first, those charged with protecting our securities have a duty to understand and to teach others under their authority what the basic tenants are of the people trying to destroy our way of life. in past conflicts that may not always have been self-evident. perhaps it was not necessary when is we fought the axis powers in germany and japan to understand all the ins and outs of naziism and fascism and the shinto religion. we could simply blast the countries to smithereens as we did because the evil had tats home base there, but it was much more necessary to understand the enemy when we fought comenism as whit ter chambers taught us even when it was centered principally in the soviet union. also those charged with protecting us have a responsibility to avoid strengthening the hand of those trying to undermine our way of life by relying them on as our prol interlok cue tors in the muslim community. again, care, is a branch of hamas and of the muslim

brotherhood. islam, the islam. >> society of north america is another brank of the brotherhood. the muslim brother hood traces itself back to said kudup. its motto is allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader. the koran is our law. jihad is our way. dying in the faith of al law is our highest hope. now if those are the people we empower by relying on them and reaching out to them, we not only dang ourselves by giving them entry into the upper reaches of our political system but we correspondingly strengthen them in the islamic community weaken more moderate voices. in addition, those charged with protecting us have a duty to avoid self-sensorship and self delusion that can delude others, as well. for example, the after action report on major nadal hassan's

massacre as fort hood does not mention the word islam. the army chief of staff said the greatest tragedy would be if it had a negative effect on the army's diversity program. john brennan, a principal national security adviser on counter-terrorism advisor to president obama, told an audience at the center for strategic and international studies -- this is a deep thinker talking to others, he said that violent extremists attacking the united states are products of "political, economic and social forces" and should not be described in religious terms because to do so would create the mistaken impression that we are at war with islam and there be give creeddance to al qaeda propaganda. products of little, economic and social forces? let's review the bidding. osama bin laden was a millionaire many times over. his successor, and also the folks who planned and carried out the 2007 attack at the

glasgow airport are physicians. the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack are well educated. >> abdul mutallab who tried to blow up himself and fellow passengers on chris day in 2009 is the son of a former economics minister of nigeria. products of economic and social forces? i mentioned john brennan and the attorney general not because they are unique but because they are perfect symbols of the kind of solve headed did i have dense that has infected the discourse of public figures. not that this is new to the point of being unprecedented. it isn't it the smart set in the 1920s ridiculed the lifestyles of the bu jaw see. anti-anti-communist was fashionable in some circles in the 1950s. a great liberal judge learned hand often called the greatest appellate judge ever to sit said in address called the spirit of liberty that is quoted so often

it's shop worn that the spirit of liberty is the spirit, that is not too sure that it is right. well, that may be if not exactly true, at least an affordable indulgence at times. it may even have been an affordable indulgence at the time he said it in the late spring of 1944 when victory against the ism of that day was pretty well certain if not almost around the corner. but today when up against people are sufficiently sure they are right to fly airplanes intoables, we had he best make certain that the spirit of liberty is sure enough that it is right and that those responsible for protecting us are sure enough that it is right to keep that spirit and us alive. i thank you very much for the honor of speaking to you.

>> you may recall i introduced the judge by mentioning his moral compass being infallible. he's agreed, we have a few minutes and we can take two or three questions, if you'd like. yes, sir. >>. >> i'm from pakistan. [ inaudible question ] i'm from. [ inaudible question ] i've been coming to the united states since 1975.

i and other people understand -- we must respect christians because we're all people of hope. respect for others is in the book of god. we respect the book of god. we must distinguish between islam and the fanatics of islam who are everywhere in the world. since 9/11, i have been at the forefro forefront -- against al qaeda and the taliban. each of the ambassadors in

pakistan -- because i nknow tha [ inaudible question ] tunisia, and -- this fonotiism has been created by saudi arabia. and just as the nazis were not taken on and they killed seven million innocent jews, and they killed millions of other people in the same way here through

terrorism, the small band of people who call themselves muslims but are not muslims, they are satanic, they want to hold countries like pakistan as hostage. we must therefore open the -- my closest friend in the world are jews. so we must learn to distinguish between religion -- we must learn to distinguish between islam which is a religion and the people who misuse this name to spread terror all over the world. i love your country. i've been here many, many times since '75. i had the pleasure of knowing senior president bush.

i was here as a guest by your speaker tip o'neill in '75. i've had the pleasure of meeting president nixon. but as a great friend of your great nation, and also as a great friend of israel, which i respect enormously, which was created by jews who were denied their rights whose spirit was their people, nazis tried to crush their spirit. evil at the highest form was evident in germany at that time. >> i'm sorry, but i have to ask, do you have a question? >> my question is this. yes, i have a question. yes, i have a question. >> please ask it. >> my point is this, that we must not mix religion with fanatics. thank you.

