. would he agree with me that there is a very serious dichotomy with some of the coalition allies in the current arrangement from the middle east and some of the funders of the exports and undesirable aspects

in particularly in north and west africa. >> not only in agreement with my honorable friend are they funders but are giving support to some of the groups like isil who have been causing trouble in the region. when it comes to military action i absolutely welcome the decision to use british air power and it has been obvious for some time that forces on the ground were not able to have a military solution because we didn't have sufficient air power. but in applying british air power we have to understand this is not just about dealing with command and control or supply lines of isil but will require close air support. and we need to understand the risks that that will pose for our forces. however, i believe it is a

mistake today not to include syria in the motion. isil operates from syria. they attack individuals, communities and iraqi states itself from syria. there is a case to attack isil bases in syria and it would be far better if we said so explicitly today. i don't want to take anymore time than required. >> on the point of syria does he agree with me that when isis or isil is defeated in syria it is so important to fill that vacuum with the opposition free syrian army rather than taking the assad regime take over? >> that is a very complex and difficult situation in syria. if we want to defeat isil we

cannot do it without doing it from syria. otherwise we are giving ourselves an impossible task. >> mr. speaker, we need to be very clear in this country is we cannot disengage from the global threats that we face. what is very clear to us is that there are those out there who hate us for who we are, not what we do. when the united states were bombing isil and we were delivering humanitarian aid they did not differentiate between an american hostage and british hostage being beheaded. terrorism and terrorist ideology respects no borders. there will be a cost of acting on this occasion but a cost of not acting would be infinitely greater. little time and i will just

speak some of the issues. clearly, we have needs. we have opportunities and we have tasks to complete. the moment as we understand the plan which is not being well explained is we are just part of a process which is trying to find, fix and as the americans describe it finish the opposition. so our contribution to the process to the fix the enemy in the position they are in and not allow them to advance and do anymore and maybe do more than that if we can. in order to do that that is part of a campaign. the language is overambitious in many regards always is about wars on terror and eliminating and destroying. that needs to be better calibrated. this is our part in what is not yet a strategy but which is a developing campaign. we have needs in all of that. we need to do those things and make whatever contribution we can to a long-term process.

as a number of people have said that involves diplomatic activity as much as military activity and we need to do a lot more with that and a lot more in terms of financial activity and competing and the process of the ideology and from our friend made a very important point earlier on. i will come back to it later. we need to invest in those processes because we have been disininvesting in the protesters. we need to understand it is interesting to see a woman jet in combat. other nations are makiing progress. it shows there is a different discussion going on in the region. i set up a defense and diplomacy group in this parliament because

the strategic focus had already moved and we were behind in the game. don't mistake the fact that there is a possibility, an opportunity, no more than that that you have to develop and work on it. some sort of reproach between iran and saudi arabia might be possible. it is dirty business. diplomacy always is and you sometimes have to speak to people you don't want to speak to in order to make a progress. i did that as a trade union official. get over it and get on with it. you have to make progress and recognize success when you see it. there are these tasks. we have to invest in the ability to do them. we don't just have to find space by fixing the enemy for the countries on the ground to be able to be helped and to be enabled to do things for themselves. we have to do things for ourselves because we have dramatically disinvested. we don't have jones the spy when

we need to have jones the spy because we are not being paid the money to have intelligence on the grown to understand the decision. we have disinvested our intelligence at home and domestically. it is a long-term process. in doing all of those things we need to make long-term investments. i would just make -- >> the open ended nature of this motion? >> it is a reality. i am deterred but it but recognizing the fact that that is the reality. there is no way to make the change in the short term and no way to make it in a debate here or 140 characters. we have to have defense debates in this parliament on a regular basis. a full day of discussion. you need to re-institute them.

