you are now looking at a new reality. i asked him to put together a special briefing for me on what had happened. he said you have to understand the nature of the emerging battlefield. i have been involved a lot with the army command, designing since 1979, when i came as a freshman. i understood in general what had been going on, but i wanted to get a feel for this. the israelis had what we all take for granted. they were flying of the mediterranean coast in a 707, and they were picking up all the electronic emissions from the syrian air force. as the israeli pilots are sitting around having coffee and chatting, they are monitoring. when the syrian pilots get in their plans and talk to the control tower and say, "our flight is ready to leave," they

are listening. they have arabic translators. they are calling the ready room. we think given their flight time there will be entering the space where you can kill them in about 11 minutes. why don't you plan to takeoff in six minutes? we will vector you to where they are. he then showed me footage of this. the syrians, who were still fighting world war ii style, but, with no electronics, are flying blind. they are taking off. when they get to a certain distance that is within the range of the israeli missiles, the airborne warning and control system says to them, "fire your missiles in this direction." these are hunt and six missiles. and go home. they never dogfight. the syrian planes get killed.

they pick up them getting killed on the radar. they say, "that wave is gone. go back and rest. have coffee. watch a movie. we will let you know when the next wave comes." they just kept doing this. when they got done with this briefing and showed me this footage of four beyond visual range missiles being fired, and each was killing a syrian aircraft, i turned to the guys. this was 83. -- 1983. it happened faster than i thought it would. i thought it would take 20 years, and it only took 291. -- it only took till 1981. i turned to my briefers and said, "if we have entered an age of instantaneous theater-wide warfare, and the soviets believe the xerox machine is a state secret, they are dead. it is impossible for a highly- controlled information- compartmentalized system to

compete with a free-form system-wide"-- now it is worldwide. we have assets that allow us to shift information around the planet in virtually real-time. the reason i am telling you this is this is what you are part of. if the components you make do not work, people died. if the components to make do not work, we lose battles. all our capabilities are wonderful, courageous young people, reinforced by lots and lots of people working hard to design and implement the next generation. because of russia and china, you have pretty good competitors technologically. we are in a permanent process of upgrading, because the first set of problems will not be the last. the weapon systems that were magic in 1983 are obsolete today. you are caught in a permanent

process of defense in which we have to understand our competitors, come up with solutions that overmatch them, manufacture and implement those solutions, trained to those solutions, provide logistic support, and integrate into a seamless, worldwide system. that is why the president's comparison of our defense system with any other defense system in the world is sophomoric of foolish. we are the only country in the planet which seeks to provide stability and security on a worldwide basis, the only country which seeks to minimize casualties to our young men and women. we deliberately create an overmatched to save american lives. i am against any president who would willingly take risks that are going to get young american men and women in uniform killed, or risk of losing a city to an enemy. and i think his proposals this week are the most irresponsible

defense proposals of my lifetime. i think the congress should repudiate them and insist on this model. the model is simple. number one. what threatens us? what do we have to do to defeat those threats without losing americans? how do we make sure we have a margin of safety? if we are going to make a mistake, let us be too safe, not too weak. until you decide that solution, -- design that solution, you do not know what to defense budget ought to be. i am not just talking about throwing money at defense. during the reagan buildup, i helped found with dick cheney and a number of other people, the military reform caucus. our theory was we were hawks, but cheap hawks. [laughter] i think you can take layers of bureaucracy out of the defense department. i suspect many of you deal with the layers of the bureaucracy. you know it is cumbersome and

we can save money. but i want to have a very powerful defense system in a very dangerous world, and i would rather take the risk of being too strong over the risk of being too weak. i wanted to share that. this is a rare opportunity for me to talk about national security. i am personally grateful. you make america strong. i would like to take questions. is that ok? ok. if there are any questions. who would like to ask questions? yes, sir. >> a lot of times, you have to question their motives as well. >> i regard pakistan as a country which is neither and eleanor and enemy. -- neither and allied nor an enemy. i think it is a country in turmoil.

