And to explain what i had seen to win the ideological war against extremism. I firmly believe we can win. I know firsthand of the men and women serving our nation with commitment and steadfast determination to keep us safe from harm. I am honored to work with them and for them i also know the respect all president s have for all faiths. Both administrations have openly said that he this act represents the religion. My interest and involvement in the issue is not typical being involved in the h. W. Bush administration it was there in 1993 and focus on National Security and awarded of grant during the delicate and unstable time. And to understand that power of ideology and a way of life. I felt called to serve after graduate school after 9 11. Al qaeda would define my country and religion i could not sit back and watch. For more than a decade i have worked on the history of the impact of muslims. During my tenure in that conflict with isis broke out of the founders also prepared that som
It is not the other person in the village town or city. It is a shake who answers a lot of these questions for them. The reason why women are important is for two reasons. One, as you said the mother said the first in a childs first years. They are seeing things as children. If you are looking at some of these radicalization prophecies and you go back and talk to parents they have seen signs. Mothers talk about things they have seen. They influence the ecosystem within the home. But theres another piece of this and that other piece of it is how you use women to mobilize the perspective globally and connect those things. That is where we began to look at models that would work at a Grassroots Level that are very local and inspired by regular people. It wasnt government coming in and saying something. In the Bush Administration we looked at the mothers against drunk driving and asked how did that get off the ground . How do we build this and they began to think about what would happen if
And also with that we have [laughter] we have a commentary on the constitution of the United States, two volumes. This is gorgeous. And also what we call the familiar exposition of the constitution of the United States by the joseph story, and with all modesty i must say it has a foreword by me. [laughter] [applause] now if youll join us all, and we have in the foyer we will have a reception where you can personally meet the judge, but before we leave i just want to thank you again personally for being with us for all youve done for the law, and particularly for being with us tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] we take you live now to the National Press club for remarks from Veterans Affairs secretary robert mcdonald. You will be speaking today but efforts to improve medical care and other services for veterans. Secretary mcdonald has been on the job for just over 100 days. It took over the department after former secretary Eric Shinseki retire
Distinction. Well, it was certainly a purpose that went into the majority district but it was not the predominant motive. I understand that. Dont you have to use race to comply with section 5 . Thats right. Is there any way to comply with section 5 without using race . There is not. But you dont have to use race in this way, mr. Brasher. Nobody would say that section 5 required you to maintain a 78 district and a 78 district was no longer needed with respect to a groups ability to elect a candidate of choice. I respectfully disagree with that. Once again, we followed the same preclearance strategy that georgia followed in 2005. Congress made a record in 2006 to try to reauthorize section 5. Georgias plan from 2005 which kept all their majority black districts all the same was a good thing. We did the same thing in this redistricting cycle that other states did, we did the same thing that the plaintiffs did when they were in charge of the legislature in 2001. Theres been some inconsiste
For that reason. Well, it was certainly thats a very fine distinction. Well, it was certainly a purpose that went into the majority district but it was not the predominant motive. I understand that. Dont you have to use race to comply with section 5 . Thats right. Is there any way to comply with section 5 without using race . There is not. But you dont have to use race in this way, mr. Brasher. Nobody would say that section 5 required you to maintain a 78 district and a 78 district was no longer needed with respect to a groups ability to elect a candidate of choice. I respectfully disagree with that. Once again, we followed the same preclearance strategy that georgia followed in 2005. Congress made a record in 2006 to try to reauthorize section 5. Georgias plan from 2005 which kept all their majority black districts all the same was a good thing. We did the same thing in this redistricting cycle that other states did, we did the same thing that the plaintiffs did when they were in char