you will be discussing it for the next 15 years and you need structure in order to do that. >> my honorable friend knows about these things. is it a fact that the debate is actually in reality about the deployment of about six tornado aircraft in north iraq? if we are genuine about being humanitarian wouldn't it be better to deploy about 60 to deliver medical supply, food and water to affected areas. >> you put six jets in the air it takes a lot more than six people. we already are contributing with intelligence, humanitarian support and the rest are of it. this is going to be long-term investment and long-term commitment in terms of expenditure in a range of places including scrubbing bases in cyprus and other places. we have to invest to do this

stuff. can i talk about the law for a moment? i lawrote a report. 2013 we released the report about legal framework for military personnel in future operations. we have domestic difficulties about that. the reason i want to raise this now is there seems to be a certain view that there is a legality in syria. we are only talking about operating in iran, iraq, sorry. if there were an arab plane to go down in iraq the search and rescue mission would not be a problem. so if this hot pursuit argument that is being made that if you have iraq defending itself and therefore its legitimate threat into syria in order to do that and be supported by americans and others, do we all of a

sudden gain legal legitimacy because we are part of the support activity for that? where does this leave individual members of the military? it is a discussion you will have to have as you get to that. i understand the arguments it's like all of these different things. this needs serious discussion. the only thing i would say to people who say we can make these decisions today, it is already done and all very certain. i don't think it is very certain in our own supreme court. so just be careful about what you do. so that protection for the individuals is equally as important as collective approach. i vote for the motion today. i think it is being badly sold on the other side. i don't think the general public understands this is part of a part of what is a broader developing campaign that will develop into something you might

call a strategy. you need to sell your goods a little bit better. i think i understand it. what i also understand is we have a serious task. easy to talk about what they should do. i would say to you you need to address what you need to do. >>. >> i think i shall be very brief. >> i applaud the tone and measure of the speech. i concur with almost everything my right honorable friend said who successfully shot all of my policies and i want only to say this. in my time in this house, mr. speaker, the failures in our policy in the middle east have been under all governments very serious. and i think that the lesson that this government has learned needs to be highlighted today in

that the diplomacy that has gone on ahead of the former has been magnificent. it is a new effort in bringing in our coalition partners in this saudi arabia and the others to take part in their part. it is not the west's fight. it is their fight. and we are in support of their efforts. i think it should be marked and marked well by the country that we are in support of an arab coalition. may i endorse the point made by the honorable gentleman in his excellent speech about the need for further and greater intelligence capability on the ground. i am not party to these decisions. i know not correctly what we have there already but whatever it is we have it is not enough. we do need in all of these operations to know much more than we do about the immense intricacy and complication of

the tribal structure and the way it was. the chairman of the defense committee made a speech very clearly. it is the future. i conclude by saying that i together with every other person in this house and in the wider country wish good luck and safe return to our tornado pilots who i can assure will get a magnificent effort on our part. >> by isil is not really a threat to the kurds and iraq itself. isil poses a clear and present threat to the people of the united kingdom. it is a clear and present threat to the territorial integrity of iraq, the government of which has asked us to intervene by way

of air strikes and a clear and present threat to regional stability, international security and civilization in general. and for those reasons we are in a different place than we were a year ago when this house was last asked to consider military action in syria. for those reasons we in the democratic unionist party will be supporting military action. a plea has gone out to the country, the sovereign nation of iraq faces a perilous time. it has submitted a request for assistance of this crucial juncture to assist it in protecting its national integrity and safety of the people. fighting for freedom and democracy for justice and human rights can we as a nation turn our backs and reject such a plea. there is no question mark this time over the validity of the

circumstances and there is no question mark over the need for immediate intervention. the sheer brutality is truly terrifying. it is a sovereignty that continues to shock the most hardened commentators. in northern ilnt we have seen it first-hand and directly the impact of terrorism on families and communities. this is on a different scale, a medieval type of barberism that people want a response to. >> i would like to thank my right honorable friend for giving way. any decision to take military action is not one that will be taken lightly by any member or right honorable friend of this house. bearing in mind the sacrifice or dangers that are facing our service men and women.