it is deeply penetrated by our enemies. they have different interests and we do. -- then we do. we have not begun to understand the tip of the pakistan system and how convoluted it is. all you have to do is ask yourself -- is there anybody who believes osama bin laden could be hiding in a large compound 1 mile from a national defense university four years without the government at some level knowing it? it is inconceivable. the first reaction was not who has been hiding him, but who helped the americans. pakistan is in many ways a battleground in which the government has a tenuous hold on security, and in which the government is riddled by factions, some of which are deeply hostile to us. it should worry us that they have between 102 hundred nuclear -- between 100 and 200

nuclear weapons. weapons. people talk about the iranian bomb, which they should. -- 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. people talk about the iranian bomb, which they should. but pakistan worries meet every day. we have no idea whether there will be a leak, a takeover, a coup. this is an unstable country for us to rely on. somebody wake up at the back. >> more of a domestic issues question. i do not hear a lot about consumer protection. what is the proper role of the federal government in consumer protection? >> there should be strong laws that allow you to protect yourself from getting ripped off. second, we ought to have

constant statistical monitoring. for example, hit the product is made which leads to a crib deaths, we want to know immediately and withdraw it from the market. that is legitimate. i think there is a role for the government, on the public health and safety side, or if a flammable material is being turned into toys and is in danger of catching fire and burning kids -- that is something you want to have. but i would not micromanage. i do not want a consumer protection agency that goes from protecting our safety to micromanaging our choices. there is a big difference in those jobs. how about this gentleman, right here? >> thank you for visiting with us today. could you share your thoughts on the f-35 fighter program? >> i have a certain bias here,

because i used to represent lockheed martin in marietta, georgia, which was building the f-22, a really cool aircraft. i would argue a slightly cooler air plan and the f 35. the a 35 is a good plane, but it is a cool air plan. the f-35 is the heart of our strategy for the next 30 years. we have to make it work. we have to recognize how -- my hunch is -- this is a hunch, not uninformed opinion. my hunch is the phase beyond f- 35 is an unmanned vehicle. you are seen the evolution of unmanned vehicles. the f-35 will be a mainstay of delivering ordinance and providing air superiority has at least 30 years. i think we want to make it there. we want to make it a worldwide product. if you look at the f-16 experience, it has been terrific for our industrial base to continuously sell f-16 half

a lot of places. -- f-16's a lot of places. i cannot imagine what would fill the vacuum if we cancel the program. there would be nothing there to fill the vacuum. the chinese and russians will not wait to move into next- generation fighter aircraft and next generation surface-to-air missiles. it is a lot more complicated very fast. how about right down here? you are getting a workout today, carrying that microphone. >> thank you for coming and taking our questions. i was curious. as i am sure you are well aware, presidents with visions are great, but do not necessarily get policies accomplished. from your role, how does president do you make things happen and turn it into real policy?

>> let me draw a distinction. presidents who have visions that do not get accomplished are just making speeches. you are not getting anything done. we do not hire them for that purpose. i came in as a freshman under carter, who was not getting much done. in fact, he carter had 13% inflation, 22% interest rates. we were sliding into a recession which would end with 10.8% unemployment. we had the hostage crisis. the soviets invaded afghanistan. they were in nicaragua, starting to go into costa rica, el salvador. we had gasoline rationing every other day based on the last number of your license plate. i had a good friend who was 13 that year. he remembers it vividly because his job every morning was to go

out back with a screwdriver and make sure the car that needed gasoline had the right license plate. i have always thought it was a great test of whether you are a liberal or conservative. by telling you we had a policy so stupid we retreating 13 year olds to get around it -- a conservative says we should drop the policy. as a liberal, you said that is proof we need a license plate police of every gas station. that is an easy task. -- test. reagan demand. people forget. in 1980, there were serious articles written. "is the presidency to big? -- too big?" by august of 1981, nobody would write the article. reagan had been head of the screen actors guild. he negotiated and led a strike. he was governor of california, six of eight years with a

democratic senate. he really rim to achieve something, not just a posture. reagan understood two key things. one was that his power was directly related to his ability to communicate with the american people. he tried to shine the light at the american people so they would turn up the heat on congress. all the speeches for educational, to get people to understand why he was doing what he was doing. that was the first basis of his presidency. he understood every day that if he did not have independents and democrats, he could not govern. i did a movie. we have a scene where gerald ford invites him to come to the convention and speak. reagan's opening line is, "my fellow republicans."

