the book. we have a point that refers to this court, and is that preferable to a judicial supremacist court? we have record? >> it is not only a terrific question, but the right question. i try to say this at the end of the book, which is as you read your way through american history, people attacked the court and say, you know, what do we do about this court, and there is tremendous anxiety about an undemocratic court. here we are in democracy, but you do not vote for dark axises -- justices. we are stuck with them. people get upset about this, and this is precisely what is britain, to say that this is the wrong word, and the truth of the matter is we have ways of getting to the court and the court is responsive. once you get a sweep of that -- >> you solve the egalitarian problem. the court is not a majority body for very long. it becomes one, it becomes a submissive body, a meat body, a different body, what good is that for democracy? >> the other story you hear is that this is a body that will protect individual liberties and constitutional rights, so how does it do that? so to use the an

on his chapter in the constitution in his book of liberals have recently relied on the fiction that eight supremacistst civil liberties have come from the bottom up. the reconstruction republicans after the civil war and before came up with the idea you could only ban speech in a period of danger. it took the supreme court 100 years to codify that principle into wall. so if we're talking about liberals, no. çófree-speech, a quality has coe more from political after d --y q%1h!13e more from úo Ñiçóçóthey are thwarting progree walk, rather than advancing it. they can codify in principle after it is accepted by the country, pushing ahead. you have to protect speech in those circumstances, we can codify that into law. but it is a fiction. obama gets it, and barry friedman gets it, to imagine that they are creating these legislations. >> i think the court gets it, and citizens united is a great example. there were several opinion polls down on campaign financing, and we learned two contrary things about the public. they value free speech, but the other thing is they want limits on campaign contribution. s

then the obviously response to the white supremacist killings. now we've had akbar in kuwait, and hasan, and we'll probably have some more. for the protection of the force, we have to be explicit about what the threat is. my time is up. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator lieberman. senator collins. >> thank you, it's good to see you both. senator lieberman, the chairman of our homeland security has asked exactly the questions that i planned to ask. which is not a surprise, because we've been working together on the whole issue of homegrown terrorism, and the threat of islamist extremism. i do want to follow up a bit on the point that senator lieberman just made. because i was struck when i read the public part of your report. but the decision to omit the term islamist extremism from the public report. and it troubled me, it troubled me because it appeared to contrast sharply when the approach that d.o.d. has taken in the past. your report recommends that the army focus on a broad range of motivations from violence, rather than focus in on

the book. we have a point that refers to this court, and is that preferable to a judicial supremacist court? ay this at the end of the book, which is as you read your way through american history, people attacked the court and say, you know, what do we do about this court, and there is tremendous anxiety about an undemocratic court. here we are in democracy, but you do not vote for dark axises -- justices. we are stuck with them. people get upset about this, and this is precisely what is britain, to say that this is the wrong word, and the truth of the matter is we have ways of getting to the court and the court is responsive. once you get a sweep of that -- >> you solve the egalitarian problem. the court is not a majority body for very long. it becomes one, it becomes a submissive body, a meat body, a different body, what good is that for democracy? >> the other story you hear is that this is a body that will protect individual liberties and constitutional rights, so how does it do that? so to use the analogy of a leash or bungee cord, it has a certain amount of room to room, but at some poi

. >>> the town of john day, oerk, has a message for a white supremacist group, we don't want you here. stay out. people in the town are actively battling to keep paul r. mullet, the self-professed national director of the aryan nations from buying property in john day. mullet announced a week ago he planned to move the group's headquarters to the town. that's when people living there sprung into action. >> we're pretty inclusive of everybody. if you want to live here and become part of the community, you're welcome to live here as long as you're not spreading hate. >> businesses, threats from people. and these are threats there who saying we're hate groups. that's more hateful than anything i would say to anybody. >> so far, mullet has not been able to find a real estate agent willing to help him find property there. >>> israel's defense minister is calling for new sanctions against iran. eye yud barack says they are necessary to stop iran's nuclear ambitions but he also says sanctions will be effective only if russia and china join other nations to back them up. israel and many other