however, we cannot set a divide and allow a group of islamic fanatics to terrorize a bunch of innocent people in iraq. >> i am grateful to my honorable friend and the dangers are great to our service men and women who i want to pay tribute to and salute for their efforts in many conflicts and being asked to do a job on behalf of the people of this country and the house is coming together to ask them to do that job. we wish them well and we know they will display courage and gallantry and effectiveness. >> i will give way. >> had the house voted last year to go into syria or bomb syria that in effect we would have been on the same side as isis and fighting their same battle? and does that not lead us all to have a great deal of caution that within one year circumstances can change very

rapidly and an incredibly volatile civil war. >> grateful for the intervention and it may have led to consequences. that is why we voted against the intervention in syria at that time. we will take our decisions whether in any future situation arises, a motion in the future on syria or on the intervention of combat troops we will take the decisions at the time on their merits. we are taking this decision today on the merits of the circumstances that are before us today in this house and we believe it is absolutely right and imperative, indeed, that we give the assistance that the iraqi government has asked for. it is totally legal. and it will be according to a wealth of a plan and make an effective difference. that is the difference between now and last time. >> i can't give way because i have used up all the

interventions. mr. speaker, the fact of the matter is that despite of what was said about isil and well documented and people can see it for themselves on their tv screens and read about it there are people who will say why should the uk get involved? why should we directly intervene in a situation like this? for the reasons that have been outlined by many already. the fact of the matter is that isil's threat is not just at the peoples of iraq but present a clear threat to this country and the west and the region in general. and unless confronted now we will be storing up much greater trouble for this country and our citizens in the future. we have seen the brutal murder of david haines. the kidnapping and threat against allen.

it is not just the fact that it presents a threat to the uk. this organization has taken direct action against the citizens of the united kingdom and that demands a response on the part of this country. we simply cannot allow the creation of consolidation of a state largely as a territory which would be the base for the planning and direction of terrorism against this country and on a world wide scale. hundreds of people have gone to the region and have engaged in terrorist activity and in war. we need to be very clear that as we engage on this action in this house today that we also say to the people of the united kingdom that we are going to take that decisive and clear action that is needed to prevent people from this country who have gone to the middle east to iraq and syria from returning back and becoming a major direct threat to the citizens of this united

kingdom. it would be wrong to take this action today and then to say we are not going to be able for whatever reason to take action to prevent people from coming back. that has to go hand in hand. if parliament were to reject this request today it would send the signal that the united kingdom does not stand by friends and allies in times of trouble and it is prepared to ignore its international responsibilities and obligations. intervention is justified because it is on an assigned basis. there is a clear and direct threat to the united kingdom through the murders of british citizens already. we will be part of a coalition. there is a clear plan and we can make a difference for the better. the barberism of isil has targeted uk citizens and we must

respond to that otherwise we are failing our people. we wish our air men and women well and we wish them god speed. senator cruz predicted that the gop would take the senate. senator paul linked values with the constitution. this is about two hours and 20 minutes. [ cheers and applause ] ♪ good morning. great to be here with you this

morning. glad to see this room so filled this morning. it is going to be a great day. i am excited to be here with you all. i want to thank family research council, tony perkins, josh dugger, all great wonderful warriors for the conservative cause and appreciate all that they do for not only us here in washington fighting the fight in congress but for getting the word out across the land in so many different ways to make a difference. the lineup is a little intimidating. you look at ted cruz, rand paul, michele bachmann, oliver north. i kind of feel like i'm just the warmup act at a tim hawkins show or better yet i think i know what it feels like to be a