he pauses. "ms those democrats and independents around the country who agree with us." he knew instinctively he had to be inclusive. he could not just be a republican president. i helped to develop a piece of the '80 campaign. i helped organize the first capitol steps event in history. the minute the election was over, we had won control of the senate. we won six senate seats by a total of 75,000 votes. i thought the capitol steps helped each of those marginal candidates just enough to get over the top. but we did not have the house. tip o'neill was speaker. he was a hard core boston-irish politician who believed in liberalism. this is a sincere guy. he is going to defend the whole

thing. we realized we had to get one out of every three democrats to vote with us. from day one, here reagan and the house republicans are working to find that one out of three democrats, and we did. when i got to be speaker -- jumping ahead to president. that is from a future speech. when i got to be speaker, it was patently obvious if i wanted anything signed into law i had to get bill clinton's signature. i could posture and schedule votes and play games. in the end, through our constitution, he could not get anything if i would not schedule it, and i could not get anything if he would not sign it. would hit each other at a press conference, and then meet for five hours. this went on for weeks. it is simple. you walk into a room.

you close the door. you say, "i have to do this." is hard to build a box and figure out what can i give you that does not violate my beliefs. frankly, you maneuver a fair amount. we knew the election was coming. we knew 90% favored welfare reform. we finally passed a third time, and he signed it. he claims credit, and he should. he was the president. he reformed welfare. but i can claim it because i passed it three times. jim baker in our movie comments reagan always believed the purpose of a negotiation was to get what he needed. -- get an agreement.

he would rather get 80 percent when come back later for the other 20%. when the go to reykjavik to meet with gorbachev, reykjavik offers to dismantle the entire soviet nuclear arsenal if reagan will give up ballistic missile defense, and reagan says no, because it is a step too far. by holding tough, six months later, gorbachev comes back and years of reagan and virtually everything he wants to produce nuclear vessels. it is not like reagan will take a bad deal, but he is always trying to find a way to say what can he get done. callisto and i have talked about this at length. she used to be on the

>> last fall you asked the subcommittees to come back and i was wondering -- come back with results about how they could clean out some of the processes and procedures that they do every day. i was wondering what the results were of that? >> nothing. [laughter] >> you all you something like that here? does it work? does it make you more productive? one of the reasons i am running, i'd think i am one of the only candidates who describe that. i believe, and i as president would ask the congress to go

through a training program, both members and staff, i would ask every incoming presidential appointee to go to a training program. the only way you implement something like this is to actually follow it. it is not some magic formula you do on your blackberry. it is a different culture, a different mind set. let me summarize and ask your help. the reason i am running is that i believe our problems are so complicated and so difficult that we need somebody who actually understands them intellectually and actually has a chance of managing change and has the willpower, drive, and discipline to get it done. but can also articulate so every american can be a part of it. i do not think 537 elected officials is going to fix this -- i think the country is going to fix it. the job of the next president is to work with the american people

together. i always ask people, do not be for me. i ask you to be with me for the next eight years. stand shoulder-to-shoulder to get this done. from every poll we have seen, including one this morning, this election is a wide open. it is a classic, new hampshire, last minute. i really do ask for your help. i hope he will talk to your friends and your neighbors and encourage them to vote for me tomorrow. if not like what i am doing, i hope he will say nothing to anyone. [laughter] i know we are running late. we would love to beat you if we can. i will now do what i am told. i would love to meet you if i possibly can. thank you very much. [applause]

>> new key bridge was scheduled to speak to supporters at his manchester headquarters, but the event was canceled because of security concerns. here is a few minutes of the scene outside. [unintelligible]

>> i love you. thank you.

