To me they seem to confine it to being able to have your religious views in church or in temple or wherever you worship on sunday or wherever, whenever you worship, and thats it as opposed to living out your religious views 24 hours a day seven days a week. I think the real assault is on religious liberty. I think the hobby lobby case where the green family was threatened with over a Million Dollars in fines if they didnt want to pay for adortafations was correctly decided. I wish there had been a 90 ruling. This is the latest assault on religious liberty. You see it in the case that was decided with the administration, the case of a lutheran school, went in and tried to argue there was no ministerial exemption that had long been recognized in the employment laws. When you think about that, whats dangerous, they didnt have to claim that in simply deciding that case. They could have gone with a much more narrow argument. Instead the government was claiming there was no protection for churches to select who gets to teach the gospel, minister the gospel in their settings. They didnt even have to argue that to argue the case. I think that was a very dangerous im glad now think about that. It was decided 90 against the administration. Every Supreme Court justice from left to right agreed that the administration over reached. What was worrisome to me, what scared me is the administration tried to make the argument it made and it shouldnt have made that argument. I was glad the court turned it down. I think the bigger issue is this assault on religious liberty. The president spoke eloquently at the National Prayer breakfast about defending the rights of christians overseas. Did a beautiful job. That is a shooting war, not a silent war on religious liberty as we see here at home. Im not trying to con fillet the two. For many of us it was shocking to hear him speak so eloquently about what was happening overseas and the rights and protections of christians overseas while ignoring what is happening here at home. Religious liberty im sorry the United States did not create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States. It was the reason our country, one of the fundamental reasons our country was founded. It is also by the way the foundation for that without religious liberty there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of association. I think there is a growing issue in terms of this assault on religious liberty. I would say this. My final thought on this is that my hope would be even those that may not share the same conservative social views as evangelical christians or other believers who happen to be right now at the forefront of the religious liberty fight, my hope would be that they would, even if they disagreed with their particular views, would still fight for the ability of those individuals to live their views and say, you know, we may not agree with your views on marynell or whatever the issue is but we do think in this country its right, you have the ability to live your right according to your views, your sincerely held religious views. Weve always held that as a country. I would hope this is something that would mobilize folks across the political spectrum and is not simply an issue for crips or republicans. I would hope there would be a broad bipartisan consensus we live in a country that values religious liberty for all folks. Not just evangelical christians. They just happen to be the ones right now who feel their rights are being infringed upon and are speaking up right now. I think religious liberty is a very important issue. Lauren . Thanks governor for being here. In august the cbo recorded medicare spending had declined significantly. Where does that leave leaders in the party outlining specific plans to curb the cost of entitlements . Does that undermine the longterm republican argument that the entitle mentreforms are necessary . Not at all. I think part of the challenge in reforming medicare and the entitle mentprograms, unfortunately this town is addicted to fiveyear, tenyear cbo scoring windows. Its not a recent phenomenon. You see all the different gimmicks that have been done to try to get, to make policies that may have a shortterm impact that really dont longterm impact the trajectory of the program. Look at medicare specifically. You look at the part a trust fund, the actuarial reports, not just the shortterm cbo reports, we still have a program that is in incredible distress that faces longterm challenges if we want to and we do if we want to continue to sustain and preserve this program for not only our parents and grandparents but for future generations as well. The challenge within the debate here in d. C. Is if you look at everything in five and tenyear scoring windows you get a lot of bandaids but you never address the real problem. The greater problem is medicare is still growing. Costs are still growing faster than Economic Growth. You still have a program where u doan the the baby boomers have not yet become, not yet gotten to the age as a cohort where theyre going to be consuming their most consuming even more medical resources than they are today. In the future youll see baby boomers consuming even more medical resources as they get older and have more health care needs. Were just at the front of the tidal wave thats going to change the program. So, no. I think, look. Certainly in the short term it is good news that the growth rate slows down but in the longer term you still face part a trust limits, going to run out of money long before baby boomers are getting health care. You still face the program where the costs are rising more quickly than Economic Growth. You have a program that is not efficient or responding to the needs of its members. Its not very nimble in adopting new technology, new procedures. It is not very responsive in providing the best quality care to its members. Now, medicare has done many important things and so i think its important to continue the program but also important to improve it. So proposals i look forward, for example, the