the younger feminists can feel the job is done and it's almost uncool to be seen as a feminist. there's also another strand that i also see. women actually, the young women are very, very excited and turned on by the stories of women heros in other countries, as a matter of fact. it's interesting how they are tremendously moved and inspired by the stories of women in independent yashgs pakistan, africa, all these places. many young women are volunteers, they're going overseas, they want to go overseas. they are traveling overseas. i'm sure many of the students here are doing the same. and they feel energized. it's almost as if it takes them seeing the feminine of those women to remind them of what real feminism is. i found the young women in the audience are excited because they have the ability to see

true heros on the stage who are not feeling they have to come out half dressed or -- they are women who are true women, who have actually confronted enormous challenges. i guess because we're an african country the stark differences between those challenges and those women are much less so. the women they see on the stage facing down real cultural difficulties, real repressions, outrageous treatment that is unthinkable here in america. it's like it dramatizes in a sense what feminism is and should be. there is a kind of -- that's a rising thing amongst young women this interest in foreign affairs. they are less interested really in -- the american feminism is a very confused thing. i think a lot of young women are confused and threatened by it, actually. >> there was a gentleman back

there. thank you. >> my name is walker carter. i work for one of the big accounting firms. >> so glad to see you here. >> always good to be here at sais. in the private sector there's discussion about women in developing countries. in a private sector sense, what are some of the things that organizations can do to promote women's leadership? we've been trying to take a forward step but with some degree of limited success in terms of establishing women and leadership roles, women in board positions, the signing on with the u.n. he for she initiative, but it feels like it's the tip of the iceberg. >> what can you do corporately? >> yes. >> i really do feel that the

reason women so often drop out before they get to the top, which a lot of companies complain they invest in women, they feel they are really growing women in the leadership part and they flame out after a certain time. that, i think, is because work is still organized around the male principle, and there is not enough understanding how women's careers often are more in these serial and cycle movements, as if they want to be married and have children. if you make it so impossibly difficult for them to do both, they're going to drop out. they're not going to choose their work over their children most of the time. most of the time they're going to realize for a certain time i tried and tried to balance this out. then they can't. so that many, many women flame out. it's a real, real issue. it's also a real issue for the companies, too. it is hard to create those kind of working conditions. it can be very aggravated at times to have this floating

population. what i do feel is we are going more and more to what i once called the gig economy. where projects and sort of -- you have to be able to have a population like a repertory company where at certain points women can come in and do what they're doing, then they can cycle out again for a bit and come back. they don't feel all the time it has to be this kind of -- unless they're doing this, that it's, that they're failures. they have to be able to move in these kind of circular movements sometimes until such time as their children are older. then they can be in that mode of straight up. i think it's about having a creative look at how your company is dealing with that issue and get input of the women there to see what it would be like for them if they could redesign the company, almost, where they would be able to work

in that way. i think that -- i've certainly found i've been able to keep women a long time by being very understanding often about these needs. trusting them to work in different ways or work in different, have these periods where they can go off and do something else, but still welcome them bockrather than saying, i'm exasperated, why aren't you just doing what you're doing? it's aggravating as an employer, but the only way to keep and grow women without constantly losing them. >> do you think in that case, if the corporation or whatever focuses on output as opposed to facetime. in academia, it allows you to do that. the calendar is more family-friendly. you're off, your children are off. there is an expectation of performance based on different

cry tier why that perhaps the private sector companies -- >> absolutely. with facetime, you should be able to do that more. i think companies are very old fashioned in the way it's structured. >> i've seen the younger generation is doing it, but mostly the men get that break to do it. they sort of can -- they seem to be able to more manage the time, whereas who knows she might be out there making cookies. and they run up against that, those who tried. it's a mindset. >> it is. >> are there any questions? yes. then i'll come back. michael is very involved in women's initiatives. >> i'm a johns hopkins sais alum

and a strong supporter of sais women leaders. you've always been in my era distinctive voice. you always had a distinctive leadership style. that's the way your story is told in the media. could you share with us, was it always thus? how did this story begin? were there women or men who inspired you to take this time? >> men were doing the jobs i wanted, actually. passion just brought me along. you get a passion for something and you don't think about anything except getting it done. i was always driven by that, i guess. which is a desire to tell stories that was overpoweringly strong. how do i do it? where do i do it and with whom do i do it? i do love institution building and i love team building. what i have found is that -- sorry. i didn't even know i have a phone in here.

>> i forgot to say silence your phones. >> yes. i should have done that. >> i really think creating unconventional teams is where it's at. >> what do you mean by that? >> casting teams very much, not just for their capabilities and resumes, but absolutely temperament and yin and yang. i'm very sorry. i have to turn this off. i often actively look for people who play against other people. it's like casting a play. it's like thinking i have this person who is -- for instance, i'm a whirling dervish so i have to have a really strong taurus person there. i literally think like that. i'm thinking where is my taurus to quiet me down, you know?

i can't be effective creatively unless i have that person. if you have too many of those kind of people, it all gets a little dull. it's real between three and five people who are the critical people. i have a very long tolerance for very, very talented people no matter how difficult they are. i have very little tolerance for people who are just okay. obviously, organizations have to have people who are just okay. i'm not good with people who are just okay. i do give a long rope to very talented people who can be very difficult. talent managing is something that is underestimated as a skill, actually. you want to be able to keep your stars all feeling happy and watered and fed and confident. the i'm sometimes shocked how organizations treat their stars. when i say stars, i don't mean the show boats, i mean the

people really gifted. it could be a small thing they're really good at, but nonetheless is critical for the success of the operation. you need to tell that person they're valued. that thing you do so well, it could be someone who is really good at writing captions. captions are really important. in fact when i lost my brilliant caption writer, i spent so long to find somebody who would make it sing. you have to recognize the skills and craft of everything are as important as the big thing. you can make those people feel valued. it is a wonderful result that everybody's involved. it creates annes a -- espirit de

couer. people are so overwhelmed, they just don't answer. that is intolerable. >> it's unacceptable. >> totally unacceptable. if somebody sends an article in and somebody hasn't replied by -- first few hours go by and the writer is sitting there sort of okay. day ends, starting to feel queasy. next morning nothing, starting to feel anxious. by end of the day the next day that person is miserable, angry, bitter, hates you, all the rest of it. another day goes by you're dead. it's irredeemable. you have to be responsive. if you can't, you have a crummy structure. >> i commend you, you are very responsive, very fast. at least with me. >> it burns a hole in my pocket, you know. >> you're back in an instant. >> don't you find people don't answer? you have to ask 20 times. >> it doesn't any more what they are saying. by the time they respond, you

really don't care. there was a gentleman back there. >> i'm with the u.n. alliance civilization institute in istanbul. i was looking around the room and noticed a disproportionate number of other men. how do we recruit other men into this kind of conversation? we talked a little bit about the politics of recognition and who is paid attention to and when we talk about strategically empowering women, i feel like we can't forget that it's about power. and there's tremendous resistance from the other side. how do we or do we bring other men into this kind of event? is it about making more justin trudeaus? is it wearing t-shirts that say "this is what a feminist looks

like?" >> i think we should say every woman has to bring one man with her. i'm bringing men more and more on the stage. i'm introduced to have a man in every second panel to make sure there is a man or moderator who is a man. when the men get in you want to make sure the impact of the conversation isn't excluding one. which is why stories and exciting issue s and engaging action on the stage is very important. men don't want to listen to lb t blutherring about women's power. i don't know what the man equivalent is of empowerment babble. there is other about need to be lift each other up?

it's very important women move beyond that. simply bring their intelligence to what is happening in the world. in a women's event, you should be able to discuss everything that's happening in the world. it's bringing more women's point of view to what is happening in the world as opposed to only caring about what women are doing. let's bring men next time. >> having a seat at the table is the formula. doesn't mean you control the thing, but for so long we've been told that, okay, you're one of the boys. but some of the important change that some men are called an honorary women. we had four ambassadors and he said i'm an honorary female because i believe in the

subject. t it's something we have to work on individually in our own circles. >> i'm creating leaders in the state. william hague has been a tremendous supporter of women. he wrote a book about slavery and it made him understand exactly how appalling it is that sexual trafficking and sexual slavery has become a personal thick for him. it led him on a journey where he feels passionately that the male voice in foreign affairs needs to be there. i read a wonderful piece yesterday actually about why misogyny is intolerable and men have to speak up about it. not in the way, patronizing way we were hearing about, the very good piece frank burney wrote today. it is intolerable for human dignity in every sense. he's a great voice because he is a very smart and influential man. he made this his thing.