chaperon on a dugger date. what a great family. josh is such a good friend. their family, what a great testimony they have in the work that they are doing. we are here together because we want to provide an important voice, a needed voice here in washington for american values. i am from the great state of indiana. first of all i'm a christian. i'm a husband and father to peyton and preston. i'm a conservative and a republican. before i entered into politics i was a hoosier farmer. i grew up on a farm in northeast indiana and i learned many lessons in life from my grandfather, andrew, my father albert. working on a family farm it is hard work. i enjoyed it. i can tell you i never fully

understood the values that i would learn while cleaning out cow manure from the cow pens but god knew i would need that lesson when he sent me to congress. i have to brag a little bit about indiana. good things are happening in indiana. our economy is growing. we were listed by george mason university as the third freest state in the nation. it also doesn't hurt that we live next door to illinois. in illinois the politicians' philosophy is quite different. just like obama, they love big government. illinois politicians arrange with their executers to bury them in chicago because they want to be plitcally active after they die. you know, our values are under threat today. recently it has only become much

worse. big government progressives are interested in marginalizing, dividing and silencing critics who provide a different point of view. they believe solutions are found in the federal government. we believe the american people have the answers. there are three institutions that i believe in. the family, the church and the government. each one of these institutions play a very significant role. if they are out of balance things can go wrong. the family has to be strong. we have to have fathers in the home. divorce rates need to be lower. we need love and support single parent families. the church has a critical role in our communities. they need to have community awareness and involvement, supporting the family, building character in young people. if those two are fulfilling

their appropriate role the government will then fulfill its appropriate role. national defense, infrastructure. so when i think about what makes america great we can think of a lot of things, our history, our culture, hard work, entrepreneurship, all of these qualities make us unique to the rest of the world. sadly, there is a new formula here in washington, d.c. about how to start a small business. have you heard about this? take your hard earned money, start a large business and then wait one year. after one year you will have a small business. america has never been a mindless mass. we have always been one country that celebrated and encouraged the power of each individual to dream, to work, to live his life in peace. when the left makes it easier for people to lose their individual dignity by convincing

them to trade their dignity for dependence it is the height of disrespect. many on the left forget quickly that the united states government would not exist without the people. it is quickly becoming a government above the people, without the people and against the people. look no further than the acronyms nsa, epa and irs. epa without the people, the irs against the people. i would say we would be better off in the nsa, bpa and irs were mia. it's time that we cut the federal government back down to the size of the original piece of parchment that it was written on. in spite of everything i believe

in america. i think of the american people. since our founding we have grown from 13 colonies to a country that stands to the lone superpower. our people have had the freedom to create, explore, innovate and invent. we must protect this individual freedom and make sure the government doesn't squeeze anyone's ability to grow, succeed or live the american dream. it is important that the first three words of the institution are reminder to every politician. it's not we the government but it's we the people. we all come from different places and have different stories. our belief in the american dream is what unites everyone of us. this is my vision for a strong america. i believe that a strong america is a place where religious liberty is embraced and no longer threatened by

overreaching federal health care mandates. i see a strong america as a land where families decide where their children attend school whether a choice among public schools, a voucher for a private school or protection to home school. education is critical to a free society. the federal government that overtakes families and individual states' responsibilities is out of line. a strong america is a place where people don't need to depend on the federal government because opportunities exist for all who work and embrace personal responsibility. i believe in an america that stands shoulder to shoulder against tyranny with our friends and allies around the world and never, ever abandons god's people in israel.

believe a strong america is one that tests the lives of t s that tests the lives of tests s of the born and unborn. i want to share with you a story. there was a young lady, 17 years old, all of a sudden found herself in an unexpected pregnancy. she was actually the daughter of a pastor, large family, very involved in the community. and found herself in a very, very difficult situation. she didn't know what to do. she didn't know who to talk to. she didn't know where to go. on top of that her family, her father and mother's home where her and ten children lived burned to the ground. she had lost everything.

