♪ >> all the best to you, sir. awe thank you.

thank you. thank you. thank you. hi. how are you? >> ♪ made in america awe thank you so much. thank you. good to see you.

thank you. thank you. >> best of luck tomorrow. >> thank you. >> hi. how are you? thank you.

thank you. how are you doing? good to see you. >> i'm all the way from massachusetts. >> oh, good to see you.

>> i'd love to come in first, but we're making progress. >> we're from ontario, and you're well qualified to be prime minister. >> is that right? >> as i boy, i grew up there, in the summertime, i had a place about two miles, beautiful lake huron. you're lucky to live there.

hi, guys. how are you? how are you? there we go. thank you. how you doing? good to see you. you're getting crushed back there. all right, i got two here. let's get those two.

thank you so much. appreciate it. how you doing? good to see you. thanks for being here. hi, how are you?

good to meet you. thanks for being here today. is this your wife here? thank you. very kind. thank you.

>> can't wait to see you back in d.c. >> thank you. i'll be there. >> we have great admiration for the people of poland. >> thank you. >> governor, may i get a

picture with you? >> i have a cold. i can't shake your hand. can i just show you this inscription? any republican can govern massachusetts is a man that can do anything. my gift to you. >> thank you so much. >> god bless you. >> thank you. appreciate your help. thank you. hope you get better. >> i will when you're elected. >> me, too.

>> thank you. thank you, governor. >> we should have introduced you, governor. >> come on. we need to introduce you out there. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you. thanks. thousand are you doing? good to see you. take care.

we're going to keep you pulling you up here time and time again, you know that. he's brilliant. what can i say? every time i turn around.

>> good to meet you guys. ♪

>> voters in south carolina go to the polls today for the republican presidential primary. the polls will close at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we'll have the voting results tonight, along with candidates' speeches and your phone calls live here on c-span. >> the republican presidential candidates are making their final campaign stops in south carolina before this weekend's primary. former house speaker newt gingrich told supporters in orangeburg that voting for him would be the first step in electing the next conservative president. he made these remarks at an event at the orangeburg mall cinema room. it's 35 minutes.

♪ >> thank you all very, very much for being patient. i really apologize we ran late. a couple of different things happened, and each of them added a few extra minutes, and

i just apologize. i also have to tell you, as a former teacher, speaking with this many people behind me really has me kind of -- i kind of want to look over my back. i sort of trust the mayor, but the rest of them, gets more and more dangerous here. i understand that your agriculture commissioner serenaded you earlier with the national anthem, so i appreciate you doing that. i appreciate you endorsing me. i'm also delayed that we have mike campbell here, that he has also endorsed me and has been active i remember working with his father for so many years, so it's really a great thing to be with him. of course, the speaker is here, so we've been going around, speaker this, speaker this, speaker that, finally decide that had bobby and newt would do, but the honorifics were out there, but we're thrilled to be here. tomorrow is going to be a very, very important day.

with your help, and with the help of other good citizens across the state of south carolina, we are going to take the first big step towards ensuring that a conservative is nominated for president of the united states. now, let me just ask you a couple of questions. i'm just now beginning to realize that's an entire additional room. i thought at first it was one of those mirrors that was reflecting this room, and then i realized, no, there are that many additional people. hello, people. that's pretty astounding. i am very impressed with this turnout. and i'm very, very grateful. so i want to ask you a couple of questions. i'm asking this to both rooms. how many of you agree that the united states is very badly going in the wrong direction? [applause]

how many of you agree that we have to defeat obama, but beyond that, we also have problems with judges and bureaucrats and laws, and we have to fix all of it, want just the white house? [applause] and how many of you agree that the left will fight us every inch of the way, even after we win the election? well, those three questions explain why i'm running. callista and i talked about it a long time our granted son is here. he's 10 years old. his sister's on the way. she had ballet practice, but she'll be here later today. she's 12 years old. and the question we raised was, what kind of country are they going to inherent? and if we don't profoundly change things, they're going to inherent a country that is weaker, more vulnerable, less