we need more william hagues and justin trudeau. it's happening. >> we have one question here. we are getting toward the end. yes, please. >> i'm the libyan ambassador to the united states of america. that isn't an easy job to hold coming from a very conservative middle eastern cosed society. i was also appointed as the first deputy foreign minister in the history of losed society. i was also appointed as the first deputy foreign minister in the history of libya. after our revolution we had a committee to support women decision-making. we were inspired by women leaders around the globe. my observation is that when we look to the world, when we look

to the united states of america, we found that after being in democracy and a lot of, you know, being advanced on a lot of talks and writings of the stuff, after so many years the ratio of women in leadership in the united states, for instance, is one very low compared to so many parts of the world. and this frustrates us because women here have been struggling for so long, yet i think the ratio is about 19.6% or something like this having women in leadership. my question is after our struggle, we realize it's so much not about individual women because when you are strong, you can push and find your way. depends on you just like men. it's about changing a lot of legislations and laws, and

giving some convenience to women like in scandinavian countries where it's about 56% the ratio of women in leadership. it's 50/50, men and women. i'm amazed that this hasn't been done here. >> give me a quota. >> it's a quota, 56%. >> sometimes countries that have been through hell and are broken like in rwanda because a lot of men died. here the structure has been so long in place and so rigid that it's harder to breakthrough. >> i compare you to scandinavian countries. rwanda is a different story. as you said, a lot of men. but like scandinavian countries.

they make men stay home, take care of children. exchange one year by one year for instance when a woman has a baby. they get equal pay, they get a lot of privileges. why that hasn't been done here? why women here haven't fought so hard for this? this is the question i leave with you. thank you. >> america is very different in every way to scandinavia. i think -- including tax. and childcare, all those things. we haven't even got paid family leave. it's absolutely remarkable. only papua and new guinea are in the same category. we may have to get there because it just isn't working. it seems to me nothing is moving in that sense. mate be a quota system is better, but it will be really

fought over very hard. i don't see it passing. it was very hard to pass in germany, and i think merkel delayed it for two years so she didn't have to deal with it. it will be very, very hard to get that passed here. >> especially if there is a female president. that would make it harder. there was a question from the side? yes. then i have one final question. or comment. >> my name is jen. i started an organization to start the next generation of women leaders. vital voices, we are co-creating a project to highlight seven young women around the world that are in the most violent countries. from story telling perspective, is there any lessons learned that you would give like what are good pointers to do, not to do, especially the not to dos?

>> video is very, very important. video is always better than giving an introduction in words if you can introduce somebody by a short 1 1/2 minute video about their life that makes it instantly engaging. people are so much more going to pay attention than if somebody starts giving a verbal introduction. that's very, very critical. really producing intensely what they are going to say so you have work with them to extract from them most interesting aspects of their story. people can sometimes not know how to tell their story. they may have an amazing story but can't tell it. it's very important to work with them to understand generally what's interesting. keep it not too -- 20, 25 minutes is the longest you're going to hold anybody's attention in today's world. the important thing is to move it along quickly and make that person tell the story in a time

of frame that's shorter. you are going to have much more response than if it's elongated and meandering and things it can be if you don't focus very hard on the production elements. that's my advice. >> well, i'm exercising the privilege of having me in moderator for this. i want to ask, this being almost the end of 2016, would you say that countries get judged by how they treat their women? can we say that? >> i think the health of a democracy can be judged how it treats its women, actually. the countries that cause us the most troubles, are the countries where women are treated the worst. that's why it's extremely important out of democracy we make sure women are continuing to advance. and as our friend from libya

just said, it's not acceptable those numbers are as low as they are. it's just not acceptable. unless there is energy around these issues and protecting what we do towards women not allows misogyny to become rampant without real genuine pushing it back. these things can go haywire. all of a sudden you have a very different country. you're absolutely right about that in the sense how a country treats its women is the critical factor for the next generation. >> i want to thank you on behalf of the dean and all the sais community for being here and for sharing your thoughts. >> thank you. >> i'm sure this room is full of tomorrow's leaders. i hope that you're all going to turn out to be role models. i'm sure you will. and i think role model is such a

cliche, but actually it's really about being great at what you do and not forgetting the people who make you great. that's what really makes you a role model. >> what you said about being passionate about it. you get the dips when things go and things don't go. if you're passionate about it, it carries you through the dark moments which come. thank you. >> thank you so much for having me here at sais. thank you.

dinner guests arrivals through the white house east wing, the grand staircase official photo, and the dinner toast offered by president obama and prime minister renzi. former obama white house social secretary will join us to talk about food, decor, entertainment and protocol for the state visit. we'll also revisit previous state dinners under the obama administration. we'll talk to the italian ambassador to the u.s., and "the washington post" fashion critic will review first lady michelle obama's state dinner fashion over the years. the white house state dinner for

italian prime minister mateo renzi airs live today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. at a joint news conference with the italian prime minister earlier today, president obama called it unprecedented for any presidential candidate to discredit the elections before any votes were even cast as donald trump has done in recent days. >> one of the great things about america's democracy is we have a vigorous, sometimes bitter political contest, and when it's done, historically, regardless of party the person who loses the election congratulates the

winner, reaffirms our democracy and we move forward. that's how democracy survives because we recognize that there's something more important than any individual campaign, and that is making sure that the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself because democracy, by definition, works by consent. not by force. i have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place. it's unprecedented.

it happens to be based on no facts. every expert regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal who ever has examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances out of significant voter fraud are not to be found that keep in mind elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like florida where you have a republican governor, republican employees who are going to be running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites. the notion if mr. trump loses florida, those people you have

to watch out for, that is both irresponsib irresponsible, and by the way, doesn't really show the kind of leadership and toughness you'd want out of a president. you start whining before the game's even over? if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose you start blaming somebody else, then you don't have what it takes to be in this job. because there are a lot of times when things don't go our way or my way. it's okay. you fight through it. you work through it. you try to accomplish your goals. but the larger point i want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig america's

elections. in part because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. there is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. and so i'd advise mr. trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes. and if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of hillary clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the american people benefit from an effective government. and it would be my job to welcome mr. trump, regardless of what he said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to this capitol in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power. that's what americans do.

that's why america's already great. one way of weakening america, making it less great is if you start betraying those basic american traditions that have been bipartisan and have helped to hold together this democracy now for well over two centuries. watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. our live debate preview from the university of nevada las vegas starts 7:30 p.m. eastern. the 90-minute debate is 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay for us following the did he what it for viewer reaction. watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with the free c-span radio app.

part of a convention addressing issues affecting nba americans including political rhetoric in the 2016 campaign, voting rights and immigration policy. hosted by the american arab anti-discrimination committee. this is 1 1/2 hours. we're going to get started so if everybody could please have a seat. the next session is combatting political rhetoric and intimidation. the moderator for the next session is samer khalaf, adc

president and he's going to introduce our esteemed panel and our guests this morning. so we'll kick it over to samer. >> thank you. >> can you all hear? >> to be louder. >> use the mike. that was me. >> so what we've decided to do on this panel is to talk about sort of the hateful rhetoric that's been going out in the political process this year. as we know, we've seen some of the more bombastic statements coming from candidates regarding arabs, regarding muslims, regarding immigrants, regarding latinos and hispanics. so what this panel is, we're going to sort of discuss the political rhetoric, is it working, is it not working? who is it coming from? what is being said? what is the effect on the community and what is the effect on the political process. this is going to be more of an interactive discussion. so i'm going to ask each panel to give opening remarks, maybe

five to seven minutes. i will then ask some questions. we'll have a little dialogue up here. i will then open it up to the audience to discuss you know, have any questions that they may ask the panelists. i will start with rania alik, co-host of the weekly podcast unauthorized disclosure. rania. >> thank you. it's great to be here with you guys this morning. this is a really, really important topic obviously given everything that's happened since the elections began. so i just want to start off by saying that anti-arab and anti-muslim hate, it's become a wedge issue in american politics in a way that it never -- in a way like never before. it's kind of taken the place of things like abortion and homophobia and opposition to gay marriage. those things have now been replaced by the issue of islamophobia. it's emanating largely from the republican party and i just want to cite this one statistic because i think it's shocking.