specific descriptions of premium support i put forward would allow both taxpayers and beneficiaries to save money while improving the program. I think the urgency is still there and i think that it will be important for leaders in both parties to come together. I will say if you go back and this is just indulging me to speak a little bit about my history, back in the 1990s with the Medicare Commission there was a willingness to work across party lines. We werent able to get that bill passed but you had senators like broh and frist working together on legislation. You had senators kerry and broh on the commission working the republican colleagues. You had folks like the dlc endorsing premium support. So you had folks willing to work across the aisle at that time. Republicans on the commission at that time were willing there was not a part d. They were willing to add prescription drugs to the medicare program. You had democrats willing to add premium support into the program. Some democrats as part of an overall approach. I think there is a path forward. I do think its going to require strong leadership from the white house and leadership in both parties to work together. That was possible in the 1990s. I think its possible and necessary again. Katy from politico . Thank you, governor. Seven weeks ago you criticized president obama for not having inaudible] hat do you make sure. A couple things. Absolutely i think congresss support of the administrations request for funding as well as authorized the use of air strikes and other force against isis, right now i think there is they are in the process of approving that request especially air strikes against isis whether in syria or iraq. Look, this is a terrorist group that threatens american interests, western interests. I was critical. I am critical of the president s rhetoric and policies. His delays allowed this group to gather strength. His strategy of leading from behind has made america weaker, the world more dangerous. After the barbaric beheading of mr. Foley the reporter he was eloquent in expressing the nations grief but, unfortunately, the president , was very eloquent in expressing the nations grief but grief isnt a strategy. He talked about containing isis, talked about iraq expelling isis. What i wanted to hear him say was we need to hunt them down and kill them. He did not say that. I think that his diggettering, delaying has allowed them to gather land and resources and get Even Stronger and pose a greater threat to the United States and our allies. If speeches were the same as results wed have the best president in the history of the country. Unfortunately theyre not. Wed have the best Foreign Policy in a generation. Unfortunately we do not. The president has been very eloquent. Unfortunately, his actions havent backed that up. In terms of where we are today i think its incumbent upon the president to present a plan i personally think by the way he has the authority in his role to do limited attacks and strikes to defend our country. I think it is right for him to go to congress to make his case to the American People to get the broader authority. So im glad theyre in the process of doing that. I think it is incumbent upon him to share a strategy with the congress, with the American People about how well eliminate this threat, not just contain it, not just degrade it. How were going to hunt them down and kill them. I think theres ban lot of discussion about the international coalition, partners, what theyre willing to do, what theyre not willing to do. Its better to have a coalition than not, better to have allies helping us especially when you look at cutting down the financing available to the group, controlling the borders, providing intel and other resources. At the end of the day America Needs to be willing to lead. I think the more that our allies see america is willing to lead, more than likely they are going to be wanting to join a coalition. The challenge weve got now with this administrations approach to Foreign Policy is our friends dont trust us. Our enemies dont fear us. There is no doubt in my mind that putin, russia would not be in the crimea, meddling in the ukraine if they truly feared, respected the folks in the white house. There is no doubt in my mind at it had an impact when his first year the president unilaterally withdrew the missile interceptors based in poland and wouldnt allow georgia a quick ascension back into nato in the first year, when they offered the reset to russia, when this president later drew a red line in syria and there werent consequences when they crossed the red line. Not the promised consequences he threatened. I think when this administration didnt whole heartedly support israel in their fight against hamas, a recognized terrorist group, all that cumulatively has consequences. I think our allies and our enemies are watching. My greatest concern when it comes to Foreign Policy is what takeaway message does iran take from watching americas approach to Foreign Policy . It is a threat to us, to our allies, to the world for iran to become a nuclear power. We cannot allow that to happen. My worry is what risk for war calculation are they making based on our unwillingness to date to follow through . America must lead. A stronger america leads to a more peaceful world. Ironically, a stronger america leads to fewer deployments of american troops. Thats not just a slogan but actually true. I wish this administration would believe that and practice that. Yes, i do think congress would support the request to fund the training of moderate rebels in syria as well as the strikes on targets and the strikes against isis whether in syria or iraq. I do think they should approve the funding and the resolution that theyre requesting. Howard . Governor, i want to ask a couple science questions. I thought you said at the beginning its been a while. Im a biology major. I know youre a biology major. Did you say at the beginning the administration or are science deniers . I did. What did you mean . I think there are several