[unintelligible]

[unintelligible] ♪ ron paul, i want to wake up in a country that is truly free capitol hill these blues are melting away

we'll make a brand new start of it oh, ron paul and [unintelligible] ♪ >> congressman ron paul's campaign included a half hour. >> thank you very much. thank you for putting this reception together. i understand we were starting to

i understand we were starting to have this may be at your home. it looks like the meeting outgrew the home. i am glad we were able to come here and still have our gathering. before get started i would like to introduce a few members of my family that have been traveling with me. my wife is sitting over here, carol. [applause] one daughter-in-law and her daughter, peggy. [applause] thank you for coming out. i guess you have noticed the campaign has picked up a lot of steam and interest where vertigo. there has been a lot of questions but there are still some that are not decided and hopefully we can reach them with the program i have been talking about and why i think we got into trouble. and what we have to do. no matter where i have gone around the country, whether it is in iowa or different places and also on the talk shows and tv programs, the issue has been

the economy. of course when -- the first time i ran for office was in the 1970's and i ran at that time because i saw some big changes being made in our monetary system. if one understands how financial bubbles are formed, we should have come to the conclusion we embarked on -- in a dangerous time. that is a long time ago but it is important history. the bubble that has burst and the correction we're going through and why employment rates still a serious problem. we've embarked on a financial bubble, the biggest in the history of the world. the marketplace tries to unwind the mistakes made by politicians and by central bankers to correct mistakes. if you have a system that encourages debt and to equate

that with prosperity, it will keep building until you run out of production. that is what happened. we have too much debt and not enough production. we cannot keep up and we cannot fudge the books. this is why people have grown very interested in -- my interest in my subject and why at the beginning at the least, we had to have a full audit of how the federal reserve system has been operating. [applause] because of the monetary system, it contributes to this distortion. the worst distortion and why people feel badly about how their economy is going even if they have a job, people feel frightened about what might come. that is with the destruction of money. history shows you destroy the middle class.

destruction of money means to valuation. the history has been lousy. nobody has wanted to talk about it. even though the founders understood and warned us and said we do not want to go through the destruction of a continental dollar like the winter. that is why i put it in the constitution that you could use gold or silver. it could not print money. we have been doing that for way too long and we ended up with this undermining of the middle class. when you have free markets, individual liberty, private property rights, contract rights like we enjoyed for so long, you have a large middle class. america was always known for its large middle-class and the wealthiest ever but this is not true anymore. the middle class is shrinking and their wealth the shrinking but it is a wealth -- is the wealth of the world shrinking? characteristics of what happened, the wealth is taken from the middle class and it goes to a select few who are the insiders and that is what has happened.

the people know about it. sometimes the anger toward -- directed at the unfairness of the system, they get confused about the economics, but it has a lot to do with the monetary policies influencing washington. instead of the government being a protector of liberty, the government has become a distributor of wealth. this is why big money talks. money has more control of our system. that is why lobbyists get paid more than politicians. the lobbyists run the show. this is what we have to overcome. one of the things why it is a challenging in this campaign, the people have been supporting me know darn well we're undertaking challenging decades of control of our government, undermining our personal liberties. involvement in a foreign policy that makes no sense. we need a policy that defense america and not pretend we can

tell the world how to live. [applause] the moderators will come in and say we're going to talk about economics which is fine. i like to talk about economics but they do not want to talk about foreign policy. they say tonight will top foreign-policy but they do not want to talk about economics. but you've got to talk about both together because this is connected to the economic system. we want -- there is no way you can get out of recession or depression with war and people -- we have been taught that in school. the war goddess of the depression. complete nonsense. every penny you spend overseas, almost anything overseas is a drain from the economy and that is why since we're not producing like we used to, that is why the economy is being drained and

why we have to address foreign policy. the very best thing to do, it is simple, it is not complex. it says we should never send anyone to washington that will not promise and you believe that we will obey the constitution. we can stay out [inaudible] [laughter] [applause] we have had numerous war since world war ii. these wars were very bad for us. we have been involved in nation-building in occupation. countries that were far from perfect but they never attacked us. what has it done? it has added $4 trillion worth of debt by be engaged overseas and we're not safer for. i do not believe we're safer. i do not believe people want to come and kill us because we're afraid and prosperous. that is -- has gone way astray.