since the presidential elections kicked off in march of 2015, georgetown university's bridge initiative has documented 180 incidents of anti-muslim violence including 12 murders, 34 physical assaults, 56 acts of vandalism, nine arson attacks and eight shootings or bombings. and so i think that's a pretty -- those are pretty shocking numbers even to me, somebody who really does track what political, what, politicians are saying. so it just demonstrates that the republican party has really taken the anti-muslim hate to a new level. that said, i don't want to let democrats off the hook because they've participated in this, as well. you know, a lot of the things that trump says he's making explicit what u.s. policy is implicitly. and you know, i want to take for example, he wants to ban muslims. you look at the refugee issue and to a large extent, you know,

we're taking in something like only 10,000 refugees a year largely because of fear of muslims. there is already somewhat of a ban on muslims. on top of that, we talk about banning muslims. the democratic party bombs muslims. and the candidate for the democratic party, hillary clinton, has you know, a record of doing that and she is saying she wants to do it more. so we can't let democrats off the hook just because they don't speak in such extreme terms as republicans do. and i do want to note this. not very many people are familiar with this. hockey when she ran for senate in 2000 in new york, she was running against this right wing guy. and there was a smear campaign against the muslim political groups that had given hillary clinton money as a donation. it was a smear campaign led by

one of the islamiphobia's industry most discredited operatives, steven emerson and he beak accused these groups of supporting terrorism against israel. and hillary clinton instead of -- she played into this. instead of saying no, you're wrong, she played this and said okay, she gave all this money back to these muslim organizations. and she refused to meet with arabs and muslims for the remainder of the campaign in an effort to like woo pro israel jewish voters in new york. so that's something that's a part of her history she continues to do. she will throw arabs and muslims under the bus to win over pro-israel voters. it's something that the democratic party does. obviously there's a huge difference between democrats and republicans. i think it's really important to recognize that there is like a common theme when this comes to arabs and muslims. it's not as open as it is on the republican side. and in terms of israel, this kind of hard line support for israel is a central driver of what we call the islammophobia network. since 9/11, hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into

groups that are devoted specifically to demonizing anvillifying muslims. that's a lot of money just for hate. hundreds of millions of dollars. and a lot of the main funders of those groups are very hard line supporters of israel. and the idea is you know if you demonize muslims here, then you can kind of say look, it's like america is fighting a similar war against evil muslims like israel is against evil palestinian muslims. that's the point of doing that. that's going to have an impact and a lot of the rhetoric that those groups have fueled now we see republican politicians repeating especially trump. one of his advisors is frank gaffney, a guy who you know, he's one of the leaders of the islamophobia network. a totally anti-muslim conspiracist. he's advising donald trump. that's scary. but i do want to note anti-muslim and anti-arab hate isn't just about the hate and

bigotry. it's necessary in many ways for legitimizing u.s. military policies abroad and the middle east specifically. that's why a lot of weapons companies also pour money into these anti-muslim groups. i just mentioned frank gaffney. he's received money from lockheed martin, his organization has and general dynamics and weapons companies that profit off of war. there's that at play, as well. that alone suggests in order to really combat this kind of anti-muslim hate, we have to be opposed to the bombing campaigns abroad because i mean, it makes sense in order to be able to bomb other countries, you have to dehumanize the people who live there. if they're predominantly muslim that requires a lot of anti-muslim hate being pumped into the ether of this country. there are other issues, too. i also want to mention we've

also seen this ramp-up, it's not just anticipate muslim stuff, it's also anti-immigrant stuff. this rising xenophobia trump is really tapping into. that's other issue where we can't let democrats off the hook. the right wing has very much been anti-immigrant for years and years and have fox news devoted to demonizing muslims and immigrants 24 hours a day. we are currently coming to the end of a presidency under an administration that has deported over 2 million people. that's more than any president in history. we've also got this rise of family detention centers. the obama administration is putting women and children inside family detention facilities. women and children refugees like fleeing parts of central america are now in private prisons for women and children. that's a new level of insane. so people yes, are right to be outraged by trump wanting to round people up and deport them and by trump wanting to like put people in camps. but we also have to recognize

and be just as outraged when we actually have an administration doing those things. trump talks about building a wall. we already have a wall at the border. i've seen it. it actually bisects people's neighborhoods and splits them from their families. there's barely any opposition to that wall because it happened under a democratic administration. it was interesting, there was one primary debate where hillary clinton was asked what the difference was between trump's wall and the wall she has voted for and vocally supported and her response was, his wall is taller. so we have to oppose these things when democrats do them too or else we risk having the right wing take it to a new extreme level where it has devastating consequences on our own communities. i want to give a chance for everybody to talk. those are just some things i wanted to point out. >> i'm not going in depth in bios because the bios are in the book. i'll let you read that just for

time. our next speaker is maria johnson blanco, the codirector of the lawyer committee's voting rights project, manages the project's programmatic and advocacy profiles which including leading election protections and so forth. marcia? >> thank you. thank you for having me here. i'm going to talk about the charged feature we're currently in intimidation from a voting rights perspective. so this is an election season like no other. and that's a very dramatic statement but it's also an understatement because it's just hard to describe what we're witnessing since it's so unprecedented. and some of the themes that we are dealing with it's very divisive. there's disruption on both the right and left. and then there's this charged rhetoric that we're dealing

with. and this is combined with the lack of confidence in our election system. and that's based on some false premises such as there's rampant voter fraud but it's also because of laws such as the voter i.d. laws or restrictions on early voting that's undermining access to voting and it's causing a lack of confidence in our election administration system and making it harder to vote. and in preparing for the panel, i went and looked at, you know, what is the recent history of intimidation and challenges at polling places and i wanted to talk about some of those and then also to talk about how we can fight back against them should they occur. this election cycle particularly because we have one of the

candidates who's actually inviting people to go out to the polls and make sure those who are not eligible don't vote. and usually those people who are targeted are people who are from minority communities or people who are from communities that are -- when i say minority, i mean racial, ethnic, religious. you appear different and therefore, you're challenged. and every state has challenge laws where either elected officials or just state officials or private citizens can challenge your right to vote. but there is a process and a procedure and they cannot be based on racial or ethnic or any other identity. so it's really important to know that just because there's a law that says you can challenge, you can't just use it in a discriminatory fashion. and there's some examples where

that has been done. so what is intimidation just as a start? the federal prosecution offenses manual says it's subjective. and there have been just looking back at doj in recent years four instances of prosecution for voter intimidation. and so it's not something that is generally prosecuted or litigated but there have been some notable cases that i want to talk to you about. the first is dnc versus rnc, the democratic national committee versus the republican national committee. and this comes out of an incident in 1980s, 1981 to be exact, where republican operatives were at polling places in new jersey challenging voters. some of them were armed. and they were targeting voters

in minority communities. and that litigation resulted in a consent decree that is still in effect today, and it's been used in subsequent voter challenges and what the court said there very clearly is you cannot target voters based on their racial or ethnic identity. and so when we hear certain candidates today saying that you know, there should be election observers out making sure that people who shouldn't be able to vote are not able to vote, you have to ask, is that in violation of this consent decree that exists today. there was also an incident in the city of hamtramck in michigan, which i'm sure you know has a large arab-american

population. and in an election in 1999, those of our american identity were asked to take an oath by the citizens for a better hamtramck before being able to vote, and the department of justice brought a suit against the city which resulted in a consent decree that required improved training and also allowed for federal observers to observe subsequent elections, and that consent decree did expire in 2006. but there is of note right now, we are in the first presidential election 50 years without the full protects of the voting rights act. and one of the implications of that is that now, the federal government, the department of

justice has determined that it can no longer have a formal observer program in the past, under the provision of the voting rights act, the supreme court has nullified in the shelby county versus holder decision the department of justice can no longer have a program where they recruit thousands of trained federal observers and put them in polling places to observe elections and having observers is very important because if you're being watched you're less inclined to do something that you shouldn't. and so that's one of the challenges that we're facing this election cycle is that that program is no longer going to be in effect. the doj will still send out its attorneys to monitor elections but it wouldn't be the same as the protects that were afforded by the voting rights act.

