Religion and racism, atheism and the Alt-Right – Patheos (blog)

When it comes to hateful ideological movements, religion has always provided hateful tyranny a helping hand. As James Madison observed, Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.

This is true for religions role in slavery and segregation and the subjugation of women and terrorism and LGBTQ rights and on and on. This list is incredibly long, but a few recent examples ought to suffice. Martin Luther King, Jr.s wonderful Letter from the Birmingham Jaila piece I reread every few monthswas written to his fellow clergymen, specifically, the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South.King took to task the white churchmen [who] stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities amid the mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice.

Bob Jones, the televangelist and founder of an eponymous religious school, infamously declared that segregation was scriptural in his 1960 Easter sermon: If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God . . . . Bob Jones University enjoyed tax exemption, a privilege. But the IRS revoked the tax exemption because the school discriminated on the basis of race. In the 1980s, BJU sued the government, arguing that its religious beliefs required the discrimination and that the government could not remove its privilege because of its religion. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed and backed up the IRS.

Jones was not a lone Christian minister fighting for segregation in his gods name. Many other churchmen joined him. The KKK is itself an explicitly Christian organization. Hell, Klansmen began burning crosses to spread the light of Jesus into the countryside. The unconstitutional anti-miscegenation law struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, was religious, Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Even now, as CEOs, business leaders, and politicians scramble to distance themselves from Trumps toxicity, his evangelical councilmade up self-proclaimed moral leadersis standing by their man and defending Trumps Tuesday bigotry.

If recent reports are to be believed, the clarity of this history is getting murky. In a recent NPR story, George Hawley, a professor at the University of Alabama and author of Making Sense of the Alt-Right explained, based on interviews he conducted, who makes up the Alt-Right.

AUDIE CORNISH: Youve interviewed many people who consider themselves part of the alt-right. Can you give us a profile? Who does this ideology appeal to?

HAWLEY: I would say it is definitely a young movement. Id say that it is predominantly white millennial men. It is not sort of stereotypically conservative in its profile. Id say that probably it is a more secular population than the country overall. That is, there are a lot of agnostics and atheists or people who are just generally indifferent to religion. And I think that it is a fairly well-educated movement on average, that as I think that probably the model alt-right member has at least some college education.

Peter Beinart wrote an article for the Atlanticon this topic and was also interviewed by NPR (NPR does great work). Beinart spoke with a bit more nuance than Hawley and addressed the bigger question, why?: [W]hat Im trying to suggest in my piece is there seems to be some evidence that as culturally conservative people disengage from religious institutions, they redraw the boundaries of us versus them from religious and moral terms to a divide over race and nation.

Beinart also suggests that the Black Lives Matter movement is to some degree the flip side of this coin: African-Americans remain more tied to church than do white Americans. And yet, you see this same divide generational divide where younger African-Americans are substantially more likely to be disengaged from religious affiliation. I suggest in the piece that the Black Lives Matter movement is to some degree a product of that.

Should data back up the anecdotal interviews about nonbelievers in the Alt-Right, there will be an overflow of religious commentators who will try to paint all atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers as racist bigots. But such data would no more show that the racists were motivated by their atheism than it would show that they were motivated by their college education, especially since the younger demographic is uniformly more nonreligious anyway.

As FFRF pointed out in our statement on Charlottesville, Raw racism does not spring from religion or irreligion. It is a harmful xenophobic tribalistic instinct that manifests itself in a certain subpopulation of our species. Religion has been a justification for racism, but it does not follow that religion is the cause. Nor would it follow that atheism is the cause.

Absolutely true. But one thing is clear: Ideas have consequences. Believing that one raceyour raceis superior dehumanizes those of other races. This idea has consequences. When others are made less than human it is easier to hate them, discriminate against them, marginalize them, and even murder them. This is why Nazis denigrated Jews as cockroaches and rats. Its why the Hutus called the Tutsis cockroaches, as well. It is sadly straightforward to treat animals like animals. Ironically, genetics prove that thereis only one race, the human race.

Religious ideas have consequences too. As I write this, we are finding out about the attack in Barcelona that left 13 dead on one of my favorite streets, Las Ramblas. No claim of responsibility yet, but ISIS is already celebrating. The parallels to Charlottesville are haunting: An attack in which an ideologically twisted individual drove a car through crowds of innocent people, different only in body count and, in all likelihood, motivating ideology.

If you believe your religion is superior to all others, that makes you special and everyone else lesser. If you believe that you are righteous and everyone else is wicked, that idea has consequences. The bible itself is inherently racist as FFRF Co-President Dan Barker has shownin his new book. FFRFs new website catalogs the racist verses and the verses in which god himself is a slavemonger Go have a look.