what we ought to do is think about a form policy that follows the golden rule. we should not do anything to any other country that we would not have them do to us. [applause] if we were to follow the constitution require that the people give permission to war -- go to war, believe me we would not have had any of these wars in the last 20 or 30 years. because the congress would not have done it. they did not what the debate. they could not prove there was a threat to our national security. this is important that we follow the rules, we know what our government is supposed to do. it is to protect our liberties. that is the no. 1 job. protect the liberties of every citizen and we gained that

liberty in a natural way. we gave our liberties not from our government, but we gained them a from our creator and we should protect those liberties, we should not be telling people how to live, how to run the economy are telling the rest of the world what they ought to be doing. [applause] we change form policy, we can start talking about the necessity of dealing with the debt. that is a problem. it is similar to if you were indented over your head and you get to any credit cards and what you are learning to take care of your daily needs, you do not have anything left to finance your debt. that is where we are today. we do not. to finance our debt we do not have enough growth or people left where we can tax them and pay for the debt. what we have to do is eliminate the debt. the debt, an individual has to sell stuff, pay down or declare

bankruptcy. the market insists on bankruptcy. when our country, when our financial system became evident it was bankrupt, in 2008, a lot of people were doing a lot of dealing with derivatives. people paying money when the financial bubble was being blown up. when they went broke, they pay the bankers and corporations, they came screaming and hollering and there would be a depression. you got to bail us out. they did not deserve to get bailed out. that that should have been liquidated -- the debt should have been liquidated. [applause] we're still paying for that. what about the people who made the money during the financial bubble?

they're back in business again. their corporate leaders are making big bucks. they're making a lot of money out of getting money from the federal reserve at practically zero interest. the system is very biased. it has changed dramatically from the time of our founding. the emphasis is not on liberty anymore. the emphasis is on special interest and controls. right now the american people have awakened. they all the sudden realize, even those with jobs, even those who seem to be doing ok, there is a subtle discontent in this country. it is the worst our country has experienced. we have gone through a lot of rough times. the great depression, the two world wars. i think the lack of confidence in the future is more significant than ever before because the foundations have been undermined. the foundation of the free- market and property rights. we do not own our property anymore. also the foundation of the

monetary system and the foreign policy that does not serve our national defense needs and the people know this and they are begging and pleading for answers. this is a story i have talked about and offered solutions and tried to point out to -- the financial bubbles but there was not much attention paid to it. i never really thought one way or another whether anyone would pay attention. right now it just happens they are interested. the world has changed. our country has changed from four years ago. i was not involved in a campaign three or four years ago. there was a lot of support but it was not enough to say it is coming, let's prevent it. it hit. it hit in 2008 and people are looking and wondering about what we can do. we have to cut spending. that is top priority. to get the spending under control and get the data under control. you cannot keep running a debt

and keep printing the money. that is a road to disaster. in the first year we should cut real spending by $1 trillion. [applause] worry going to cut $1 trillion? if you do not cut, everything goes to pot. everything is destroyed because the money will not work. even the people you are trying to help you cannot help them. the more you print the money the lesson has the value. the only way we can work our way out is proposing these cuts. i do not -- the workplace -- the worst places to start with child health care or social security. or medicare benefits. we can work our way out of it but you have to be willing to cut other things and that is why we as americans not only as

conservatives but moderates and liberals, we should agree that it makes no sense to spend much over $1 trillion a year over -- overseas. why do we not spend that money here at home? [applause] half the cuts would come from overseas. i do not believe for one minute it undermines defense. cutting military is a lot different than cutting defense. people say he wants to cut all the defense. i do not. i want more money for the defense. i want to defend this country and not be involved in wars that did not help us at all. the other money spent would have to cut back at home. fire departments. the first department would be the department of education. [applause]

if we look at education in a constitutional fashion, education in a free society is the responsibility of parents. [applause] there are no prohibitions for the state to be involved in education. there is no authority at the federal level but the government had better make sure there is never a law that prohibits homeschooling or private schooling to compete. [applause] other departments, the department of energy, commerce, interior, hud, think of all the damage had dead. we will take care of the poor. everyone will have free health care and education and houses. everyone can qualify. for a loan.