some other recent instances of intimidation, and this would fall into rather than the explicit category, the implicit category, are deceptive niyers on bill board ofs that we've seen in recent elections. and so we've had flyers that are passed around minority communities and particularly in presidential election years, one that's really popular is if you have already voted this cycle, then you can't vote in november. and so if you voted in a primary and there may be some confusion you already voted this cycle, can i vote in november so it's a way to deter voting. it's also if anyone in your family has any interaction with the justice system or have been arrested, then you can't vote. if you owe tickets or traffic

tickets, et cetera, can't vote. and these are passed around in communities. i've noticed that i've been doing my work since 2004. this is my fourth presidential election. before there were flyers that were strewn around in communities. now we have facebook and social media and there are messages that are being shown on there, as well. so something to look out for. in 2012, there were billboards in predominantly minority communities that said voter fraud is a felony which is true. but when these billboards are placed only in minority communities, they stigmatize those communities and then they raise questions, what is voter fraud. if i, you know, i'm afraid of doing something wrong. in order to be able to vote. we actually successfully got those billboards taken down in 2012.

and so when you have this history of intimidation with voting, and you combine it with the current divisive charged rhetoric, there's a question about what will we see there during this election cycle. and so what we at the lawyers committee and the election protection program have been focused on is empowering voters because my theme for this election cycle is an educated vote is an empowered voter. so making sure that voters have the information that they need in order to push back against anyone's attempt to take away their voting rights. so what we've done is we've sent letters to both parties, both the democratic national committee and the republican national committee saying that they need to ensure that candidates under their umbrella

are not doing anything or acting in any way that intimidates and challenges voters and that we will be looking out to ensure that this doesn't happen. we've also sent letters to election officials in states where this rhetoric has been discussed, you know, there's the famous speech that candidate trump gave in altoona, pennsylvania, where he said you know, the system is rigged and we need to have folks out there including law enforcement making sure that only the right people are voting. this is -- this is adding to this charged atmosphere and it's something that we are paying particular attention to. and are asking election officials what are you doing to ensure that people are not intimidated and harassed at polling places. and with election protection we're also working with our volunteers to make sure that we can document where this occurs.

the voting rights act has been a very powerful tool in protecting voting in the u.s. and there's section 11b, there's an explicit provision within the voting rights act that prohibits intimidation based on race or ethnic identity. so that is the tool that's out there available to push back, and then with election protection, we have the 866-our-vote hotline. when you're out there voting this year, if you find any challenge, any problems, please call the 866-our-vote hotline and we are going to be sure to be on top of following up with both the justice department and local election officials to ensure that as quickly as possible, we stop any intimidation that's happening at the polls this cycle. >> thank you very much. our next speaker provides

international business and government climates with strategic and public affairs consulting services. he is a regular contributor to a number of media outlets in the united states and internationally such as cnn, bbc. he is a former adc staffer. a current adc national board member. >> thank you, samer. >> i'd like to focus on different area, and that is why we have hate speech in u.s. politics, any politics in the world. this requires three things. the politicians have to believe in it, the donor that funds it who pushes that message and the crowd that likes that message. these are the three elements. and these elements have always existed in all democracies, but we see increase in it when any of these three elements have reason.

in the u.s. elections and since 9/11, i think these forces have been there but they didn't have the justification. i want to focus on the anti-muslim and anti-arab rhetoric in u.s. elections. in the mid-'90s, members of congress used to tell me that the guy by the name of david horowitz, i think many people know of him, he's a former marxist who became a neo-con, big right wing zionist who believes palestinians don't exist, he used to go to capitol hill to members of congress and encourage them to do something about christian arabs. this was 1993, '94. he used to go market the war in sudan as a war between islamic -- anyone that knows southern sudan, christians were the smallest group. they made up a majority of the population, christians and muslims were second and the war was really between the north and

the south which include muslims in both parties. and if horowitz cared really about christians, he doesn't have to go far. he can go to israel and ask the israeli government to treat christian palestinians better than they treat them. everyone knows that palestinians get treated very badly by the israelis whether they're muslims or christians. after 9/11, these groups became an industry. and this industry according to different studies progressive -- >> center for american progress >> did a study, it says that this industry gets about $120 million a year. and then some of those big donors are the sugar daddies of republican presidential candidates. if anyone thought that marco rubio hated islam so much because he hates islam he should know marco rubio was funded entirely by someone, a big

zionist both him and ted cruz were funded by two big right wing zionists who didn't believe in palestinian rights. the hedge fund guy from new york and sheldon adelson, the casino guy. if ted cruz had any christian values he should not take money that came from casinos. this is the ultimate hypocrisy. these guys have been pushing this anti-muslim message and trying to force the war exactly what isis message is, that there is a war between christianity and islam. the difference those guys want christian and muslims to fight for the sake of israel and this is reality some so they've been pushing it and, of course, this resonates among right wing crowd that believes in this message and i think muslims have done some horrible things, not as muslims but some muslims in the name of islam whether it's isis or al qaeda targeting civilians, killing religious minorities but

their biggest victim really are muslims. but these details are not important in this season and this election season. i remember four years ago, in one of the republican debates newt gingrich said palestinians are invented people. but if people didn't know that these words were echoed before him by sheldon adelson, he had a gathering in his hotel in las vegas where he said those things are invented people. sheldon adelson picked newt gingrich as his candidate and he was bankrolling him. he gave him $10 million, and this guy became just a mouthpiece for sheldon adelson. this is the difference between the election now, the election 10 and 20 years ago. i worked for the bush campaign in 2000 and bush campaign had no tolerance for bigotry. on the opposite, bush won a

governor of texas twice with a big chunk of the votes coming from latinos. so he always cared for the latino votes. he never had, whether you like republicans or not, he really looked at america as all together. and not dividing it into blacks and latinos and muslims and indian and so and so forth. he cared so much that he formed what's called for all minorities american dreamers where we used to meet in austin, texas and prepare for the elections to get votes. so if you cared about votes, you're not going to insult them. if you are trying to go after the rural areas where whites think that they are under threat of losing their country, then the racist message becomes your message. this is exactly what trump did. trump didn't plan to run for election just a year and a half ago in march when he launched. everyone knows that he

registered trademarked the let's get america great again the day obama won the election, the re-election in 2012 because that's when he start changing from being more with the democrats into a republican. i bumped into him two years ago at a american conservative conference at the national harbor where he starred attending republican functions and started acting as a republican. he calculated what would make him win. he also thought that the message that ron paul was able to get 25% to 27% of republican delegates in 2012 he thought he would get that group. so he added that to his message. he started claiming that he was against the war. ron paul we know that always against wars.

they were against the iraq war and rand paul, that's how he won 25 to 27% of the republican delegates in two conventions. so he enters that same group and he added to it the other groups that we start seeing now, neo-nazis are backing him, david duke is backing him. and also the far right wing jewish elements in the jewish community. they even have offices for him in the west bank that are campaigning for trump even though he has the backing of anti-semites and there are ten times more than the right wing in his campaign. going back to this message, unless there's a market for this message, it would not exist. that's why i think it's a duty of everybody not to label it as a republican message because it's not. i remember four years ago, we were unhappy, many muslims were unhappy, went to the republican party and said, during these debates, it becomes like muslim bashing.

and some of the republican leaders agreed and they wrote to those candidates, i think ed gillespie is one of them. he was quoted saying these are not what we believe in. and again it, as long as the funders or the biggest funders in the republican party are pushing for this message, i think this message will continue. and like he said, it's some dras -- democrats do that when they feel it's to their advantage. i think many people on the right used to call any muslim activist -- in 2008, you know, mr. schwartz wrote a book the wahabi lobby which he included me in the book with grover norquist who is a methodist christian but also included jim zogby in the book. now the last two years it changed.