examples of their approach to energy policy. For example, its been over five years since the Keystone Pipeline theyve been studying their own administration, their own state Department Says there would be no Material Impact on the environment to approve it yet they keep delaying. They keep denying approval to our, one of our closest allies, who simply wants to sell us crude oil then buy back some of that as refined product helping our economy and their economy. There is no scientific no factual basis for this to continue to be delayed other than pure politics. When you look at their approach to funding, the conservatives used to like to say government should pick winners and losers. This administration, theyre just picking losers. You look at solyndra and some of the companies they funded they have an awful record in terms of what type of energy seems like the only type of Energy Sources they want to fund are those that are expensive and wont succeed. Third, you look at their approach to the epa for example and the recent co 2 rules. Even if you agree with the premise of the massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, look at what theyre doing in louisiana. For example they proposed a 40 reduction from our power plants in louisiana. We are about when you look at louisiana a biggest source of electricity of natural gas, relatively clean burning, we have nearly 20 , which is nuclear. Were not a high coal burning state. When we asked the epa where did you come up with 40 . We have one of the highest target reductions compared to other states in the country, they couldnt explain the rationale. Its not like we have low hanging fruit, not like we have older plants we can easily replace, modernize, or upgrade. Again, we already significantly relied on natural gas and nuclear. There was no basis for the 40 reduction. When you look at their approach to the other question about the environment, simply shipping, for example, under this administrations policies, were now exporting 10 of our coal, china and other countries are burning it. Does nothing to help the environment. Its hurting our economy. How is that fact based or science based . How is that a science based approach . Even if you believe their premise that what theyre addressing is a real needs to be addressed . I asked whether you personally believe that human activity well two parts. Do you think that the earth is the climate is changing and earth is warming . Do you believe human activity had something to do with that . One, the climate is absolutely changing. And the question is how much is it changing . What are the consequences of that change . Secondly, yeah. Its not controversial to say human activity is contributing in some way to change certainly. In terms of how much and how serious that is, let the scientists decide that. Politicians dont need to decide that. As we address it, and again ill quote krauthammer. You dont have to be a Climate Change believer or denier to actually believe that it cant be good for us to be if there is nothing wrong in terms of wanting to reduce emissions coming out of our common industry. Do you personally believe that human activity is leading to changes in the global sure. I would hope its not controversial. Im sure human activity is impacting the climate. I would leave it to the scientists to decide how much, what that means, you know, what are the consequences. Isnt there pretty much of a consensus on that among scientists . Again, my plan is not trying to litigate that but saying to the extent were addressing that we should be doing it in concert with International Partners and competitors, that the actions this administration has taken, one, dont actually improve the environment and hurt our economy, simply exporting coal to other countries to burn doesnt change. Even if you accept everything they believe, even if you say, look. I believe everything they believe. Simply exporting coal to other countries doesnt do anything. Exporting Energy Intensive jobs, if new corps makes that steel overseas rather than america theyre going to be making it in countries with looser environmental laws than america. My point is let the scientists debate and figure that out. The political policy perspective should be we should address that in concert with our International Competitors and trading partners. China now emits again more co 2 than america and all other countries in the western hemisphere combined. How in the world does it make sense to export more jobs . That isnt going to help the environment. If anything, its going to make the environment worse when they go my science question is, do you personally believe that the theory of evolution explains the presence of complex life on earth . The reality is i was not an evolutionary biologist. What i believe as a father and a husband is that local schools should make decisions on how they teach and we can talk about common core and why i dont believe in a national curriculum. I think local School Districts should make decisions about what should be taught in their classrooms. I want my kids to be exposed to the best science, the best critical thinking, whether evolutionary biology do you think the theory of evolution is the best scientific thinking on the development of complex life on earth . I would tell you as a father id want my kids to be taught about evolution in their schools. But secondly, i think local School Districts should make the decision im asking what you think. I told you what i think. I think that local School Districts not the federal government should make the decision of how they teach science, biology, other subjects in their classrooms. I want my kids taught about evolution. I want my kids taught about other theories as well. Okay. Go ahead. Im trying to get in a couple more. We have about seven minutes left. Miles . Are blowing an uncertain trumpet, you say let the scientists decide. Doesnt a leader have to take a position at some point . When is enough science enough to make a move one way or another . Are you neither a believer nor a denier