we have students graduating and they're not trained to do the jobs. i have a $1 trillion debt and they cannot get a job. it failed and hud, forced the bankers to make loans to risky lenders. the price of the house keeps going up. keep growing. this is wonderful until the bubble burst. the people who were involved in the mortgage derivatives were making a lot of money. what happened to the middle class? the got -- they got the debt and lost their jobs and houses. you cannot provide the goods and services through government edict. this is what we have to realize. if you want goods and services, if you want the maximum

distribution, you have to pay attention and you have to believe that the free-market is a much better distributor of wealth than the u.s. government. [applause] one of the shortcomings that we come up with, whether we call ourselves libertarians, conservatives, or constitutionalists, we have -- we compete with people who are well motivated and they believe themselves to be humanitarian. those of us who believe the market ought to work in protecting liberty as most important, the cold hearted. it would be logical to conclude that we are the true humanitarian, not them. [applause] we do need to cut back. we could do this with protecting

certain programs and work our way out of it but we cannot do it without looking into the monetary system and foreign policy. we have to look at the property rights. we have to look at individual liberty. of all these things i have been talking about, it is individual liberty that would protect us. the right to your life and liberty, you ought to have the right to keep the fruits of your labor. [applause] individual liberty is under threat as well. once you have a perpetual war atmosphere, personal liberties have always been under attack. today there are. we have more attacks on our personal liberty, whether it is the patriot act, i do not think we need the patriot act to undermine your personal liberty. [applause] also now, recently, the government gave the president the authority to use the army to arrest an american citizen

without charges and held indefinitely. that is not protecting the american tradition. those kind of infractions and insults to the american people have to be addressed. we have to give confidence once again that a free society and free markets work. we cannot continue to depend that the government wallace to care less. what we need is a free society where we are allowed to take care of ourselves. i believe in that. [applause] we have a wonderful opportunity to express those views, it will be tomorrow night. i am encouraged. the young people i meet that really encourage me. because they are enthusiastic about hearing the truth, even if it is negative and you have a big dent -- debt. they become excited and optimistic.

if you admit you have a problem be consulted. -- maybe you can solve it. people are starting to once again look at the great issues and the great ideas and all those principles that made america great. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have time for two or three questions. if you would take ron's lead here. >> we are going to try to get as many questions as we can. we have a little bit of time. >> go ahead and pick somebody.

>> i believe many americans think that the value in keeping the bases overseas is because by pulling the bases out of the overseas countries like germany and japan, it sort recognizes that our empire is shrinking. maybe they cannot handle that. how can you get them to see the benefit in doing that? >> the empire -- [inaudible] for economic reasons. we had to stand up and pay them. ands drafted in the 1960's served. they have a lot of these weapons. they had to be dissolved for economic reasons.

they went into afghanistan and got bogged down in afghanistan. we will come out. if you are talking about germany or japan -- where are not on the verge of being attacked. one of the greatest successes has been that we have a strong national defense. nobody is about to invade our country or attack us. people have to be convinced that bringing troops home is one way we have a -- [inaudible] if it is the desire to maintain an empire i will do my best to spare you from that goal. i do not think an empire serves the interests of the freedom of an individual america. [applause]

>> i feel strongly that protecting our environment is an urgent issue. i was wondering how to the enforcement of property rights, [unintelligible] how would you determine to prosecute when that violation is made? >> most people get worried when you talk about free markets and property rights. there will not be in good and -- environmentalists for it if you look at a government that has the most extreme amount of government, they have been the worst protectors of the environment. if you look at private property, most people who own property have an interest in

taking good care of it. that comes up with the subject of pollution. if you have a strict understanding of property, nobody has the right to pollute anybody. you cannot dump their garbage in your neighbor's yard. you should not able to dump chemicals or allowed to police the water. -- pollute the water. you should be held accountable. a big problem occurred when there was a collision between big corporations and big government. i was raised in pittsburgh and it was one of the most filthiest cities in the country. the rivers were filthy and the skies were filthy black. that got cleared up with the protection of rights by the city. a long time before the epa. the epa is a bureaucratic special interest answer to a problem that should be answered

