year after taking control you also had a 2nd wave of revolutionaries who were mobilized by resistance committees and the professional associations and i think you know was very influenced by their communist party who were calling for the government to stand down prime minister prime minister hun dark and family what we had was astonished groups and supporters of former regime mobilize from the capital in iran and surrounds some reportedly paid to come to the protests wow again protesting against the government its removal the removal of the secular government and rejection of other issues such as the normalization of relations with israel it was a different kind of demonstration perhaps not as big as some thought it would be and that in caps the government would be relieved that it wasn't an out and out rejection and that the u.s. states are a sponsor of terrorism the listing announcement this week may and tempted some of the hostility and jonas turns ishall periods are delicate and difficult to have seen that in different countries post 2011 spring but in sudan you get this feeling that the mis

. >> not only is she a mother of seven, she had children with resisting medical challenges of her own. no one on this committee or anyone has any right to suggest she does not care about access to healthcare. i during your tenure on the seventh circuit court of appeals, you have been willing to reconsider abortion restrictions that other republican appointed judges found unconstitutional. >>> she says he will consider the law without inserting her personal opinion. >> if i express a view, i made so that one where the other in a pending case. >>> the hearing continues tomorrow with senators getting 20 minutes each for questioning and a committee vote is scheduled for thursday. >>> after the break, another power shut off looming. one owner of a restaurant says it will likely cost her $10,000. that is on top of what ciardi lost during the classifier. >>> changes in the admission process to get into one of the top rated public high schools. how the idea of a lottery was prompted by the pandemic. when was the last time your property tax bill went down? what? never. are you kidding me? for years, the residential bur

committee. there are no religious test for office and the attempt to be resisted in must on the basis of the constitution. let me ask about the free exercise of religion. that is how the first amendment begin, congress shall make no iorld law -- no law prohibit ng the free exercise thereof. this in american life. why is it protected like this? ms. barrett: its presence in the it was onehts shows the people for generations beginning in 1791 considered to be essential to being a free people. sen. hawley: there's no indication religious believers are second-class citizens. ms. barrett: the free exercise suggest to the contrary. and it suggests the get specialreligion protection. it is singled out for protection after speech, press, the right of the people to assemble. religion is given a special place which the supreme court has recognized. let me ask attempts to disfavor religious believers on the basis of faith. is it your understanding, can a city,ment, federal, municipality, can they treat religious believers differently? can they single them out for disfavor? is that permissible? ms. barrett: that is a

religious test for office and the attempt to smuggle them in even in the midst of this committee must be resisted on the basis of the constitution itself. let me ask you about the first amendment, the free exercise of religion and is of course how the first amendment begins, congress should make no law respecting an establishment of the legion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. tell me what you think this says about the place of religious observance in american life and its significance. why is it protected like this in the first amendment. what do you draw from that? >> i think its presence in the bill of rights like all of our rights shows that it was one that the people for generations beginning in 1791 considered essential to being a free people. >> and there's no indication from the constitution that religious believers are second-class citizens, is there? >> the free exercise certainly suggest to the contrary. >> the free exercise clause and first amendment suggest that the exercise of religion, worship, religious belief gets special protection. is singled out here for protection alo

we have great resistance to it and our ways and means committee said we are getting rid of that. not only that, we are taking away other unfair advantages. 265 of tax breaks we want to take out. the 150 is what directly relates to the cares act, retroactive, everything we are supposed to be doing is supposed to be coronavirus centric. that wasn't. i do not know who benefits from the net operating loss in the administration, but i know the wealthiest people in our country do. say isn't something better than nothing? no. it could be a missed opportunity. of thes the needs poorest people in our country or the most insecure economically, food insecure, housing insecure, being used to give a tax break to the high end so we can give a small something to the low end. david: that makes it sound like that will be difficult for you to go along with. you will have to insist on that. that leads to some of the skepticism that nothing will get done. if it does not get done, what are the issues? i would hope they would definitely come back with a proposal for the tax cuts, the child tax credit,