big city ethnics, basically in their bosses and the big city bosses and very conservative reactionary and not to put a fine point on it white supremacists. because of roosevelt's overwhelming popularity, the southern conservatives went along regrudgingly with the early measures of the new deal. but they were never very happy about it. ... and he lost. any made himself look foolish. he encouraged them. and so, as at the end of 1938, it looked as though roosevelt second term is going to be as dismal as in the second terms are. and if not for a remarkable external, you could call it a historical accident, in the sense of bearing no relationship to internal american politics, roosevelt would've left office at the end -- at the beginning of 1941. and i contend that the new deal, what was left of the new deal would've been in grave jeopardy. to give you the best example, social security was passed in 1935. unemployment insurance and old-age pension. as of 1939, almost nobody was getting anything out of social security. people are putting money into social security, but this is the way it is. well-paid for years and years and years and then we

and a co-conspirator in the 1998 united states embassy bombings is in this prison. matthew hale, a white supremacisty hoover, the leader of the gangster disciples nation based in chicago is in this prison. jeff fort, the co-founder of the black peace stones gang in chicago. and founder of its el rucan faction. omar, the co-founder of the united blood nation. theodore kaczynski, the unibomber is in this prison in colorado. the drug trafficker co-conspirator in the enrique camaranna case. zacharias moussaoui, he was the co-conspirator in the 2001 attacks. guess where he is? in colorado in supermax. terry nichols, the oklahoma city bomber is in this prison. richard calvin reid, the islamic terrorist, nicknamed the shoe bomber, who also came through our regular system. eric robert rudolph, convicted of the 1996 olympic park bombing. dwight york, ramiz yusef, the world trade center bombing is in center. we can hold these people. h. brown is in this prison. thomas silverstein -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: no, i will not yield. howard mason, a drug trafficker who ordered the murder

that recently and he had an op-ed, i remember, in the new york times right after buford furrow, that white -- i believe he might have had white supremacisties, in la a few summers ago, shot some -- in a s -- in synagogue and then killed an -- an asian man, i believe. and that prompted him to write the op-ed in the times that -- that racism should be considered a mental illness. and in fact, that was brought before the american psychiatric association once, i believe, in the '70s, and -- and he -- i believe he was part of a -- the effort to have the apa designated as such and put it in the dsm -- at that time maybe dsm-i, the diagnostic and statistical manual, you know, the handbook of diagnoses. they rejected that. c-span: i -- is there any proof that you know of that -- that -- on this question about racism that causes physical reaction on the part of anybody that's not of the white race? >> guest: sure. well, i have -- there's no question in my mind that any kind of stressful situation can cause a physiological response. i mean, we've known that for -- for ages. i mean, stress causes changes in the immune s -- can cause actually change

[applause] >> i would handle it the same way you would if it were someone who was a christian white supremacistt. is not their religion, it is their attitude that is legitimate cause for concern. as we did not do with major hasan, the evidence is we had every morning he had a distorted vision of what islam -- we have every warning he had a distorted vision of what islam was. if that is not grounds for knocking someone out of the military, i don't know what is. >> how deede can you go to check who they are? >> only people who are u.s. citizens should serve in the military. secondly, i think our military personnel should not be disarmed while they are on military bases [applause] . we ought to rescind the directive that president clinton issued in 1993 that disarms military on military bases. clearly there is a provable relationship between those of a radical muslim faith and their allegiance to this country that is something that ought to be looked into. the political correctness that prohibits this is asinine and is killing us. [applause] >> your thoughts on that. >> i have served with soldiers

the establishment of a group that focuses on this full time. across this whole series of kinds of behaviors that we are talking about, criminal, drug, domestic abuse, supremacistic, we're talking about all of these. and so, i trust that's responsive to your question. >> it is, mr. secretary, do you have any commends? >> there's an annex to the report that discusses the violence in some detail. it's an important of the pieces that are research is consulted. i think it's very informative. i commend it for the reading. i think that i agree with the admirals response. also in our executive summary. we five or six key things that we recommend to the secretary that we pull out from this report is the suggestion of a body that will collect the indicators of violence, update them in light of current circumstances, of events in our world, currents in our world, and make them available to the commanders and supervisors who need to use them to make their judgments. >> let me thank admiral. did you believe or conclude that there were adequate information in coming from walter reed to fort hood with respect to the, you know, the major entity? i mean was there in problem th