with private property rights. the basic principle is that if you and force contract rights and property rights, you would be much tougher a lot sooner than we have been. i do not believe the bureaucratic approach can ever do the trick. [applause] >> can you address agenda 21 fax >> you are talking about the un? this is a little more than i can say since my position is we should not be in the united nations. [applause] any plan of the un to undermine our national sovereignty i am opposed to and would want to protect it. right now the biggest threat to the international government is

in the monetary affairs. they know what we know about the monetary system. they know there is a crisis coming and they're talking about monetary reform and they are talking about an international paper currency run by the imf which is part of the united nations. that is a big threat and that is why we should not be in those organizations. we have to more -- two more. just come towards the mic. >> [unintelligible] nikes made in south america. a lot of the work of the private sector can be compared to slave labor. how should we address this?

>> are you talking about -- >> sweatshops. >> it is not true slave labor. they work for very little. i do not have sovereignty over other nations over what they should and should not do. i cannot go down and change it. my job is to make sure that we do the best to set an example in this country so others will do the same thing. what we want to do is protect civil liberties in this country and make sure we have sound money and a prosperous economy and have a foreign policy. we have a policy where people believe that america is an exceptional nation. i think we are. what they believe because we are exceptional that we have the responsibility to invade a country and in force that -- force that country to do is we do and i do not agree. we are exceptional but i think we are slipping.

we should work much harder to be an exceptional nation, to practice what we peach, -- preached, to make sure we have a market and have prosperity and have people look and say, america is a great place. why don't we try to copy them? that would be a better -- better than forcing them to do something. >> what is your stance on legal and illegal immigration? >> we should not have any. my approach is not to reward something that is illegal. if states are forced to provide services and benefits to illegal immigrants, there will make benefit of it. illegal immigration is down. that tells you something about how weak the economy is.

the jobs are not going begging. even today under welfare, this system encourages them not to take jobs they did not have to take if they did not get these benefits. we should not be forcing preschools and -- free schools and for medical care on people here illegally. we should revamp the whole thing about the workers program. i think that we should keep the doors wide open as we can. i think many people come to me in my congressional office, looking for workers. even today. our people are not as well trained. we do not want to ever close that off, but we should not have this big problem with illegal immigration. i think we should have more control, in a different system on our borders. i am disgusted that we spend so

much time, money, and lies worry about the borders afghanistan and pakistan. if we ought to be worrying about our borders here at home. [applause] >> i serve on a local school board. i support eliminating the department of education. the system is broken. how are we going to fix it? how did the power out of the unions and union influence? >> union power -- it is the right word, it is not workers' rights. if his union power and they get it legislatively. -- it is union power and they get it legislatively. there are no laws prohibiting union from forming in the private sector. but there should be no power to

force the unions on a businessman who does not want to voluntarily have one. the businessman should make those choices. as long as you understood the principles of voluntary association. when it comes to government, all the sudden -- and that is where the bigger problem is today with the government unions. it should be our officials who are representing us at the private marketplace. they should not be signing these contracts. i know you are finding the right to work laws up here, but the right to work is very important. the federal government has caused all the problems with the national relations board. that was to give artificial power to a certain group. the market is the most powerful force to raise wages. we do not want to throw our whole system of volunteerism. the problem with the depression had nothing to do with a lack of labor unions.

if we could just forced labor prices up -- as a matter fact, to correct these problems, you want prices to go down. prices of houses are still going down. it should have been in six to 12 months and be over with. it is a fixation of wages that makes us less competitive. states that do not have it lose jobs. and jobs go south. they go overseas, too. you cannot avoid the discussion if you really want to change the environment and get our economy growing again. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> a quick question, please.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> several live events to tell you about. florida governor rick scott gives his state of the state address at 11:00 a.m. eastern. that is on c-span2. here on c-span, you can see chris dodd -- you can see chris christie's state of the state from trenton at 3:00 p.m. eastern. in a few moments, today's headlines in your calls live on "washington journal." at 10:00 a.m., president obama's campaign fund-raiser in from last night. in about 45 minutes, we will focus on today's new hampshire primary with wayne macdonald