free, with huge burdens, where this generation of politicians spent all the money and left all the bills for the grandchildren. and we decided that was just wrong. we knew, when we decided we'd run, we knew that there would be negative attack ads, we knew the elite media would attack us, and we knew that the closer we came to winning, the more ferocious it would get. for a practical reason. i'm not running to preside over the decay, but being a normal establishment republican. i am running to fundamentally change the entire structure of power in washington, d.c. to move this country back to the constitution, back to the declaration of independence, back to the principles that made america historically great. so i am happy for the academic

left, most of the elite media, and virtually all of the left-wing democrats to understand -- this campaign is about the end of their dominance of the united states and the development of a new center of power called the citizens in which we take power away from washington and return it back home. and it's that simple. and if you go to newt.org, you will see a systematic laying out of very dramatic changes in direction. you just take the issue of judges who have become dictators, some of whom are anti-religious bigots. we laid out in a 5 -page paper, which we've been working on for nine years, go back to the constitution, the declaration of independence, to the federalist papers, to the

writing of alexander hamilton, to thomas jefferson, so andrew jackson, to abraham lincoln, to franklin delano roosevelt, and we lay out the case that there is no judicial supremacy, it is a modern act of lawyers and law schools and arrogant judges that, in fact, it was supposed to be a balance between the three branches, and that means, by definition, no one of them can be supreme, and therefore, the supreme court is supreme inside the judiciary, but it cannot dictate to the congress and it cannot dictate to the president, and that will be one of the major struggles starting in january. people ask, how fast can we turn around the mess that obama has made? now, i believe, frankly, the recovery will start late on election night.

somebody said american people are so smart and so optimistic, it may start in september or october, whenever the polls show that obama is going to lose. but the basic principle is simple -- we don't have a problem with the american people. we have a problem with government. and that problem has been accentuated by the most radical , and may i say, the most incompetent president that we've had in our lifetime. he's the most radical president in history. and this has really human consequences. when you have a president who, in the middle of this kind of economy, with this level of unemployment, with the price of gasoline the highest it's been in america history, 2011 was the most expensive gasoline in

american history, and this president kims the keystone pipeline, which would have created 20,000 to 50,000 construction jobs, would have enabled oil to come from canada to houston, which is the largest petro chemical complex in the world. for the next 30 to 50 years, they'd have made money processing the oil there. it would have been shipped out of the ports of houston and galveston, and they'd have made money for the shipping. and instead, in order to take care of some environmental extremists in san francisco, he stops it. now, it's wrong on national security grounds at an time when the iranians are closing their straits. it's strong on economic grounds. put as an unintended consequence, it's hard to believe the obama administration understood. robert is active in&plays chess and was most improved in chess recently. and we're discussing the fact that it's one thing to say that

a white house can't play chess. it's another thing to say they can't play checkers. but if they can't play ticktacktoe -- now, what do i mean by that? the environmentalists aren't really against the pipeline. they're against canadian oil. and they don't want the canadian oil out there. well, prime minister of canada is a conservative, and he's pro-american. but what he has said is, look, if obama wants to cancel going through the united states, which is the easiest route, the most practical route, i'll cut a deal with the chinese to finance putting a pipeline across the canadian rockies to vancouver, we'll ship it straight to china. the oil is still going to get

out, and we will have lost every single job in 30 to 50 years of processing and access to the oil. now, this is truly dumb. but in all fairness, i was reassured, because the president, in a moment of decisive, courageous leadership , has announced that he is going to hold an invitation-only town hall meeting on main street in disney world. when we like to go to disney world, we like taking robert and maggie to disney world. i actually like the disney characters. and i thought to myself, imagine the photo opportunity when you have mickey, the

president, and goofee. what are these people thinking of? i'm told they're going to close half of the magic kingdom in order to have a ticketed event. you know, it's just -- but we wanted to be fair, so we are writing a letter to disney, asking them before the florida primary to host a town hall meeting outside the park where it can be free, where anybody can come, that callista and i will go to to take the great risk of actually living to normal, everyday, uninvited, unscreened people, ask questions. i want to talk about two things. i want to talk about american