Religion is an idea or, more properly, a set of ideas like any other. However, religious ideas differ in two important ways. First, their authority supposedly derives from divine fiat. People who believe they have a divine sanction tend to have the worst ideas. (This makes sense; the ideas are not standing or falling on their merits, but on the basis of authority alone). Secondly, religious ideas are explicitly and deliberately held on the basis of faith. That is, they are knowingly held without evidence or in spite of evidence. As a result, religious ideas are significantly more tenacious. But every mind possessed of these bad ideas is capable of changing. There are plenty of atheists who were once preachers and reverends and Muslims. There is hope. There is hope because good ideas will eventually and inevitably triumph over bad ideas.

By Andrew L. Seidel Constitutional Attorney, Director of Strategic Response Freedom From Religion Foundation

FFRF is a national nonprofit dedicated to keeping state and church separate and educating about nontheism. We depend on member support, pleasejoin today.

Read more here:

Religion and racism, atheism and the Alt-Right - Patheos (blog)

Malaysian Police Official: Atheists Have To Stop Causing Anxiety Among Muslims – Patheos (blog)

Earlier this month, a picture of an Atheist Republic gathering in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia went viral, leading to a government crackdown. This is a nation that, in theory, celebrates the freedom of religion, but those rules dont apply to Muslims who leave their faith and certainly not to Muslims who become atheists. Government officials wanted to know if there were any ex-Muslims in that picture because they could be fined or prosecuted.

Shahidan Kassim, a minister in President Najib Razaks Cabinet, even said on camera that atheists in the country must be hunted down, because their lack of religion amounted to illegal thought crimes.

Now the Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar has weighed in with even more idiotic advice. He just issued a warning to atheists.

Stop hurting the feelings of Muslims.

I advise this atheist group not to cause uneasiness, particularly among Muslims who reject atheism, he told a news conference after witnessing a transfer of duty in the narcotics criminal investigation department and pinning on new rank insignias for senior officers.

Khalid said the nations constitution recognised Islam as the official religion without any provision in it for atheism.

He said the police would scrutinise the existing laws to enable appropriate action to be taken should the atheist group cause anxiety among Muslims.

Just a reminder: The picture above was a gathering of atheists. They werent starting arguments outside a mosque; they were just talking amongst themselves.

And how can atheists not cause anxiety against Muslims when many Muslims get offended over perceived slights against their faith? If moderates get mad over drawings of Muhammad, radicals kill over westernized culture, and the Malaysian government getting anxious over atheists hanging out, theres really nothing atheists can do to protect their feelings.

Other than just shutting up about their atheism. Which, lets face it, is what the Malaysian government really wants.

One reporter asked the top cop what hed do about Muslims who threaten atheists, which is an excellent question. Too bad the response was disappointing.

If [atheists] are threatened and there is an infringement of the laws, we will investigate and take action, he said.

Great. Theyre going to go after hateful Muslims with the same urgency that Donald Trump will go after white supremacy groups. Im sure all the atheists feel safe.

Read the rest here:

Malaysian Police Official: Atheists Have To Stop Causing Anxiety Among Muslims - Patheos (blog)

Sheila Gautreaux Highlights Importance of Forgiveness – Benzinga

New book brims with insights how readers can traverse endure The Long Journey Home'

HOUSTON, TX (PRWEB) August 17, 2017

In the "The Long Journey Home" (published by Balboa Press), author Sheila Gautreaux offers a fresh look at one of the most powerful parables in the Biblethe Prodigal Sonas man's personal journey of evolution in consciousness. This book revolves around its central theme that forgiveness holds the key to reawakening love, peace and connection for all humanity.

"The Long Journey Home" takes a fresh look at one of the most widely-recognized and most frequently interpreted of the many parables taught by Jesus during his ministry. Using the process of metaphysical interpretation, along with the concepts of conscious evolution and quantum science, the Prodigal Son emerges from a great story about coming home and forgiveness to an exploration into how life experiences are valuable teaching points and may provide powerful catalysts for quantum shifts in consciousness.

The book helps readers make sense of the challenges, struggles and detours that define people's paths as they attempt to live and grow in a world that appears to keep them from finding the safe haven they seek from birth that inner sense of "home." What it seeks to highlight is that, "our painful experiences do not have to destroy us; that they are not happening "to" us but are happening "for" us to awaken us to the tremendous power within us to heal our lives."

An excerpt from the book: "The key to successfully living in this world of polar opposites is remembering that God exists within the light and the dark; that there is only God, only Truth, and all else is but a hoax perpetrated by our ego for its own glorification. Awareness is focused attention to the details of lifethe messages, spiritual meaning and lessons within everything around us and everything that happens to us. By recognizing that everything happens for a reasonhappens not to us but for uswe use life as a tool for conscious evolution and the route to home."