she actually found herself laying on the floor one night in the neighbor's home crying and sobbing because she didn't know what to do. she knew if she could get to kalamazoo, michigan there was an abortion clinic there. she knew if she could find a ride, find a car to good etto the abortion clinic she could take care of the problem. she was sobbing and crying. one night some of the other people in the other room heard her crying. she knew that the secret was no longer, she wasn't going to be able to hide the secret much longer. since she couldn't get to kalamazoo to do the abortion she finally decided she is going to have to tell someone. so she told her mother. she didn't want to tell her boyfriend. she didn't know what he would say. he didn't want to tell her father. he was the pastor. he would be embarrassed.

her mother was the lady that she decided to trust. my grandmother grabbed my mom and told her it was going to be okay. [ cheers and applause ] we are all going to mess up but we have to reach out and love. we have to reach out with a helping hand. we have to be willing to say i want to stand beside you and help you get through this time. because if we don't government is going to try to. we have to be the ones to reach out and help. just like my mother, just like my grandmother, just like my father and grandfather, they fully $z,÷embody what it means believe in each other and that all life has value. it is because of that belief today before more doctors,

teachers, athletes, scientists and even small town farmers lose their opportunity to live their own story, let this generation be the one to stop abortion in america. [ cheers and applause ] so we need each and everyone of you, thank you for being here today. it is critical because if our voices aren't heard many across the country's voices will not be heard in washington. we need to build relationships. never hurts to smile when you are talking with your liberal friends. just keep smiling. it makes them nervous.

we need to be happy warriors willing to go out and show up at places where they don't expect us to show up. build relationships with our officials in office. and if you have the opportunity take the opportunity to run for office if you feel that is what you are led. america was founded on freedom and liberty and we are the guardians of that legacy. let's stand together and fight to keep our nation strong. let's stand together and fight for a brighter future for generations to come. thank you for being here. thank you for supporting family research counsel, thank you for making a difference in people's lives. god bless each one of you and god bless america. ♪ from the east coast to the west coast down the dixie

highway back home ♪ thank you congressman. senator cruz is in the house. [ cheers and applause ] and coming to introduce him is one of our great sponsors every year at the values voters summit and that would be the media research center that tracks and reports on the overwhelming liberal bias in today's media. they weed through hours and hours of liberal media coverage so that we don't have to and then they report to us. we appreciate that so much. coming out to introduce our next speaker would you please welcome and thank the president of the media research center, brett bozel. >> thank you very much.

how are y'all doing today? how is it going? i'm going to -- senator cruz is back stage. i thought i would talk for 45 minutes first. very quickly. first thing i want to do is introduce you to my grandson. maximilian leo i just met him yesterday. his father is stationed in the marine corps and stationed in okinawa. he came back last night. he and his lovely bride brought us the baby and we have been having fun ever since. there is a second reason. there are three reasons why i brought him. the second reason is to ask you all as you listen to people like senator cruz to focus on children like this. focus on future. this isn't about you. this is about this generation

and ask you get off defense. it is time to go on offense. and along those lines finally maxy wanted to say something. he was asking me before if this was a 501 c 4. i said it was and then he said that he wanted to express his own opinion, his personal opinion. i said okay. he said run, ted, run. thank you very much. ♪ ♪ you ain't met my texas yet

♪ thank you so very, very much. i want to thank especially max. i think that is the youngest introducer i have ever had. god bless the value voters summit. one year ago this week i stood on the senate floor and said i intend to stand until i can stand no longer. 21 hours later together a great many men and women across this country had elevated the debate about the disaster that is

obamacare. so in honor of that anniversary sit back, relax, we are going to be here a while. but don't worry. you know we are nearing the end if and when i bring out and begin to read "the cat and the hat." a lot of y'all have gotten to know our daughters caroline and katherine. caroline is 6 and katherine is 3. caroline the 6 year old is a saint. absolutely nothing i have done in the u.s. senate has impressed her at all except for reading "green eggs and ham." when i came home she was 5 then. she had her arms crossed and she said okay, dad, that was kind of cool. which when your kindergartener