exceptionalism and briefly about job creation. this fall, i will challenge the president, if you help me win tomorrow, and i go on to become your nominee, and i do believe i will win tomorrow i will go on to become your nominee, and if i become the nominee, i will challenge the president to seven three-hour debates in the lincoln-douglas tradition with a timekeeper, but no moderator. and i will concede in advance that he can use a teleprompter. after all, if you had to defend obamacare, wouldn't you want to use a teleprompter? part of the reason we have these debates is because, by his very radicalism, he creates a wonderful opportunity for the american people to have a

serious philosophical discussion about who we are. he is a disciple of a person who wrote books on how to trash america and create a radical system. i believe in the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the federalist papers. so the contrast will be terrific. i believe in american exceptionalism, which is not about you and me. we're not exceptional. we're just people. but we have inherited from the founding fathers an understanding of self-government, which has enabled people to come from anywhere on the planet and learn to be american in a way that no other society can do. it starts with the very opening phrase, we hold these truths to be self-evident. the founding fathers were offering a philosophy or an ideology. they were trying to understand the truth about how humans can live together. they then said, extraordinarily

radical thing for 1776, that all men are created equal. now, it was flawed in execution. we had slavery. women had a secondary role. we spent 200 years working to make the ideal normal. but it was the right ideal at a time when you had kings and queens and czars and emperors. they then go on to say -- and this is the heart of the american experience and the number one issue that we have to win in the next year -- we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. now, this is at the heart of the american experience, because here's what it says. god endows each one of you personally with sovereignty. you loan power to the state. the state never loans power to you.

now, what does that mean? the reason the constitution begins, we, the people. not we the lawyers, not we the judges, not we the bureaucrats, want we the politicians. so those rights are unalienable. that means no government can come between you and god. because those rights have come to you and cannot be taken from you. this is the founding political document in the united states. it's the heart of who we are. among there are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. very important concept. first of all, happiness in the 18th century meant wisdom and virtue, not heed onism and acquisition. the founding fathers believed that a virtueous people could remain free and foolish people

would inevitably become part of the dictatorship. but second, notice what it offers. it doesn't guarantee happiness. the right to pursue. so that's a provision in the constitution for a federal department of happiness. there's no provision for happiness stamps for the underhappy. and if you had said to the founding fathers, some politicians are going to come in and say, i want to take from the overly happy and redistribute to the underly happy, they would have thought he was crazy. they'd have said, by what right does some elected official think he knows enough, he has the power, and he has the right to take from one american to give to another american, which, of course, is the heart of obamaism. and so, we should have a great national debate. do we want to remain americans?

do we believe in the constitution or do we need to become some new people? i was partly turned on to this, my daughter writes a column, and about eight, nine months ago, she wrote -- we were told we were electing change you could believe in and found we had elected somebody who wanted to change what we believe. and i thought that captured perfectly the heart of the obama problem. now, the right to pursue happiness, in my judgment, implies pursuit or activity, which implies the work ethic. i have a very interesting dialogue monday night in myrtle beach with juan williams about the idea of work. it seemed to juan williams to be a strange, distant concept. something worthy of study in an academic environment, but certainly not something to be subjected to young people.

i began collecting these stories. michael reagan called me, and i was really thrilled he endorsed me and said i was the candidate who was the most like his father and the most capable of carrying on conservatism, but michael called me today laughing, and he said when he was 10 years old he went to his mother, and he said, i really want a 10-speed bike, and she said, well, you should earn it. mom, i'm 10. and she said, i'll find jobs around the house, i'll find things for you to do, we'll talk to our neighbors and our relatives, but you should earn it. and he said, but i don't want to wait that long. she said, ok, and she wrote up a contract, and she loaned him -- 10, she loaned him the money to buy the bike, and she said, now, you have to actually pay this off. if obama had had this experience, he wouldn't have run up all this debt. if he had somebody that said to him, you have to pay it back, he would have understood the whole idea of modern finance

better. so michael reagan said he worked and paid off his bike. he said, that was at 10. we had a young guy in new hampshire who, at 11 years of age, founded a doughnut company and got roadside stands that were selling fruit to also sell his doughnuts. then he got a couple of restaurants to sell his doughnuts. he's now 16. his father is thrilled, because for the first time he can drive himself to deliver the doughnuts. and he expects to make enough money from his doughnut company to put himself through college, because he's just working. so work is central, but to work, you have to have jobs. so here's my proposal for job creation, and it comes from a very straight background. i worked with governor reagan on developing an economic plan, then i worked with president reagan on passing the plan. when we needed to get one of every three democrats to vote for him. i worked as speaker of the house to develop a plan based exactly on reagan's.