>> two things. first of all, i believe explicitly in my talk i said i was distinguishing between islam anise lammism. the movement. of several times. second, if you don't know the dr. jasser r, you should. you and he would get along very well. i don't want to get into a debate about which sewer raz come first and which come later on. you and i both know that the people who are misusing your religion are quoting from the same koran that you quoted from when they call people desend"s of apes and biggs and so for the. the line has to be drawn someplace and people like you and dr. jasser will be the people to draw it, people like me can't be the people to draw it. i'm very heartened to see you here today. thank you very much.

[ applause ] >> yes, thank you, judge, judge general. >> michael. >> michael. just call me paul. anyway, i think your remarks were great and i hope we'll be able to post that on their website so we can share that will with our colleagues. >> i hope someone will also post the remarks of the gentleman who spoke and my response to him because i think that will properly conveys the spirit of the entire occasion. >> great. >> i think that's right. mine is more of a mundane question. with respect to the history of prosecuting the terrorists you talked about the blind sheik, latif and mutallab, et cetera, and of course, the military review commissions in guantanamo. what is your view in terms of whether or where these terrorists or enemy combatants should be tried in the criminal court, military review

commissions or do we need a hybrid specialized court like the fisa court to handle these occasions. >> i think the hybrid court is the answer. right now it's either civilian courts or military commissions. i think civilian courts are the wrong place for a variety of reasons. both moral because the -- the rules of war have been developed over centuries. so that if you will wear a uniform, you carry your arms openly, you follow a recognized chain of command and most important, you don't target civilians, then you're entitled to the protection of the geneva conventions. you can be held to the conclusion of hostilities. what this says is that if you violate all of those rules in particular you target civilians, we've got an even better deal for you. we take you to a civilian court where you're tried in public and have a platform for your views. and you can have a lawyer try to

mislead a jury. on the other hand, military commissions, we've had military commissions in the past. we've had them since the revolution. but we've never done it long-term. and i don't know that the military's heart is really in it. this is not -- the military is not there to run a parallel justice system. it's there to win wars. you win wars by blowing stuff up and killing people, which is what you're supposed to do and what they do very well. you don't win wars by running a parallel justice system, particularly a justice system that is one where society is offloading an unpleasant problem and telling you please deal with it out of our sight. think what's called for is a third kind of tribunal as you said like the fisa court that would be created by congress, ideally presided over by article 3 judges so that people the

would have faith in the proceedings with jurors drawn from the military as military commission jurors are now. and trials held using rules of evidence that would allow evidence to be introduced that's gathered on the battlefield so you don't have to necessarily comply with all of the rigors of the federal rules of evidence. congress doesn't show any sign of doing that. yes? >>. >> mr. attorney general, i've had the privilege of teaching the origins of terrorism for rollins college so i appreciate your remarks very much. it's much misunderstood. first of all, how do you respond judicially to judges who attempt to adopt sharia law by use of the -- of contracts between private individuals who agree that sharia law will adjudicate their controversies and my second follow-up is, how do you

objectively, what do you project for the incursion of shahrial law into the judiciary of this country? >> okay, that so far as providing for shahrial law is a basis for decision, if you're talking about a commercial case, then in theory, there's no reason why you can't do that. if two parties agree that and they want to go arbitrate in front of an arbitrator and agree to take that arbitrator's decision, then rules that apply under sharia law will apply. there's no reason to avoid that. we do it in other settings, as well. stuck choose foreign law to govern an arbitration if there's an actual connection and both parties agree. so far as sharia law getting into the basis for decision in u.s. law, it's happened a couple of times. it's been turned around a couple of times. there's a famous judge in new jersey who dismissed charge against the defendant who raped

his wife because he thought it was legally permissible for him to do that under his religion. and the judge said, well, gee, you know he patriotics a different religion and there ever, this is a defense and he dismissed the case. an appellate court turned that around. i don't think we're in any actual danger of having that happen. that's not to say that courts shouldn't be aware of it and deal with it. i think the problem is when you get enclaves in which not everybody has a choice about what law applies, but if you live in the enclave, the enclave's rules control, that's what's going on in europe and that is what i think we want to avoid. yes. >> senator schumer has recommended [ inaudible question ] will you comment on her qualifications? >> sure, she's a -- she's a superb lawyer. and a superb person.