gives you that reassurance it is pretty good. we all saw the news. how many of you all saw the news that a man was stopped after he climbed the fence at the white house? the secret service stopped him and said i'm sorry, mr. president, you have two more years left in your term. that one actually came from jimmy fallon. but we do -- we should hold the media to account. in their reporting on this person who broke into the white house they really have not used the politically correct term. we should insist that they refer to the visitor according to the term, an undocumented white house visitor. i am so grateful that y'all are

here today standing up for our country. you know, the word tells us weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning. we are here today because every man and woman in this room knows and understands the morning is coming. morning is coming. we have seen that abroad. we have seen that in our lives. we have seen that at home. you look at abroad this conference is particularly blessed to welcome in our midst an extraordinary hero. i just had the opportunity to

visit with miriam and her son, martin and her baby girl maya and her husband daniel back stage. what an incredible peace and joy radiates. a young wife, a young mother in prison thrown into a pit giving birth to her daughter with her legs in leg irons, sentenced by a cruel and oppressive government to receive 100 lashes and then to hang by the neck until death for the crime of being a christian. and the government of sudan said only if you denounce jesus we will stop this.

she said i cannot and will not renounce christ. [ cheers and applause ] how many of us have ever had our faith tested like that? how many of us have faced a question like that? if you start to feel hope and despair for what is happening in this country remember that prison cell in sudan. i asked a few minutes ago how did you not lose faith. how did you not give up hope? and he responded very simply, she said god was with me. anyone who forgets the promise

simply remember, joy cometh in the morning. millions of leaders across the world lifted miriam up in prayer and spoke out in support of her and the attention and the heat and the light was too much on the government of sudan and they were forced to release her. free, free at last! reminded of the book where paul and silas were thrown in prison just like miriam. and god brought an earthquake that broke the prison open and their jailer afraid for the consequences began to take his own life. and paul stopped him and the

jailer asked of the apostle paul, what must i do to be saved? we're seeing modern days across the world. in iran pastor -- tomorrow night at the value voters summit you are going to hear from his wife who i have visited with several times. she is an american. her husband is an american. their two little kids are american children living in idaho. if you haven't seen it she recorded a simple video of their children saying please send our daddy home. today is the two-year anniversary of the republican guard showing up and throwing

pastor saed in prison for professing his christian faith. two years. you know, one of the incredible things is hearing the story about how pastor while in an iranian prison has led dozens of fellow prisoners and their jailers to christ. [ cheers and applause ] just as with paul and silas the jailers are turning to pastor saying what must i do to be saved. god is present in the darkest hours. and we are standing on the

promise of the word. you know right now this week the government of iran is sitting down with the united states government, swilling chardonnay in new york city to discuss what prime minister netanyahu describes as an historic mistake, a very bad deal that is setting the stage for iran to acquire nuclear weapon capability. we so desperately need a president who will stand up and say these discussions do not even begin until you release pastor and send him home. oh, the vacuum of american leadership we see in the world. we need a president who will

speak out for people of faith, prisoners of conscience, we need a president who will stand up and say to the over 200 nigerian school girls held captain by boko haram because they are christians. we need a president who will speak out for prisoners of conscience like kenneth bae in nort north korea, like allen gross in cuba, like sergeant tamarici in mexico. abroad we see a lot of weeping that may endure for the night but we stand on the promise that joy is coming in the morning. and part of the reason we can

stand with such confidence, with such optimism and hope is we understand it in our own lives. this is not something abstract and theoretical. this is something each of us has lived. many of y'all have gotten to know my father, pastor rafael cruz. he is very, very shy, very soft spoken and beloved by the media. but -- even the folks in the press are cracking up at that one. but, you know, my dad as a teenager experienced that same captivity. he was 14 when he began fighting in the cuban revolution. he was in the student council. the revolution in cuba came from student councils, from high school kids and college kids.