the reagan eight years led to 16 million new jobs. the four years i was speaker led to 11 million new jobs. by the end of my speakship, unemployment had dropped to 4.2%, because we took people off welfare, off unemployment, off public housing, off medicaid, we were able to balance the federal budget, because when they went to work, they started paying taxes, so you reduce federal spending, and you increase federal revenue without a tax increase, and so we got to four consecutive balanced budget, the only time in your lifetime that we've had four consecutive balanced budget. so we know it works. it's the opposite of obama. we're for lower taxes. he's for higher taxes. we're for less regulation. he's for more regulation.

we're for american energy. he is against american energy. we're for helping the people who want to create jobs, he wants to wage class warfare against the people who create jobs. it's amazing, and it's almost as though it's an anti-jobs program. let me talk briefly about the process here. you can see all this at newt.org. we have a series of tax changes designed to make our manufacturing industry the most modern in the world, the most productive in the world so we can compute with china and india and win. we also have a proposal to modernize unemployment compensation, so if you need unemployment compensation, you have to sign up for a business training program to learn new skills. we'll never again give somebody money for 99 weeks for doing nothing. in 99 weeks, they could have earned an associate degree. i mean, it is such a human

waste. so you had a better trained workforce with better equipment, so now you can manufacture. i'm very much in favor of developing the natural gas that's offshore. there's at least 29 billion. my hunch is it's over 100 billion worth. in louisiana, offshore development is 80,000 jobs. so you begin to develop the economy just by developing natural gas resources. then i want to take part of the royalties from offshore and use it to modernize the charleston and the georgetown harbors, in particular charleston has to be modernized, because the panama canal is going to be widened in 2014, and the next generation ships are too big to go in the current harbor. the port of charleston is every fifth job in south carolina is affected by the port. so it's really, really important. now, the next stage is to reform the corps of engineers

who currently say it will take eight years to study how to improve the port. and i remind people that we won the second world war in three years and eight months. so you can go to newt.org and create new manufacturing jobs and the right policy for new manufacturing jobs. we'll use energy to create jobs, and we'll use energy to pay for improving the port, which will create more jobs. and i want to come back as president, and i want to be at the port of charleston to watch the first large container ship carrying south carolina manufactured goods to china to be sold in wal-mart in china.

all of this can happen, and it starts here tomorrow, so please, tonight and tomorrow morning, tell all your friends and neighbors, if they're conservatives, the only effective conservative vote to stop a massachusetts moderate is to vote for me. that's what all the polls are saying now, and if every conservative in the state decided to vote for newt gingrich, we would win a shockingly big victory tomorrow, and that would be good, because conservatism needs to come back, and in the reagan tradition, we need to first shock the country and then shock washington, then put everybody back to work. and once again, prove to the world that we really are an extraordinary country. [applause] again, a apologize for running late. it's going to be a little bit tricky because of all the people over there, but i'd like to take some questions. i think we have a microphone here. do we have a microphone in that room too? how many microphones do we

have? why don't you go into that room? because we have a feeling they are participating, even if it's five miles away. why don't you find people here? that lady gets to go first. it's kind of long, and i've actually cut it in half. how do you plan to convince generations of people who were born and raised on government entitlements that they have not and will not prosper when they so obediently settle for a democrat-designed life of poverty, forever dependent on what government tells them they can have? how can you get this growing group of americans to believe in themselves and not the government to trust in their own talents and abilities and not uncle sam, to work at a job where they can climb the ladder of advancement, earning a better and better salary, instead of living at the mercy of some overstuffed, faceless bureaucracy? thank you. >> that's a good question.