they start calling people muslim brotherhood. they even named a shia as a muslim brotherhood. anyone who knows anything about the brotherhood, it's exclusively a sunni movement. they don't care about facts and their crowd doesn't care about facts. this is a big problem. the other problem is the media. many of the people are so lazy or so bigoted they share these opinions that they repeat these accusations. example, fox news is the right one but it's not the only one. if any of you have fios or verizon tv, now i get four right wing stations they all compete and who's more right wing from blaze to one american network to news max and i know many people on the right complained that the media is a left wing conspiracy but there's more on the right than there is on the left. so the message continues through these channels. thank you. >> thank you. we're going to have a little discussion amongst ourselves before i open it up to the

audience. i want to talk about the issue of normalization. i know growing up, we always thought that there are certain things you don't say. certain things you don't discuss in public. has that changed now with this political rhetoric now that we see these candidates espousing some of those things? how does that affect how we as a community, as a nation think? >> i think it's interesting to look at children. i have neighbors who have -- it's like a mother, father and they've got two kids who are like 10 and like 8 or something like that. and they're an iraqi family. and the two kids like they're not going to be deported or anything like that, but the two kids who were like little and in grade school, they tell my nephews and nieces if trump wins, they're going to have to go back.

trump is every where. this rhetoric is everywhere. it's so intense. it's hard not to hear it. people are talking about it in second grade. it's way more normalized than ever before. even after 9/11, i think the environment is more hateful and openly bigoted than it was before. that's scary. >> yeah, it's really heartbreaking to hear about children who are paying attention and listening. they're bombarded with so many messages now, both on television and social media. equally in my daughter's elementary school, there are children there concerned about what this election means for their lives. but there's also this challenge to become politically correct. somehow being politically correct means you don't have manners or you can call people

any type of name and be just offensive. so we are seeing that our public discourse is actually becoming very coarse, you're hearing messaging within political campaigns that you haven't heard before. and this is leading to a climate where there is very divisive rhetoric being displayed. and there really is a question about how that is going to show itself at the ballot box in november. because the climate that we are engaging in right now is one that we have not seen before. i think it's driven by this message that, oh, i no longer need to be politically correct. i can use racial and ethnic epitaphs against people. that's not being sufficiently challenged by our leaders as

unacceptable. >> i think two people in the community are paying the heaviest price, women with hijab and kids at school. so this rhetoric is not without victims. it's causing an increased number of attacks and assaults, verbal assaults, physical assaults, and there are many, many reports that prove that. it really has serious negative results. that's why we need to build a coalition to combat it. i think for many years, white supremacists and neo-nazis had their message, but there's a small crowd listening to them. now these bigots, especially islamophobes has huge microphones provided by foundations. the mellon foundation is one of the biggest donors, besides the others i mentioned. there was a trip to europe, it

was advertised since april, that he wants to show americans called muslim-free zones in europe. it's a joke. anyone that travels to europe -- he claims in paris there's areas where no muslims can enter. the same thing was said about birmingham in the uk. he was tweeting from paris. i follow him on twitter. so i was reading this garbage. he had ten people with him. that was his success. the simpleness to this extent, a guy who claims he's a scholar, that tries to prove to people that muslims will turn america the same way. there's a new person on the block, a new bigot, they always try to bring muslims to attack islam. a lady last week testified in front of the house committee about the danger of islam in america. and she said that attacking islam is not racist because muslims are not a race.

this is a silly argument. when i looked her up, i found she started her work in 2014 with the first donation coming from middle east quarterly in 2014. it's a branching network of bigots and racists, who have the money coming from these big donations and foundations are dangerous. a coalition is to be built not to go after those guys only, but the source of their money. those guys should be exposed. >> you keep bringing up the point of the funding. is this one of the big problems of citizens united? you have small individuals giving so much money or is this a product of something else? >> citizens united is another issue. that's an issue funding elections. citizens united was a decision taken by the supreme court 5-4 to allow money -- just to explain to the crowd, any amount of money could be given to

campaigns since money is speech, not speech really. so it can give any amount of money. that gave adelson so much say in the republican politics. everyone has to go -- every election circle, he would have a gathering in his hotel where many republicans go to rush there, bow to him so they can get the check. this is really something shameful this is before citizens united. people figured out the number of muslims in this country is increasing. they will have more political influence. they're concentrated in eight states. four of them are swing states. in the state of virginia, you need muslim votes as a bloc, 200,000, 250,000 to win any statewide election. the state became a swing state and the last two senate and government races were won by 30,000 votes. that's a very slim margin. in a state like virginia. you have to trash muslims to marginalize them. this is what they're doing.

they're spending money for that purpose. >> i would add to that, you're talking about big funders, islamophobia. and a lot of these people are trying to defund public programs. they played a big part in pushing for defending any sort of welfare that exists. destroying labor rights in the country. a lot of the same groups that fund islamaphobia, also fund efforts to take away rights from people. using islamophobia as a wedge issue. the culture wars of the '90s, it was abortion, gay marriage. women's rights overall. now back to the traditional family stuff. now islamophobia and hate is

tapping into economic anxiety in the country that is real. a lot of economic anxiety because people are having a hard time. things are not easy for people right now. that's what people like trump are doing. they're tapping into -- you mention these white areas. they're tapping into these areas where people are not doing great economically. they feel like they're losing something. instead of offering some sort of answer, like a solution to their condition or helping them and understand their condition, they're being fed hate. that's why i think bernie sanders was so -- i think somewhat successful in offering a different message. that's why there was some crossover. where you heard a lot of trump supporters being like, yeah, bernie is a good guy. he was offering a message that was -- did speak to the economic issues. whereas for the most part, like democrats in general, they are

a part of the establishment de-funding healthcare, education, taking things away from people, wanting to privatize social security and medicare. things like this. that plays into it too. >> just to note about paul singer, by the way, funded gay marriage in 17 states. so he's not really right wing on every issue, only extreme right when it comes to muslims. but he funded gay marriage initiative in 17 states. >> trump is the same. trump is not really anti-gay. he's more interested in hating muslims, mexicans, black people. >> going back to citizens united, the fact that it's opened up floodgates of the top 1%, just spending exponentially more than everyone else in the nation, it has led to a lack of confidence. that causes certain voices to rise to the top and drowned out the reasonable voices in society. i think this flood of money is

contributing to this divisive rhetoric. it's just flooding the airways and the voices of the ordinary people who care about their economic well-being, who care about the issues. they are being drowned out by this rhetoric. >> a few more minutes before we open up to the audience. several months ago england or great britain went through the brexit vote. one of the driving forces during that campaign was the anti-immigrant, anti-refugee backlash. i am not an expert of the effect of that election or the issues of that election. is that sort of a prelude to what may happen here? is that a danger that quite possibly trump may win because of this rhetoric? this hate, can it be successful in an election in the united states? >> i think it can. i don't know that it would

necessarily be successful this time around. i think trump is an ineffective demagogue, if you can believe that. he's kind of an idiot, some day soon, there will be somebody smart, charismatic, not so hatable that will be able to come along and give the trump message in a more coherent way. that's going to be scary. this speaks globally, this resurgence of the far right globally. they're tapping into this economic anxiety that exists everywhere. around the world, you have this increasing economic inequality where the top has so much. people even in well developed countries are starting to lose a lot. for the past several decades. everything has been stagnant and in decline. because of, like, these global neo-liberal policies that have been put into place by establishment politicians. the problem is that there's a weak left. there's not a counter to this

right wing demagoguery. so people don't have an analysis to understand what's happening to them except for the right wing side. the left is just so weak. whether it's in europe or here. so they end up buying in to these -- not just in the uk, it's also the pagita movement in germany and other right wing groups winning elections. all across european countries. in america we're seeing trump sort of as the version of something that's been taking place in these countries for the last several-years. islamophobia is a big part of that. it's the wedge issue now. the refugee stuff. the refugees are being demonized. that's also -- refugees are an outcome of a lot of wars that the u.s. and western countries have been involved in fermenting. i think we're at a scary point. what we need to do in order to deal with that is build. we have to be building a

progressive left that's independent and able to counter the right-wing narrative. one positive aspect is younger people voted overwhelmingly for bernie sanders. in the uk, they're overwhelmingly supportive of jeremy corbin. this is a trend where younger people are more tolerant, open, progressive. that needs to be built upon. >> two things i took away from brexit, turnout. who voted? it was a low turnout. comparatively speaking. and the fact that the day after the trending search on google was what's brexit. that education piece is really important. and people paying attention to voting opportunities that shows

in a democracy one of our challenges, particularly with a lot of noise, dealing with economic dislocation and all that, is finding the time to pay attention to the issues and then turn out and actually vote. inevitably the day after the election, when people wake up and say wait a minute what just happened? there's a need to pay attention beforehand. >> i might differ with my friends here on this issue. i think the reason brexit won and also the reason trump's message resonates is because of some real concerns. and i think illegal immigration is a serious problem. during reagan era, they agreed to give amnesty to 10 million people, under the promise they would not do it again. as a result people come through the border, coming and overstaying their stay. i think this is an out of control problem.