when my father turned 17 my grandparents bought him a brand new white suit. he went out partying enjoying the town because he was 17 and then he disappeared. and my grandfather went searching for him because he knew his son had been in the underground and searched from jail to jail to jail. my father had been thrown in a cuban prison and tortured, beaten hour after hour. he had his teeth crushed in as his head was stomped to the ground. my grandmother told me when she saw my father again that white suit you could not see a spot of white anywhere on the suit. it was covered in mud and blood and his teeth were dangling from his mouth. and yet even when he was in that

cuban jail god was with him. by all rites my father should have perished in there. but god's hand brought him from captivity to freedom. god's grace brought him to the united states of america. you know, when i was a young child my parents were living up in calgary in the oil business neither of my parents were people of faith. neither of them had a relationship with christ. both of my parents drank far too much. both of them had serious problems with alcohol. when i was 3 years old my father

decided he didn't want to be married anymore. and he didn't want a 3-year-old son. so he got on a plane and left calgary and flew back to texas to houston and he left us. when he was in houston a colleague in the oil and gas business invited my father to come with him to the baptist church. my father accepted that invitation. he went and gave his life to jesus. and he went and bought an airplane ticket and flew back to calgary to re-join my mother and to rejoin his son. so when anyone asks is faith real? is a relationship with jesus

real? i can tell you if it were not to my father giving his life to christ i would have been raised by a single mother without having my dad in the home. everyone of us we have seen first-hand that in utter darkness hope remains. the words of "amazing grace" put it, how sweet the sound that saved my soul. i once was blind but now can see. what an incredible story that everyone of us knows and understands in our lives. and we see it at home. we see it in our nation. there is today in america an urgency that none of us have ever seen before in politics.

polling today shows that 76% of americans don't believe that our children will have a better life than we do. that is unprecedented. and it is fundamentally unamerican. the american idea this country was built on, every generation for centuries has believed with freedom, withstanding for our values that our kids will have a better life than we did and their kids will have a better life than they did. this is a time of crisis but it's no greater than the crisis faced in that cell. it is no greater than the crisis so many of us have faced in our own lives. last night i had dinner with an

israeli friend of mine f. he said america begins with the fundamental premise of religious liberty. it's the very first thing in the bill of rights. it's the very first freedom upon which all our other liberties are built. this country was built on a revolutionary idea that our rights don't come from government. they come from all mighty god. as the declaration said we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed not by a king, not by a queen, not even by an all powerful president.

endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. we are seeing fundamental challenges and victories such as the phenomenal victory for religious liberty that was the hobby lobby case. now by a vote of 5 to 4 the supreme court said the federal government cannot force people of faith to abandon their faith. think about it for a second that that was five to four. one vote difference and the outcome was different. now, there are people in washington who say republicans to win have to abandon values.

you're exactly right. our values are who we are. our values are why we are here. and our values are fundamentally american. this country remains a center right country. this country remains a country built on christian values. this country remains a country that values and cherishes our constitutional rights. and anyone who tells you differently is lying to you. you know, every american should know about the little sisters of

the poor. you want to talk about values right now the federal government is suing the little sisters of the poor to try to force catholic nuns to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. you know what, the modern democratic party has become an extreme radical party. we ought to invite hillary clinton to spend a day debating the little sisters of the poor. she can embrace the federal government should be suing and fining catholic nuns to force them to pay for

abortion-inducing drugs. as for me i will stand with the nuns. and a pretty good rule of thumb, by the way, if you are suing nuns you have done something really wrong. look, just a few weeks ago following hobby lobby the democrats introduced legislation in the senate to repeal the protections on religious liberty and the religious freedom restoration act. that act passed two decades ago with almost unanimous support signed into law by a democrat, bill clinton. there used to be bipartisan agreement regardless of our differences over marginal tax rates we used to come together and say we will respect the religious liberty of everyone. when the vote came to strip hobby lobby and christian companies of religious liberty