tests for office in an attempt to smuggle them in, even in the midst of this committee's hearings to date. it must be resisted on the base of the constitutional amendmentamendment. that's how the amendment begins, no one shall make a law or prohibit exercise thereof. tell me what you think this says about the disturbance of american life? why is it protected? what do you draw from that? >> all of our rights shows that it was one that the people, for generations, beginning in 1791, considered it essential to being a free people. >> and there's no indication from the constitution that religious believers are second class citizens in any way, doesn't it? >> in fact, the free exercise clau clause. it's singled out here for protecti protection. religion is given a space which the constitution has recognized. is it your understanding -- can a government at any level, federal government, state government, municipal, whatever, can they treat religious believers differently? can they single them out for disfavor versus a non-religious group? is that constitutional during our senate order? >> that's a complicated quest

tests for office and the attempt to smuggle them in even in the midst of this committee's hearings to date must be resisted on the basis of the constitution itself. let me ask you about the free exercise of religion. that is how the first amendment begins, congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. tell me what you think this says about the place of religious observance in american life, and its significance. why is it protected like this in first amendment? what do you draw from that? >> i think the presence in the bill of rights, like all of our rights, shows it was one that the people for generations beginning in 1791 considered central to being a free people. >> and there is no indication from the constitution that religious believers are second class citizens in any way, is there? >> well, the free exercise certainly suggests to the contrary. >> and in fact the free exercise clause and first amendment suggest that the exercise of religion, worship religious beliefs, gets special protection. it is singled out here for protection, along

the senate judiciary committee is getting one more day to ask questions of judge amy coney barrett. she has resistedtic efforts to pin her down on abortion rights, healthcare and the upcoming election. today she was asked whether the president has the power to pardon himself. judge barrett says she could not express an opinion because the issue may come before the court. she also says the supreme court can rule on a law but it does not have the power to enforce it even when applied to the president. it is looking less likely that there will be a new stimulus relief plan before the election. house speaker nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell have dug into their opposing stances on pandemic relief. steve mnuchin spoke at the milken institute global conference today. >> at this point, getting something done before the election and executing on that would be difficult given where we are and the level of detail. we are going to try to continue to work through these issues. mark: president trump tweeted that congress should go big or go home shortly after senator mitch mcconnell promised action last week on a

. >> i was surprised there was resistance in so far as there was that many members of the republican committee who stated publicly before the vacancy that they thought merrick garland would be a good person to have on the court and somebody who could appeal to both conservatives and liberals and moderates. >> i have full respect for judge garland. >> beg your pardon? >> i'm sorry. i missed the first part. are they right to say -- could you repeat the question? >> it was not a question. i was saying we had many members of our committee, a number of republicans, who prior to the vacancy had been saying merrick garland would be a good person for president obama to nominate because he could appeal to moderates, conservatives and liberals. and then, of course, their response was well, we can't have a -- we can't have a nominee confirmed by one party that's in control of the senate and nominated by a president of another party. i was here when democrats controlled the senate and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy in an election year democrats confirmed him. but let me go to another area. thr

women, especially feminists, activists resist feminism because it is an agony for culture and designing in the relationship. it permitted us to feminine committee and they do this for the benefit of men. it is easy to fight them over this crap and submit to ourselves we are sometimes quite literally in bed with the enemy. a very world order that keeps us living fully to our lives. it is safer to lie to ourselves than admit that when all said and done -- let's pause for a minute. there are couple of things that i would love to ask about that i just heard. it is hard to read this book and not be angry. there is a different between the stereotype and anger. boy, anger is dicey for women. can you talk about that? >> absolutely, yes. a lotta feminists of color point out that for all of the work that our culture has done to portray women, it is more emotional and less rational than the white man. for all the work that has gone into this is emotional. the one emotion that we are not permitted is anger. we don't like it when we get angry. it is probably a coincidence. anger is the one emotion that can actually get stuff done. it can motivate. there is