you can't reward that with amnesty. there should be a solution. i'm not sure of the solution, but there's a message that resonates and unless it's addressed and has an answer by democrats as well as republicans, someone like trump will win over people with this message. >> part of the problem, too is that u.s. policies in countries like honduras and el salvador and guatemala, countries where people are fleeing right now, that's where a lot of the undocumented immigrants are coming from when we talk about this influx of migrants or refugees. even mexico. nafta which was the fair trade deal ended up destroying the mexican economy. you had all these mexicans coming to the u.s. for work. they have to work otherwise their children will starve. u.s. policies are destabilizing countries south of the border. those people who have come into the country are now demonized. we can't look at it as an out of control immigration problem.

the establishment has contributed to that. instead of having a narrative that explains that to people, we have networks giving platforms to people like donald trump who are explaining it in racist terms and offering no understanding or context to why there are undocumented immigrants or the fact that undocumented immigrants participate in the economy and billions of dollars in revenue come from the work of undocumented immigrants. i think that's why we need to have a left that has a counter narrative. so all of this right wing demagoguery you cannot separate out the issues. yes, there's a problem with immigration, but the problem is we're creating the refugees with our policies. >> i'm going to open the floor up. i would ask you, "a" this is an opportunity to ask questions, not necessarily give a speech. keep things a bit short. i will ask you to be respectful not only of the panelists but of one another and each other's times. let's be respectful.

>> thank you. i'm a leadership consultant. my question is two fold. one, we know that a lot of the trump crowd is there or people who don't want clinton is precisely because they want change. the challenge with hillary is that you don't get more establishment than hillary. despite the fact she has the competence to achieve all the things we want to achieve, for that voter she looks like more of the same. therefore, it could be a monkey against her, they would still vote for that. they're voting for change. how do we tackle people who are not interested in facts, they just want change. and how do we persuade them that trump is the bad change and clinton is plausibly a bit better, a positive change with clinton, but a negative change for you who are hurting. these people are hurting. not just bigots, people who are sick of -- just like brexit, people are hurting and want change.

the second question is for the other crowd. we don't want converters, we have enough converted. there are also people who don't want to vote either way. we don't need just trump to lose, we need him to lose with a vengeance. we need to make a statement. some of them are like, again, parents -- my daughter's friends, who think, no, trump of course is bad. hillary is also bad. i'm just not going to vote. virginia is a swing state. i've gone nowhere trying to persuade them, i know she's horrible, how do we get them to change their mind. >> the adc is a nonpartisan organization, we don't support one candidate or another. i just have to say that. i'll let you guys answer that question. >> i think hillary came because of the establishment brought her. hillary clinton and bill clinton had the money.

that scared anybody from running. that's a reality. that's one reason that trump's message resonates. there's an establishment among democrats and republicans about who comes, they endorse. i think the establishment for the republican party, their favorite before the primary started was the governor of wisconsin, scott walker. when he pulled out immediately they scrambled to find someone. was it rubio? since ted cruz was attacking the republican leadership, that's who they started backing. but many people in the republican crowd dislike the republican establishment and voting for trump, that's why he won. the problem on the democratic side, they scared all good democrats from running against her because they knew that all of the money would be pouring in to hillary's campaign.

it's a valid point. in the end it's a judgment, whoever you want to vote for. i don't think you will convince someone to think they're both bad, they should go vote for either one. >> i would also state that the lawyers committee and election protection coalition are nonpartisan. i do think to the question of disaffection with our democracy and people not engaging, it's a real issue we're confronting. in 2014 we had the lowest turnout in over 72 years. now we're having this presidential election following. and i think one of the challenges we face is that there's a lot of attention that's paid to the presidential ticket. but there are lots of other seats and offices that will be on the ballot. i would argue that part of the education of the public needs to be about the local races. we see now with the police-involved shootings, there's a lot of action around that. the young people are involved in protesting. sheriffs are elected.

s prosecutors are elected. local leaders are elected. there's a lack of civic understanding and education about how the system works. the top of the ticket where there's the divisiveness we have a congress that is not working very well. just right before the budget term comes, they rush and pass a few bills, but generally there's not a lot of legislation being passed. certainly not any bipartisan legislation being contemplated in congress. and then the public becomes disaffected and is turning away. part of it is not just the candidates, but the disillusionment with our system overall. >> i would agree with that for the most part. people are just not excited about this election. look at our choices. obviously there's a big difference between clinton and trump. but at this point, i don't know

that you'll convince -- you're not going to convince people by shaming them. that's one thing i can say for sure. there's nothing that makes people want to vote less than telling them that they're awful if they don't vote for hillary clinton. but i think what's more important in the grand scheme of things, we can't also think about just the election. it shouldn't just be during presidential elections that we get involved in politics. there needs to be a longer more sustained effort to build something. outside of both parties. people can organize around and use to maybe even run candidates. maybe an independent party after this election. i don't know. there has to be something different. people are just like -- from what i've seen are so disillusioned and disaffected that they won't even vote. that's so sad. people who really care about politics won't vote. that's a really sad state to be in.

>> public relations makes us or breaks us. i have a question. i have a city councilman who is running, they could not believe he was an arab. when it came to re-election, look at that fellow who is elected. he's a southern baptist, deacon, helped to start a baptist church, served in our army, and still this fellow through lies said he's an arab and a terrorist. and this person lost by 200 votes. we need to go back to grassroots. forget about trump and forget about hillary. we need to do some homework in grassroots america that really

people can get by by lying and defeating a person that really serves our nation. by saying you're an arab and terrorist he destroyed his election. >> you want to comment? >> that's awful. >> if we could keep the questions to questions, thank you. >> i'm from oregon, where we have the most honest voting system. you receive in the mail a

with the candidates and the issues. you put your mark on it, send it back through the mail without putting a stamp on it. i don't know what the record of increased voting is, but i think it's much higher than the national average. my question is very simple. is there anyone working to get the money to really attack the supreme court decision on corporate personnel persons making corporations persons? this is the -- this is the problem that we are going to have forever unless someone gets $10 million to $20 million, which is what it will probably cost to take it up through the

courts. is there anyone working on this? >> from what i understand there are, like -- even -- i know bernie sanders is working on pushing to get citizens united overturned, a lot of other major players. even hillary clinton claims she's going to -- who knows if she will. also elizabeth warren wants to. actual organizations are working to. there's a supreme court vacancy that will be filled. so if you can have a liberal majority in the supreme court, then you could technically get it overturned. i think it's a matter of time hopefully. that's crucial. right now our whole entire system is run by corporations. they get to decide who gets picked in our elections. it's not democracy. >> i think it doesn't matter how much money you spent to overturn it, it won't work as long as the makeup of the supreme court is in the hand of conservatives.

it depends all on the elections. if the democrats are elected, they will appoint. i think the next president will appoint three of the new supreme court members, and that will sway. that's why it's so important for republicans as well as democrats. if you notice in many of trump's campaign, he keeps remaining republicans that the supreme court, if you don't elect me, you can lose the supreme court. he's playing this very well. it's not only the issue of citizens united, it's obamacare, another important issue, the future of abortion. all these things. >> there's lots of groups working to both educate and galvanize around overturning citizens united. as everyone here has said, it will be something that will be before the supreme court. and the type of court we have when that makes its way back up through the system will determine whether it's overturned or remains part of our system.