rights and when the vote came to strip the little sisters of the poor and catholic charities of their religious liberty rights do you know how many senate democrats stood with religious liberty, stood with the catholic church? zero. it is heartbreaking. two weeks ago democrats in the senate introduced a institutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment. to take away the rights of the people in this room to speak out and give congress the authority to determine whether your speech and my speech is reasonable or not. you know how many democrats stood with the first amendment against that effort? zero. these are dangerous extreme

radical times. in 1997 the democrats tried something similar. and that famed right wing activist ted kennedy spoke against it. he stood up and said in over 200 years we haven't amended the bill of rights. now is no time to start. i gave a speech with a giant poster of ted kennedy's face and that quote next to it. scared my father to death. he turned on c-span and said my son has gone native. how do we turn this country around? we offer a choice, not an echo. how do we turn this country around? we don't paint in pale pastels.

we paint in bold colors. we are 39 days away from a pivotal election. if you want to defend the first amendment, free speech, religious liberty, vote kerry reed out. if you want to defend our second amendment, our right to keep and bear arms, vote harry reid out. if you want to defend the tenth

amendment then vote harry reid out. how do we win? we defend the values that are american values. we stand for life. we stand for marriage. we stand for israel. we bring back jobs and opportunity and unleash small businesses to make it easier for people to achieve the american dream. we abolish the irs. we repeal common core.

in 39 days i believe we are going to retake the united states senate and we are going to retire harry reid as majority leader. and in 2017 with a republican president in the white house we are going to sign legislation repealing every word of obamacare.

each of you is here because you believe in our nation and our values. i will tell you why i am optimist from the founding of our nation america has enjoyed god's blessings. and every stage in the revolutionary war a rag tag bunch of colonists have no prayer of defeating the mightiest army on earth. with god's blessing we have done so. in the civil war that pitted brother against brother spilled blood upon our soil to expunge the original sin of this nation of slavery that could have rent this country apart forever. this country came back together. in world war two standing against the grotesque evil that was the nazis the american

people rose to the occasion. in the cold war with leadership from america the american people rose up and we won without firing a shot and tore the berlin wall to the ground. i'm optimistic because of you and i believe in the america people. i am optimistic because i am convinced god isn't done with america yet. we stand on the promise of the word. joy cometh in the morning. thank you and god bless you. ♪ ♪ if you ain't seen an abilene

sunset you ain't met my texas yet ♪ ♪ ♪ never seen fireworks you ain't met my texas yet ♪ ♪ ♪

thank you ladies and gentlemen. always does wonders for my ego when a speaker has cameras come and when i step up they turn and walk away. here all morning, folks. i can't get through my announcements without reading my notes. you heard a 40 minute speech straight from the heart, powerful. give us a few moments to set up some things for our next speaker. i would say what difference does it make but that line has already been taken in this town. imagine that. running for president the most memorable line is what difference does it make? we want to show you an amazing video for all of us who are pro life we often seem to relegate that to the abortion issue but it is so much wider and broader and deeper than that. the family research council is

on the cutting edge of stem cell research movement. we would like to show you progress being made that will encourage you and bless your heart. >> very caring, loves helping people. i think i got the better end of the deal. >> jackie is just a happy person no matter what happens in our life she is always really happy, just a lovable person. >> i got to college and i was 21 and i started to get little red butches on my fingers. i could barely walk. my ankles were little balloons. i couldn't bend my ankles to walk. i had the face rash not only was it red, it was scaly and peeling

and like i could peel off a huge layer of skin. so i went to the doctor and told them those few things. and he kind of had a hunch. he said you have lupus. lupus is my body attacking my body. if you have a cold your body attacks the cold. my body attacks my kidneys. it doesn't know the difference between a cold or my kidneys or my skin or my blood. it's attacking it. well, they give me a pill and it failed. they give me a pill and it failed. they give me another pill and i didn't tolerate it very well. i went through every single