resistance all the small coming up in today's going underground 1st britain finally faces up to something of the alleged war crimes committed during the so-called troubles today as a parliamentary committee releases a report into the legacy of bloodshed in ireland it's long been alleged that british army techniques employed in illegal british wars like the one in iraq were honed in the new book traces the past present and future of state coersion and its critical connection to global capital joining me now from los angeles is the author of the global police state professor william i robinson thank you so much for coming on we got a hint. arguably of the global police state from wiki leaks they released the iraq war logs 10 years ago this week if this month what is the global police state the title of your book i mean 3 things by global police state but let me put that in context by saying the starting point for the discussion of global police state needs to be this severe crisis of global capitalism the pandemic didn't create the crisis it only made it much worse and in talking about global police state there's 2 dimensions i want to highlight one is the structural technically we call it

resistance all the civil coming up in today's going underground at 1st britain finally faces up to something of the alleged war crimes committed during the so-called troubles today as a parliamentary committee releases a report into the legacy of bloodshed in ireland it's all been alleged that british army techniques employed in illegal british wars like the one in iraq were honed.

resistance all this more coming up in today's going underground 1st britain finally faces up to something of the alleged war crimes committed during the so-called troubles today as a parliamentary committee releases a report into the legacy of bloodshed in ireland it's wrong being alleged that british army techniques employed in illegal british wars like the one in iraq were honed in all star the new book traces the past present and future of state coersion and its critical connection to global capital joining me now from los angeles is the author of the global police state professor william i robinson thank you so much for coming on we got a hint arguably of the global police state from wiki leaks they released the iraq war logs 10 years ago this week this month what is the global police state the title of your book i mean 3 things by global police state but let me put that in context by saying the starting point for the discussion of global police state needs to be this severe crisis of global capitalism the pandemic didn't create the crisis it only made it much worse and in talking about global police state there's 2 dimensions i want to highlight one is the structural technically we

going to be far less resistance to me really getting at the bottom of this because the american people really do deserve the truth. maria: are there people within your judiciary committee and are there people within the senate that are trying to silence you, senator? >> well first of all it's homeland security committee and let's face this some of the members of that committee have gone quite public in their viewpoint of what my investigation, whether it's appropriate or not. i think it's completely appropriate. i am the senator of oversight committee. we have oversight jurisdiction over conflicts of interest that's specifically written in our jurisdiction and our responsibilities that's what this is a glaring conflict of interest. and by the way, chris cruz lied about me and said we spent millions. i haven't spent a dime other than my staff salary. this is what we do. we investigate things, it's just normal senate salary. we haven't spent a dime more than just my basic committee budget. maria: senator thank you for ex posing this to the american public. we appreciate your time and your leadership here. we'll be watching your efforts, thank you, sir. >> have a good day

was surprised there was resistance and surprise there were so many come at that time, republican members of the judiciary committee who had stated publicly before the vacancy that they thought marek garland would be a good person to have on the court, someone who could appeal to both conservatives, liberals, and moderates. judge barrett: i have full respect for judge garland. sen. leahy: i beg your pardon? judge barrett: i'm sorry -- i missed the first part -- could you repeat the question? sen. leahy: it was not a question. i was just saying that we had many members of our committee, a number of republicans who prior to the vacancy said marek garland would be a good person for president obama to nominate because he could appeal to moderates, conservatives, and liberals, and then their response was we cannot have a by one partyrmed that is in control of the senate, and nominated by the president of another party. i was here when democrats controlled the senate and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy and in an election year, democrats confirmed. another area -- a three-judge panel of the seventh circuit stru

resistant. the party of hate means to block the confirmation of judge barrett. senate minority leader chuck schumer vowed, are you ready for this? that the radical dems will boycott a vote in the senate judiciary committeethe full senate as they vote for judge amy coney barrett. schumer's doing so because he wants in some way to establish a nonlegitimacy claim. this is, these are the most -- it's just grotesquely partisan people i can imagine. we're back now with victor davis hanson and, victor, i have to say i can't think of a time in american history unless we go back to the 1850s when there has been this level of absolute hate and vitriol at, in every day that these two parties are operating. the dems have become truly the party of hate. your thoughts. >> yeah, i think they are. i think a lot of it is self-hatred in a strange way, lou. i think they understand now if harry reid had not ended the senate filibuster and judicial appointments, they wouldn't be in this fix has they just, as they promised, had they taken the senate in 2016 or '18. they had two chances, they failed. and to be frank and with no disparagement of the late ruth bader ginsburg, when most people are 83 years old and in ill health