i've worked with her on a number of cases, and i think she would make us an excellent addition to the federal bench. she is a good, sound, common sense lawyer with her head screwed onto the front. which is what you need in a district judge. she's also not easily bored which is also what you need, which is also what you need in a successful district judge. >> i've noticed in junior high and high school -- >> i worked with her and i think the world of her. >> i thank you all. the clock has told us it's time to move on. [ applause ] >> one of the things that i always remember because my

office overlooked the building in the plaza, was the plaza, there was a daycare center at the plaza and, of course, some of the children were killed, others injured. during their recess periods they would always play out here in the plaza and you would hear their vois. that left a lasting impression, of course, when they were sigh lanes. . my son, a dear friend of his in high school had graduated and was working with the social security office and her father was a good friend of mine. when i got home that will morning, i had three different messages first of all wanting to know what he could find out about his daughter, secondly that it didn't look good and the third message was when he was crying. >> watch our local content vehicle's next stop, exploring the history and literary culture of oklahoma city with special airings the weekend of may 5th and 6th on book tv and on american history tv on c-span3.

>> just go with -- >> now a conference about the u.s. economy and housing market hosted by the national community reinvestment coalition. we'll hear from joseph smith, the man charged with overseeing a $25 billion mortgage settlement reached between 49 states and five banks. also speaking former new orleans mayor marc morial and former ceo of fannie mae, franklin raines. this is about an hour 40 minutes. >> but thank you all for coming. it's going to be difficult. i hope most of you have had a chance to eat your entree already. just to show you they don't favor the head table, ours didn't show up. so our guests are starving. perhaps they'll it be more animated in this conversation. soful c-span is ready and the other cameras, are we ready? just give me the cue. okay. so i just want to say my name's

john taylor, the president ceo of the national community reinvestment coalition. welcome to this very important discussion about the future of housing in america. ncrc is pleased to welcome a distinguished panel of experts to join us in this critical conversation about housing. home ownership, the mortgage market, about foreclosures our panelists this year include joseph smith, the former banking commissioner of north carolina. he earned critical acclaim -- if you could hold your applause. i know joe wants the applause now. >> it's been great to be with you. >> if you could hold the applause till we get through the introof the six speakers, that would save some time. i appreciate that. so he really received a critical acclaim for his work in enforcing north carolina's anti-predatory lending laws and most importantly he's been appointed by the state's attorney generals to be the

monitor, mr. monitor of their recently approved $25 billion agreement between the ags and five banks. frank raines to my left, franklin raines, former rhoades scholar with a harvard law degree served as the omb director for president clinton and recognized as the first african-american to become a partner of a private wall street firm and best known for being the ceo of fannie mae. to my left also is hubert van tol, the director of economic justice for path stone, an ncra member organization that is provides lending, housing, job training and other services in seven states and puerto rico. he is a current member of the board of directors and conserved on the consumer advisory council. to my far right, mark -- are you laughing at my accent again? >> no, on the far right. >> yes, he is on my far right

because he is from the cato institute. he's the director of financial services studies at cato. and before that, esserved for six years on the senate banking committee working for senator richard shelby is, republican senator from alabama. to my far left, i must have thought about the seating arrangement. diane thompson has represented low income homeowners since 1994, an attorney, she served on the federal reserve boards consumer advisory council, also served on the board of directors of ncrc and currently of counsel to the national consumer law center. marc morial to my right, but misseated i guess if we're being consistent. former mayor of baltimore and now the president. >> new orleans. >> new orleans, sorry, my mistake. >> like the baltimore of louisiana or something. >> let me just say, get used to it. it's not going to be the only one. new orleans, sorry marc.