"The Long Journey Home" By Sheila Gautreaux Softcover | 6 x 9in | 162 pages | ISBN 9781504368704 E-Book | 162 pages | ISBN 9781504368797 Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble

About the Author Sheila Gautreaux calls herself a "Spiritual Activist" and passionately carries the message of healing people and the planet through forgiveness. She is a Unity Minister, Licensed Unity Teacher, Certified Radical Forgiveness Coach and a 30-year student of "A Course in Miracles," and a 38-year student of Unity principles. She has written two books: "Praying Through a Storm" and "Messages." She is in demand as a highly-praised, exciting speaker who, as a retired Opera Singer, adds her vocal gift to her message. She has three children and four grandchildren.

Balboa Press, a division of Hay House, Inc. a leading provider in publishing products that specialize in self-help and the mind, body, and spirit genres. Through an alliance with indie book publishing leader Author Solutions, LLC, authors benefit from the leadership of Hay House Publishing and the speed-to-market advantages of the self-publishing model. For more information, visit balboapress.com. To start publishing your book with Balboa Press, call 877-407-4847 today. For the latest, follow @balboapress on Twitter.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/SheilaGautreaux/TheLongJourneyHome/prweb14610518.htm

See the rest here:

Sheila Gautreaux Highlights Importance of Forgiveness - Benzinga

Heinrich pays a visit to the MRO – El Defensor Chieftain

U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich calls the Magdalena Ridge Observatory a facility with enormous promise.

Heinrich toured the observatory Friday after announcing congressional funding for the observatorys interferometer project.

Were excited to be able to secure some federal funding to keep this moving down the road, Heinrich said. I think that the science of being able to track objects in space is only becoming more important over time, both from a scientific point of view and a defense point of view.

Heinrich said that was the reason $5 million in funding was secured from the Fiscal 2017 budget to help build the Magdalena Ridge Observatory Interferometer. Heinrich saw the first of the telescopes that will become the Magdalena Ridge Observatory Interferometer (MROI). When complete, the telescopes of MROI will be arrayed in a Y-shape and will be able to achieve a resolution 100 times greater than the Hubble Telescope.

Were working on the 2018 bill, Heinrich said. No promises, but were hopeful. A lot of people see the value of this project.

We deeply value the support we receive through Congress and the Air Force (who is working with New Mexico Tech on the project) for this really innovative research that we have here, New Mexico Tech President Stephen Wells added.

The funding will go toward the first telescope on the ridge, which is being moved into place, and the second telescope, which is under construction. The project is expected to cost $25 million when complete.

We dont have the money yet to complete the second telescope, New Mexico Tech Vice President for Research and Economic Development Van Romero said. When we receive that telescope will depend on when we receive the money and how its appropriated.

Romero said another $5 million is needed to get the second telescope on site. The appropriation from the Fiscal 2017 budget is the second round of funding. Another $15 million will be needed to complete the project.

We look forward to receiving the full amount of the appropriation so we can complete the project in a timely way and produce the science that weve promised Congress and our colleagues in the U.K., Wells added.

Cambridge University is working with New Mexico Tech on the project.

It really helps build on the scientific mission of New Mexico Tech broadly, Heinrich said. I have to say, I am amazed at the people I come in contact with who are familiar with the science that New Mexico Tech does, whether thats optics and telescopes, or explosives obviously or the engineering department. The reputation is quite deserved and very impressive.

Heinrich said he ran into people involved with the television show MythBusters last year and they couldnt stop raving about EMRTC and New Mexico Tech and the work they do there.

They were at the White House Science Night and they ended up talking about New Mexico Tech for quite a while, Heinrich said.

Heinrich said he had been to the ridge before, but this was the first time he actually toured the facility.

Its very impressive, Heinrich said. Im looking forward to the day when there are three operational telescopes. Thats when well be able to prove its value and concept nationally, and for that matter, internationally.

The telescopes will be able to track satellites and deep space objects, Romero said.

See the article here:

Heinrich pays a visit to the MRO - El Defensor Chieftain

Eclipse forum planned at MVTHS – Mt. Vernon Register-News

MT. VERNON Mt. Vernon Township High School will host a special education forum on the solar eclipse Sunday night.

The free event will feature hands-on activities for kids, a scientific lecture, and stargazing outside the school, said MVTHS Dramatics Director Mary Beth Mezo, one of the forum's organizers.

What's great about this presentation is it's good for all ages, Mezo said, later adding, Hopefully, some of our out-of-town guests will take advantage of it.

Rend Lake College Associate Professor Greg Hollmann and NASA Specialist Dr. Kenneth Sembach will be featured guests at the forum, which kicks off at 7 p.m. in the MVTHS Schweinfurth Theater. The forum is the final event of the Totality Fest leading up to Monday's solar eclipse.