i'll just give you a glimpse of it. i was with congressman j.c. watts, great leader, earlier today. again, he came up with a story. when he was about 8 years old, lived in a rural small town area, and he his best friend got a job at the school. and their job was to go in an hour early and to set all of the tables for the cafeteria. and in return for doing that, she got free food. and they thought that was really cool. i mean, they could eat all they want, and they'd earned it. and so i have talked about the idea that the very poorest neighborhoods, we ought to try to find ways for poor children to have work at the school. if you take a new york city janitor -- because they're unionized -- they pay more to the janitor than the teachers. and so, they have five or six per school so. if you just took one janitor,

you could hire 30 kids for $3,000 each. now, they could do light janitorial work. i mean, i'll be upfront here. i don't think pushing a mop or sweeping with a broom is inappropriate work for an 11 or 12 or 13-year-old. i don't think working in the cafeteria is inappropriate work, learning how to do the dishes is a good thing. my mother made me learn how to do t. we had several conflicts over it. she convinced me in a very direct and surprisingly powerful way that i would learn how to do it, right? and here's why the left in all of history is always in trouble and why freedom keeps coming back. people like to be independent. people like to have their money in their pocket so no one can tell them what to do. and i believe we can wean 90% of the people who are currently

dependent into independence. again, the example i gave you with unemployment compensation. i think there are going to be surprisingly few people who fight the idea -- only the unions will fight the idea that unemployment compensation ought to have an education requirement attached to it. everyone else is going to say, well, you know, that's probably right. if i can't find a job right now, maybe i need to learn something new and be able to do it better. but this is also a fight we're going to have as a country. i want to create the right to choose a personal social security savings account, not for requirement. i want to keep the current system, anybody who wants the current system is right there. but if you're a young person and you would like to be able to keep and save and invest the money, and you realize that in two places we've tried it, galveston, texas, and the country of chile, the average person with a savings account has two to three times as much money as they would get from a government program. now, the first time they work part-time puts that money in,

and what we do is let them put their half of the social security tax in a savings account, the other half would go in to pay for social security for everybody else. first time they do it, they're going to notice in a couple of that is month it's -- in a couple of months that it's growing. they're going to go, oh, it's growing, i need more money. a generation will change its behavior because they'll see it. i'm an optimist. i believe most americans -- in fact, my central campaign theme on economics is simple. you have today the finest food stamp president in american history in barack obama. i would like to be -- more people are on food stamps than any time in american history. i would like to be the finest paycheck president in history. and i'm happy -- i'll go into any neighborhood, i'll go before any group, i'll talk to anybody of any background, and

i believe in virtually every part of american -- every part of america. more parents want their children to be independent and have a food stamp and be dependent. that's my answer. how about somebody over there? >> hi, mr. speaker. thank you for being here today. when obamacare was passed, part of the provision of that bill was direct lending, which consolidated federal student aid lending under the department of education. when you are president, will you repeal the entire bill, including direct lending, and allow student lending to go back to the private banks so that interest rates will go up, tuition will go down? >> well, the answer is yes for a couple of reasons. first of all, it tells you what a totally rigged political deal it was that obamacare included taking over all of student loans and nationalizing it into government. what they do not score in washington is the likelihood of fraud if the federal government runs the program. now, we know in medicaid that over 10% of all payments are

fraud. and my brother randy used to actually be a student loan investigator for the state of pennsylvania. because when you have people, for example, who became doctors who borrowed hundreds of thousands of doctors, it was a real challenge. every once in a while you decide somebody who's going to be clever and not pay back the loans. so that was part of his job. and he will tell you that having the private sector responsible for what it did in the long run is dramatically cheaper than having a government bureaucracy responsible for it. >> the reason i asked is because federal student fraud investigation is what i do full-time, so i was just wondering -- >> so am i >> oh, 100%. >> good. any other reporters who are here who would like to talk to him, because if he thinks i'm 100% right, that's sufficiently unnerving for large parts of washington that we should not lose that.