with regards to mail-in ballots, there has been a substantial improvement in turnout in oregon with the mail-in ballots. that speaks to one thing that we're hopefully going to be focused on after the election, reforming and improving the system and getting rid of a lot of rules that keep us from being able -- to be able to fully participate in the system. >> i want to thank you for an eloquent analysis of the experiences and events that took place. my question is -- my three

questions, one is what kind of strategy that adc and their chapters and the ngos, and the social media, can do in whatever time left for the elections and for future elections? not only the strategy, but also the communication process that can really yield positive results, not in the near future, but in the long future as well. this is what is happening in the arab construction -- structure, i mean, it's reaction. what we want to do is to have proaction. thank you. >> just to -- >> hello.

i think a problem in this election is a lot of statements are made which are not factually correct, but are not followed up. and i really respect the panel, but i do think when you talked about immigration, the fact of the matter is that the number of mexicans coming from mexico in the last few years has gone significantly down. sometimes mexicans were leaving the united states to go to mexico because there were better economic opportunities there. so my concern is reinforcing the image that we're being overwhelmed by immigrants when, in fact, the immigration is down. thank you. >> thanks for bringing up that point. i was going to bring that up. i just want to really ask

everybody when they speak, not to fall in the same trap that trump falls into when talking to the electorate, that makes presentations that are not grounded in facts. because this is a huge problem. i want to just point out a few things that were said here that for someone who lives in texas, actually i can tell you about. first of all, you know, in texas, people are very excited about elections. you know, the republican candidate is leading by only six points in texas right now at this point. i also can confirm what the gentleman just said, we do not have a border problem on the border at all. we can see nafta did not destroy the mexican economy. it did not. there are problems on both sides, but it did not destroy the mexican economy. the other thing is that the sky actually is not falling. it's not falling. if you look at the economic

conditions that we have, we can see the increase in family income. we can see an increase in jobs created. we can see an increase in many areas. yes, there are some pockets and maybe large pockets of disparity that we can point those things out. let's be realistic about the picture that we paint around here. the other thing that i want to point out, i have never heard that the democrats wanted to destroy social security at all. that's just not -- it's okay to repeat some things, but let's be practical. facts can be checked. we need to build our own credibility when we present our message, and not just repeat things other people are saying. it's driving this election into the gutter. >> let's handle these three. we'll move on. we have a couple more minutes. the strategy aspect. let me talk on behalf of adc. that is sort of the subject of our luncheon workshop. we'll sit down and we'll

have audience participation and try to flush out the strategy and work on that. you'll have an opportunity. i don't want to avoid the question. that's the primary subject of our lunch. we'll be bringing in input. that brings up something i want to ask you along those lines. what can we do to make things better? how do we push back? the convention is about inspiring change through action what is that action? >> as someone who is a journalist, for me, part of that action ties into what you were saying, you are to correct the narrative and the facts. the fact of the matter is, obama was prepared to do a grand bargain on social security. i'm not making that up, that actually happened. during bill clinton's administration, he was making backroom deals with newt gingrich that -- preparing to privatize social security. he didn't get to do it because monica lewinsky. she saved us from the destruction of social security.

that's a fact. that's a record. in terms of immigration. yes, immigration does not present the problem it's portrayed as. that said, nafta did ruin the economy for many mexicans. a lot of farmers in mexico lost their land. they -- a lot had to go and end up working for various american corporations. there's a part of mexico near the border, every american corporation, you can possibly imagine produce products there. we have to be honest about the economic reality for people. maybe for people that surround you it's easier. what i see is in lots of communities, there's a lot of economic devastation. if it's not devastation, it's people just trying to get by. even middle class people now, one catastrophe away. one catastrophe away from complete bankruptcy. one healthcare issue. if they get cancer, they're done. people don't have savings. people are really struggling to get by, especially younger people who, like myself, are mired in debt because we went to school.

so you have to consider all these things. yes, jobs are being created. they're not good jobs, they're jobs at walmart that do not pay people a living wage. people have to have two jobs at this point to feed kids and still are having trouble doing that in some communities that is a real problem. not saying everybody who supports trump is economically devastated. a lot of rich people support trump and they're just jerks, but we also cannot blanket -- put a blanket over everybody and say they're all bad. they're all a basket of deplorables or whatever. you're just like basically -- you know, that's going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, you have to offer a message that reaches out to all people. >> i don't want to change our subject. i don't want to get into this back and forth. i know there are less mexicans coming, but two, three days ago there were people coming from el salvador, other south american countries. the issue of illegal immigration, there should be a

way to solve it or resolve it so it's not a lost message from trump. he's addressing something that many people care about. that's not in defense of trump. in regard to this kind of rhetoric, this is everybody's job. to do the fact check, and to write, write to editors, write about these are not facts. for example, one of the things that trump keeps throwing, illegal immigrants are causing more crime. statistics prove they are causing less crime. most are worried about committing crime, getting deported, so they don't commit much crime. they always highlight when some illegal alien killed that girl -- that student in san francisco, it was a story on fox news for five days. that illegal alien, the city of san francisco allowed illegal aliens in the city, which i think it's wrong.

but focusing on that crime as if americans don't commit crime is wrong. going back to the subject that during the debate and even in the discussion that lots of stuff that comes out that's inaccurate, i think everybody's job, adc number one, we should direct people and have a letter to the editor forms that people can go to the website and have a list of the addresses or e-mail of "usa today" or "wall street journal." so this is everybody's job in the room here including adc. >> i would say on the issue of strategy, i heard a formulation by cornell brooks of the naacp, the president of the naacp that i will use. his formulation was protest, polls, policy. we focus a lot on elections. but we also need to pay similar attention to the policy that comes after the election, engage, ensure we are engaging with elected officials.

we vote for someone, then we disappear, then we come back in the next two, four years to have our voice heard again. we really do need to engage on city councils, state legislatures, as well as within our congress to make sure that the policies we care about are the ones that we're talking about and voting on. >> two quick questions back-to-back. then we'll wrap it up. we have one there, and this gentleman over here has been patiently waiting. >> thank you. i come from tucson, southern arizona. we are closer to mexico than other states. this month 21 bodies were discovered in the desert.

this is a very mild month. since 9/11, actually thousands of people have been killed as a consequence of policies. not natural disasters. trump talks about a wall. there's a wall already. there's something called militarization of the border. they are occupied by border patrol. these are policies. somebody mentioned nafta was good. just cross the border and see

what is called -- these are all so many bad policies over years that are destroying a lot of people. it's not just people coming and overstaying visas, there's really war going on on the border. war on people. these are results of policies that you people need to really focus on. and that's all that i want to say. >> thank you, sir. two more questions. >> earlier this year there was a case in brooklyn where nearly 100,000 voters could not find their names registered. i'm curious if you know if that

correlated with certain demographics, and what is adc or arab and muslim activists doing to make sure that registered voters can find their names. >> in brooklyn -- >> we'll take the two together. >> i just wanted to make a point. i don't think it was addressed in the panel of what the gentleman asked about how to get -- i think if i got it right, younger people or people who don't think their vote is not going to matter, what i have heard, you can correct me if i'm wrong, that -- especially millennials, the young people, because of having rallied against sanders and felt so disappointed that their vote

won't count because either hillary will win or trump. i was very really shocked. i don't know if any of you saw the post debate little groups they have. one group, i don't know how many people changed or decided they weren't going to vote for trump. one guy who was going to vote for trump, he was a young university student, and he said well, you know, once they got to foreign policy, they lost me. it was not fun anymore. so my question is how our whole culture has become a culture of entertainment and show, especially with the media, how that is affecting this election cycle in terms of the young people especially, that may not be true to all of them, of course, seeing this as a reality show. which is really kind of sad, but also thinking their vote won't matter. that's sad, too. >> we have the two questions. one specifically about the -- what occurred in brooklyn.