and but more importantly, for us, he's the president, ceo of the national urban league and under his guidance it's become one of the country's most respected effective, and influential national organizations. so thank you, marc, for joining us. now please help me in welcoming all of them. [ applause ] >> so ncrc is asking the question of whether our country has a continuing commitment to building an inclusive society which all people who are willing to work hard, play by the rules, regardless of gender, race, age, or physical challenges that we have the opportunity to build a safe and comfortable future for themselves and for their families. the pressing problems of massive debt, high unemployment and an people innic economic growth have increasingly divided our

country into the warring political camps, if you may, yet the current endless debate between the free market capitalism and government-driven solutions to our economic progress distracts us from reaching real common sense solutions to our biggest economic and social problems. let's consider how deep is our challenge. medium wealth for working class people of all races is declining rapidly. our middle class is in peril and the poor are getting more desperate. first slide, if you would. just to -- i want to show you graphically how this manifests itself. it's over there. i don't know if the cameras are able to capture it. what you're looking at is the wealth disparity between the haves and have nots in this country. this is very much part of the program. the "top 10"% of the households, that's that big piece of that pie over there, 10% of the

households possession 80% of all the financial assets in this country, leaving the 90%, the rest of us and all of america to scramble over the remaining 20% of financial wealth. now next slide. for black households, african-american households this disparity is even more stark with whites having 20 times the wealth of blacks, the medium wealth level, and for hispanics, 18 times the wealth of hispanics. final slide. a similar disparity is true when you look at home ownership rates in the united states. for whites versuss blacks and hispanics. with the exception of the 10% of the population most folks are losing wealth and many at an accelerated rate. i believe that the -- as you can see from the slide that just appeared, the home ownership rate for whites in this country is about 6%, approaching 70% and

for blacks and latinos it's below the 50%. soelts a very significant difference. so as i said, with the exception of that 10% where the wealth continues to grow at an accelerated rate, the rest of the country are disproportionately too many folks are losing wealth and many at an accelerated rate. is it any wonder that movements like wall street -- am i doing something wrong, occupy wall street or the tea party even, the rebuild a dream movement and other such efforts all designed to give voice to those who are worried about their financial security proliferate our landscape. today, our panel will help us understand annen and after you solutions to alleviate some of the persistent drags on the u.s. economy. our housing industrial in crisis. one thing is certain, economic recovery will not occur soon without a housing recovery. the federal reserve bank estimates that american

homeowners have lost over $7 trillion in wealth from their homes alone. in the past few years, over 5 million families have lost their homes to foreclosure creating not only devastating impacts for each of these families but also for their neighbors and their communities as nearly all property values are diminished. there are around 11 million homeowners underwater on their mortgages. let me say that in another way. one out of four households in the united states owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth. in many cases they owe a lot more than it is worth. the estimates are that another 5 million households are heading into foreclosure. economists believe we won't see the beginning of the turn around in housing values where housing property values begin to rise until sometime in 2013. yes, as property values decline, the middle class declines, america declines.

yet, we americans seem to be working harder, longer hours, we're receiving less benefits, lower wages, fewer pensions, less job security, and more are entering the ranks of the unemployed. even social security is on the chopping block. so, people are working harder, earning less and losing wealth in the process. today, after decades of paying on a mortgage, being a good citizen, a responsible borrower, people are finding that their home is not accumulated the equity needed to help them in their retirement. older americans are particularly hard hit by this reality as few have pensions and their plan to use a combination of social security and profit gain from paying down their mortgage will no longer sustain them. and all this comes at a time of record profits for corporation. even i was surprised to read this. in the third quarter of 2011, american corporations earned 1.97, $1.97 trillion in just one quarter in profits.

that's the highest level of profitability for american corporations since world war ii. so all this stuff is going on, and that will 10% is still doing very well and that once again, the top 10% continue to prosper and build their wealth as more americans fall out of the middle class into poverty it, many only a paycheck away from homelessness. so, is it not time for national reckoning of sorts in which our federal and state leaders, our corporate leaders put aside their partisan politics in favor of immediate and real solutions that stimulate our housing markets and create jobs? [ applause ] so, my fellow panelists, please share your immediate thoughts about this challenge. is it really possible for our political leaders, policy makers, decisionmakers for corporate america, can we rise above the muck