we have a mic, somebody over here with a mic? why don't you start walking toward the back and pick the first person who raises their hand? >> thank you. we only know what we hear and read, but i'd like to know your stance on the national right to work law. >> sure. i would sign a national right to work law. i think -- today, you have a federal compulsory unionism law and states can opt out. if you eliminate the federal law, then states that want to could create a compulsory unionism in their state. you would not have an automatic bias towards compulsory unionism. i suspect over half the states currently have andrulls are you unionism would not, in fact, adopt it once they were faced with that choice because it is so clear that it kills jobs, and it's so clear that there's a reason boeing came here.

there's a reason v.m.w. came here. the fact is that right to work states are much more competitive than compulsory union states. well, i would encourage passing a law that eliminates the vision. i wouldn't prohibit a state that wanted to from adopting it at the state level. but i would eliminate it as a national thing so that every state would be right to work, unless they wanted to voluntarily, for their state, become a compulsory union state. >> hi, i'm a senior citizen, and i am on medicare, and i would like to know what are your plans for us as senior citizens to be able to continue to receive medicare and not have to pay such high co-payments. as far as medical supplies now, i'd like to know what your stand is for senior citizens. >> a couple of things. first, by repealing obamacare, we would return $500 billion to

medicare, which has been taken from it in order to pay for obamacare. so we would strengthen medicare at that level. second, i wrote a book several years ago, i wrote the introduction to a book called "stop paying the crooks," because over 10% of the medicare and med tied payments go literally to the crooks, like a dentist in new york who filed 982 charges a day. we save that money, that's something like $70 billion to $120 billion a year we could save, which, again, would strengthen medicare. third, i would apply the concept of a signal, which is the managing system that both b.m.w. and boeing use norned to modernize things to reduce costs. we need to have the same driving cost reduction in the health system that we have in manufacturing. we have to understand, how do we take waste? we were down at the children's hospital in charleston. they're talking about how much time and energy they waste trying to get specific approvals for things that are totally obvious, and that it can days of a doctor's time to

get the paperwork done, not to deal with the patient, but to get the paperwork done. all of that is an added cost. finally, i am very much for tort reform. we did a study at the center for transformation, and with the gallup poll people asked questions, and they came up with the belief that up to $800 billion a year is defensive medicine, done for the purpose of being able withstand a lawsuit. that is ridiculous, and that would enable us to give you better care. let me have one or two more questions. >> mr. speaker, we've all heard how our big cost in medicare is killing the country. and especially obesity is a problem we find in our national government. one way that i think could reduce this obesity is that all elected or appointed officials

retiring from the government would not be compensated further for the services they have received in any form. would you support such a move or would you not? >> i have to think about t. basically you're saying they should not have a pension. yeah. well, i think that the pension they should have would be a defined contribution pension, which they should put the money in so they can build up their own pension. but it shouldn't be a pension that is paid for by the taxpayers the rest of their life. >> thank you, mr. speaker, for coming. my name is david lake. i was born and raised in orangeburg, south carolina. till recently i was living in san francisco completely a masters of science there. while i was there, i helped in several summer camps with san francisco high school students. about a quarter of the students in the high schools in the city of san francisco are illegal

immigrants here, undocumented persons. you've recently -- or you have before said that you believe that there should be some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, and you said there should be some way of distinguishing between people that were worn here, been here a long time, and people that have recently immigrated here. if you were to become president, how would you implement this without creating essentially two classes of citizens? >> well, first of all, they're not citizens. so the question is whether or not some people who have been here 25 years who are married, who have children and grandchildren, who have been paying their bills and work for the last 25 years, whether they should have a residency permit, but i am opposed to anybody who came here illegally getting citizenship. i think that that's entirely wrong. the only exception i would make is if young people, the ones you are dealing with, were willing to join the american military and serve the united states, in which case they should be eligible for the same

opportunity for citizenship that a foreign-born person would get if they joined the american military and served in the united states. that's the only exception i would make toward citizenship. my position on immigration is very straight forward. i don't think it can be comprehensive. bush couldn't pass a comprehensive bill. obama couldn't pass a comprehensive bill. it gets too big. you get too many opponents. you can't get it done. so you have to take a series of steps. the first step is pretty clear -- control the border. we're drafting a bill right now that would waive all federal regulations and would assign a person to be in charge of getting the border under control by january 1, 2014. now, if you take the attitude and the drive we had in world war ii, you can get this done. in addition, i have said that of the 23,000 department of homeland security employees who live in washington, i would be willing to move up to half of them to texas, new mexico, and arizona if that's what you want to do to have enough people on the border patrol to be able to control the border. so one, you control the border.