and then about voter protection. and the second question about getting millennials more active within the system. >> right. so during the primary in new york there were thousands of voters in brooklyn who found out that they were purged from the election rolls. there has been a lot of follow-up on that. it's still a bit unclear why that happened. but that both the state officials, the new york board of elections as well as civil rights groups are working to ensure that that doesn't happen in the general election. one of the messages we do with election protection is to ask people to verify their voter registration. so you don't have to wait until you show up at the polls to fiend out you're no longer on the rolls, if you know you registered, call, or there's a

lot of online tools now, you can look it up to verify your voter registration. often now we as individuals have to do some ground work, some leg work before the elections to make sure that our registration is in order. we know what documentation we need to vote. we know where we need to vote. so that we don't encounter these unexpected problem. it's a problem that's being addressed. by the state board and civil rights groups, we need to make sure all is well before we show up at the polls to know about these problems ahead of time. >> from what i understand, this was basically a general purge, not a specific demographics that was targeted. but it was a -- >> did have a disproportionate impact on minorities. >> on minorities, but not on arabs or anything like that.

the neighborhood was predominantly minority neighborhoods. adc will participate in voter campaign. one panel after lunch is where we will discuss voter protections, getting out the vote. we are looking for volunteers to monitor local polls, where there's a large number of arab-americans, and to -- we'll be setting up a hotline, getting people -- help if they do need that. the second question is about getting millennials more excited about the elections, getting them out to vote. >> i can touch on that one. i also wanted to say thank you for the comment about the border. there are thousands of people that are dying of thirst in the desert trying to get to safety. it's a matter of policy. there's a wall at the border built in such a way to push people into the most dangerous

terrain so that they're more likely to die. it's called death by deterrence. it's like in the border patrol manuals. that's talk about there being a war at the border. yes, it is against the people trying to get to safety. on the question you said about entertainment. my nephew is -- he's 6 years old. and a few months ago, recently, like over the summer, before the conventions, because we talked about -- he talks a lot about the elections. i think everyone's families have been. at one point, you know, he like during dinner, he was like, wait a second, are donald trump and hillary clinton real? like he thought it was just a tv show. that everybody was watching. i have a little sister who she just graduated from college, and she's not the most political person. but she texted me and she was like, are you watching the republican debate? and i was like, are you? she was watching the republican

debate, because it was so entertaining. people really do -- it has been this reality tv series. it's like "survivor" and who's going to make it to the next episode. it has been -- whether we like it or not -- entertaining. even i've been entertained. so the aspect of the entertainment, trump is really -- that's something he's done very, very well, used that to his advantage. that said, he's not really winning over young people, so i don't think that works. but i do think that's a good point. as for millennials and the fact that they don't vote, i don't know why. i don't. as a millennial myself, i don't know why, because we're this big demographic group. i guess a lot of it probably is just like disillusion rmt and politics are dumb and stupid. there are so many other things to be distracted by and entertained by than to be getting involved in politics. someone like bernie sanders is like this really old guy, was able to excite young people because of the message he was

offering. it spoke to their needs. like he talked about student debt and talked about climate change in a way that politicians don't usually talk about it. i think on people who are closer to my age, that weighs really heavy on us. when i think of like 20 years from now, i really don't know what it's going to be alignment climate-wise. it's scary to think about. there's a lot of things, and you look at somebody like hillary clinton and she takes money from the fossil fuel industry, and she won't ban fracking, she still wants to go sell it around the globe. her adviser in her transition committee is this guy who basically said fracking doesn't cause climate problems whatsoever. it's not pollution. so young people look at that and they're -- of course they're disillusioned. that's what they have to choose from, somebody who will still destroy the planet or somebody who will destroy it even more. that seems like the lesser evil, left people confused and not wanting to participate. i think the best way to maybe

get people involved is, you know, with lower level candidates maybe. like in more local areas. we also have to think about in the future, the kinds of people who are going to run, and we back and support for smaller offices. and that was another thing with grass roots, you'll talk about strategy later, but i really do think that needs to be geared toward this huge generation of young people that isn't voting in big numbers. they need to be brought into the mix. >> i'm not going to advocate what i will do. i personally, if i don't like any of the candidates, i vote for the libertarian candidate. that's what i did in the past. but i think it's very important to vote. if you don't vote it will remove you entirely from the process. i think everyone should go and vote. if they don't like hillary or trump they should select

somebody. there will be seven or eight usually in the ballots. >> i'm just going to do a quick moderator's prerogative. but real quickly, i want you guys to address two questions. very quickly. one is, do you actually -- do you believe that donald trump actually believes most of the stuff, the hate stuff that he puts out? two, is there light at the end of the tunnel? is there something positive that may come out of this? or do you see somehow this ending? real quickly. >> i don't know whether donald trump believes what he says or not. but it has been very effective in getting to where he is right now. in serious contention for the presidential -- to be president. in terms of the light, i believe we are the lighted. and we are the ones that are responsible and have to engage. there's a lot of rhetoric before

elections. there are polls, and who knows whether people are really going to act on what they say in the polls. but if we don't collectively show up, and have our voices heard on election day, then that determines what our future looks like. >> i frankly don't believe he believes half of what he says. i think it's the same with hillary. i think they'll both say whatever they can say that will get them elected. the only honest candidate was bernie sanders. he's a socialist. and pro free market. i don't agree with him, but i think he was honest. the other two candidates -- i won't say big liars. everyone knows their history. i know a bisman who did business with trump. i had lunch with him a year ago. he just had dinner with him earlier.

and he said we're good friends. and he's a great guy. been doing business with him for years. so the guy has been doing business with many people. if you saw the last debate, he complemented dubai and the airport. so that means he travels to these countries. he traveled doing business with them, has friends there. now he's saying anything to get him elected including trashing his arab business partners. indirectly. >> yeah, i think trump's a con artist. i don't know what he actually believes. but i don't -- i think he is -- a lot of what he's saying is b.s. i do feel like there's a weird alex jones tide that runs through him. like he's a seen -- seen a phone. but he's saying it and it's working. that's the scary part. what was your other -- >> is there a light at the end of the tunnel? do you see things getting

better? >> not at the moment i don't see things getting better. but i don't think we should all -- no, i think there's a light at the end of the tunnel. i think it's what bernie sanders was able to, like, galvanize was people who were a whole generation of politics has been shaped by bernie sanders. that's huge. like he's literally -- people 30 and under, like -- that is going to stick with them. they're going to have those politics for the rest of their lives. that's how it works. even pollsters are saying that this whole generation has like shifted dramatically. i know you're not going to be excited about this, but socialism is like an exciting concept to younger people. that's huge. we didn't grow up during the cold war era. i think socialism is a good thing. i think we need a lot of it in this country. i think going forward, the fact that you've got the generational change, and you've also got people who -- like i have friends who are now involved in the -- on capitol hill. like a friend of mine who was an

activist, you would never see this kid in a suit, is now like a staffer for a congressman. things like that are changing, because i think millennials really -- they are sort of going to be that future generation that's going to have to change everything. not all of them are good, but i think a lot of them are going to have better politics than the generations above us. sorry. >> good. we're going to end the panel. again, our theme this year is change through action, inspiring change through action. i think with the one action we're getting from our panel is, what you need to take into your own communities is, one, you've got to vote. you can't complain and then not vote. two, it's up to you guys to go out there and get your friends to get involved. and to, again, to double-check the facts. if somebody's perpetuating these myths, it's up to you guys to correct that. as a program note, we're going to have a few minutes' break here. we're then going to have lunch

at 12:30. the lunch is going to be something brand-new, we've never done this within adc. we're going to have a working lunch. a working lunch here. we'll hear from four or five individuals regarding certain issues and topics that we think are important. and then from there, we're going to break down into smaller groups, and we want you to discuss issues that you think we need to focus in on as adc. issues that you want us to bring to the new administration, whoever that administration is going to be. so we're going to ask you now to fully participate and you're going to be the panelists for the next session. okay? thank you. there was a question? we're here all day today. okay? thank you very much. we'll have a break. real quick, the marketplace will be setting up at 3:00.

c-span3 live today here at george mason university for a discussion about angry voters. and their impact on the presidential election and the political process. the discussion will be moderated by senior brookings fellow marvin calb. we'll be hearing from the authors of the pill ticks of resentment, about extremism in politics. and ross perot's running made. it's expected to get under way shortly.