leahy: i was surprised there was resistance, and there were so many, at that time, so many republican members of the judiciary committee had stated publicly before the vacancy that they thought marek garland would be a good person to have on the court, somebody who could appeal to both conservatives, liberals, and moderates. judge barrett: i have full respect for judge garland. sen. leahy: i beg your pardon? judge barrett: i'm sorry. i missed the first part. are they right say -- could you repeat the question? sen. leahy: it was not a question. i was just saying that we had many members of our committee, a number of republicans who prior to the vacancy said marek -- marriage garland -- said to the vacancy who merit garland -- garland would be a good person for president obama to nominate because he could appeal to moderates, conservatives, and liberals, and then their response was we cannot have a nominee confirmed by one party that is in control of the senate, and nominated by the president of another party. i was here when democrats controlled the senate, and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy and in an elect

committee. there are no religious test for office in the intent to smuggle them in. it must be resistedthe basis of the constitution itself. let me ask you about the first amendment, the free exercise of religion. that is how the first amendment begins, congress shall make no lower spending -- no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. tell me what you think this says about the police of religious observance in american life and its significance. why is it protected like this? judge barrett: i think it is present in the bill of rights the peoplews consider it essential to being a free people. sen. hawley: there's no indication from the constitution that religious believers are second-class citizens, is there? judge barrett: the free exercise suggests the contrary. sen. hawley: as the free exercise clause and first suggests, it gets special protection along with speech, press, right to assemble, religion is given a special place, which the u.s. supreme court has recognized. let me ask you about attempts to disfavor religious believers on the basis of faith. is it your understanding, c

resistant to the president's attacks. jared kushner is leading the reelection effort. he convened an all hands meeting to bring together top advisers for the republican national committeend the campaign. at issue was how and where the campaign which had been operating with conflicting sets shouldr targeting data spend its remaining funds. which candidate is better for older americans? for trump8001 supporters. (202) 748-8000 biden and harris supporters. this is a president trump supporter. go ahead. caller: good morning. c-span is wonderful. one of the best tv shows on the planet earth. thank you. donald trump supporter out of the state of ohio. he is wonderful. we are witnessing history. have you been looking at the democrats? why would anybody vote for them? we can see that clearly something is wrong with mr. biden. and ms. harris? have you seen -- she laughs. she gives this corny laugh. one of the tv people interviewed her on channel seven. on a network show. ask her, how do you square what you said about mr. biden being a racist and the other things? and that woman looked at him and laughed. it was a debate. ae man looked at her with raised eyebrow like wait a minu

committee. there are no religious test for office in the intent to smuggle them in. it must be resisted on the basis of the constitution itself. let me ask you about the first amendment, the free exercise of religion. that is how the first amendment begins, congress shall make no lower spending -- no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. tell me what you think this says about the police of religious observance in american life and its significance. why is it protected like this? judge barrett: i think it is present in the bill of rights the peoplews consider it essential to being a free people. sen. hawley: there's no indication from the constitution that religious believers are second-class citizens, is there? judge barrett: the free exercise suggests the contrary. sen. hawley: as the free exercise clause and first suggests, it gets special protection along with speech, press, right to assemble, religion is given a special place, which the u.s. supreme court has recognized. let me ask you about attempts to disfavor religious believers on the basis of faith. is it your understandin

that's -- >> i was surprised there was resistance insofar as there is so many at that time republican members of the judiciary committee who had stated publicly before the vacancy that they thought merrick garland would be a good person to have on the court and somebody that could appeal to both conservatives, liberals, and moderates. >> i have full respect for judge garland. i'm sorry. i missed the first part. could you repeat the question? >> it's not a question. we had many members of our committee a number of republicans who prior to the vacancy said merrick garland would be a good person for president obama to nominate because he could appeal to moderates, conservatives and liberals. their response was we can't have a nominee confirmed by one party that's in control of the senate and nominated by a president of another party. as i pointed out. i was here when democrats controlled the senate and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy. and in an election year democrats confirmed him. but let me go to another area. three-judge panel of the 7th circuit struck down three provisions of an indiana law restricting rep