two, you make english the official language of government so it's clear what we're doing. three, you actually improve the legal visa system so it is easier to come here legally, for example, to be a tourist or to do business or to go to school. we make it really hard to come here legally and really easy to come here illegally. i mean, it should be the exact opposite. four, you make it much easier to deport people if they shouldn't be here. if i find somebody who is a member of ms-13, an el salvadorian gang, if they're not an american citizen, get them out of the country in two weeks. there's no reason to give them all the benefits of the american legal system if they're here illegally, they're not a citizen, and they're a threat to us. you want to make deportation easier. then you want to create a guest worker program. so if the economy does create opportunities, people could

apply legally. i would have the guest worker program run by american express, visa, or master card, because they actually could run it with minimum fraud, where the federal government is hopelessly incompetent incident. once you set that up, you then dramatically increase the penalty of employers for hiring somebody illegally. you say we're not going to tolerate it anymore. now, at that point, you've created an environment where it's very difficult to get a job. most people who are here illegally will go home. the one group i've talked about are people who have been here a long time who are parents and grandparents, who may well belong to your church. what i've said, is we ought to go back and take the world war ii draft board model. we ought to create a citizen review board in every county, which citizens are doing it. we ought to say, if you can prove you've been paying your bills, if you can prove you have family ties that are real, and if you can get an american family to sponsor you, we would then give you a residency

permit. we would not -- it's not a step towards citizenship. if you want to apply to become a citizen, you have to go back to your home country and file, and you would be exactly on that date like anybody else, and you'd wait as many years as it took for your right to citizenship to come up. but in the interim, you would have a residency. my goal is real simple -- i want to eliminate anyone in the united states being here outside the law. i want to have a system that i believe -- i believe this system is doable. i think we can actually pass the system. i know some of my friends want to deport everybody. i'll just ask to you think about it. how likely are the american people to send police out to pick up grandmothers and grandfathers? how likely are those people to end up in churches as sanctuaries? how big a mess is it likely to get emotionally? so i'm trying to find an honest, straight forward, slightly complicated, because that's the real world, solution that i believe we could actually implement and which, within three or four years,

make this a fundamentally legal country and eliminate all this illegality stuff, which is totally, in my judgment, uncentral. one last point about illegal immigration. on the very first day i am inaugurated, i will instruct the attorney general to drop the lawsuit against south carolina, arizona, and alabama. i want to encourage states to help us enforce the law, and i would move to cut off all federal funding to any sanctuary city which refused to enforce the laws of the united states. please, in the next few hours, tell your friends and neighbors, if we get every conservative to decide that newt gingrich is the right person to stop a massachusetts moderate, we will win by a surprising margin, that will set the stage for us to win the

nomination. that will set the stage for the debates with obama. the debates for obama will be something you build parties around. it will be fun. you will enjoy it. that will enable us to win the presidency, and then we'll get this country back in the right track. callista and i would love to shake your hands individually. because there's so many people, and because we're already running late and we don't want to compound it even more, it's very hard to take pictures or sign things, but we would love to see you and at least shake your hand and talk to you briefly. thank you all very, very much. ♪ only in america ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, live, "washington journal." then the house debate on racing

the debt ceiling. after that, house republicans react to the president's decision to reject the keystone x.l. pipeline project. >> if you have a saudi prince who is part of the royal family of saudi arabia who effectively bought one of the largest news franchises into the world, you have to look at what are his motives? >> diana west writes about culture, politics, and the spread of islam in the western world. >> i think there's an argument that should be made that fox should register as a foreign agent given the role of its corporate structure. >> more with syndicated columnist, diana west, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> this morning, south carolina republican party chairman chad connelly previews today's g.o.p. presidential primary in his state. .