Hollmann will speak about the significance of the eclipse and offer hands-on activities for kids to teach them about astronomy.

Then Dr. Sembach will take the stage to talk about his work with the Hubble Telescope. Sembach, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, has worked with the Hubble Telescope for about 16 years and has a leadership role in the new James Webb Space Telescope project.

The stargazing begins at around 9 p.m. as the audience will be invited outside to look at the night sky. Hollmann will provide guidance during the session, pointing out stars and other celestial bodies.

To enhance the experience, all the lights at MVTHS will be shut off, Mezo said. This, plus the high school's isolated location, should give people a clearer view of the sky, Mezo said.

You don't have all the city lights interfering with the night sky, Mezo said.

Mezo said she hopes those in attendance will learn more about the eclipse while enjoying a fun family activity.

She added the new theater is an ideal setting for the forum and it's nice to host an event there for the whole community.

It's something at the theater other than a high school production or a concert, Mezo said. This is the kind of thing that the theater needs to be doing for the community.

Originally posted here:

Eclipse forum planned at MVTHS - Mt. Vernon Register-News

NATO Needs an Offensive Cybersecurity Policy – StopFake.org

A man stands next to screens during the Locked Shields 2017 exercise organized by NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia, April 26, 2017. (REUTERS/Ints Kalnins)

By Barbara Roggeveen, for Atlantic Council

Modern-day warfare is as much about cyberattacks and the protection of communication and information systems as it is about kinetic military action. In 2016, NATOs institutional networks experienced on average 500 cyberattacks a monthan increase of roughly 60 percent from the year before. Other recent, high-profile, transnational cyberattacks, such as the WannaCry ransomware attack and Petya, highlight the urgent need for NATO and its member states to develop strong cybesecurity capabilities.

Although NATO has been working toward a more comprehensive cybersecurity policy, there are two major challenges with its current strategy. The current plan places cyberattacks within the scope of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the concept of collective defense, thus, creating high thresholds for engagement. In addition, it allows for mainly defensive and reactive measures, leaving less room for preventive or offensive operations.

NATOs approach to cybersecurity can be traced back to early steps taken at the 2014 Wales Summit, in which NATO included cyber defense in its core tasks of collective defense. At the Warsaw Summit two years later, NATO recognized cyberspace as a domain of operations, reaffirming its defensive mandate with regard to cyber threats.

The Warsaw Summit Communiqu states that recognizing cyberspace as a domain of operations will support NATOs broader deterrence [of] and defense [against cyber threats], and NATO promised to continue integrating cyber defense into operational planning [to ensure] a better management of resources, skills, and capabilities.

Armed attack-threshold

The designation of cyberspace as a domain of operations has far-reaching implications. As decided upon by Allied countries in the Tallinn Manual 2.0, such a label allows NATO to act only against those cyberattacks that qualify as an armed attack. In the case of cyberattacks, however, opponents often do not seek physical destruction. Of late, cyberattacks have moved further away from traditional warfare in pursuit of subtler influences, sometimes involving coercive political pressure. On July 28, the US Congress voted for new sanctions on Russia for its meddling in the 2016 US presidential election in favor of then-candidate US President Donald J. Trump.

By placing cyberattacks within the doctrine of collective defense, NATO limits its response to those cyberattacks that reach the armed-attack threshold, making it extremely difficult for NATO members to effectively address cyberattacks that do not qualify as such.

Whether a cyber operation constitutes an armed attack also depends on the parties involved. Traditionally, the right to collective defense could only be invoked in case of an armed attack undertaken by one state against another. NATOs Strategic Concept allowed for a wider definition, stipulating that the North Atlantic Treaty covers any armed attack on the territory of the Allies, from whatever direction or source. Although this allows NATO to take defensive action against cyberattacks carried out by non-state actors, there is still some uncertainty within the community of allied countries as to when collective defense against non-state actors is permissible. One of the biggest challenges in this case remains attribution. It is often difficult to trace cyberattacks back to one specific organization.

From defensive to offensive capabilities

Currently, NATOs cybersecurity strategy is strictly defensive. The NATO Computer Incident Response Capability (NCIRC) protects NATOs own networks, and NATO supports allied members in their individual cyber defenses through intelligence gathering and sharing, the employment of high-readiness cyber defense teams, the development of targets for allied countries to facilitate national cyber defense capabilities, and investment in education, training, and exercise.

As James A. Lewis, director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote for the Tallinn Papers, a series of publications from the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, a cyber defensive orientation is the equivalent of a static defense, defending fixed positions rather than maneuvering, and conceding initiative to opponents.

Defensive measures might hold off an individual cyberattack, but they do not address the underlying threat. Although the protection of NATO members national networks should be a priority, the most effective way to provide sustainable and long-term protection against cyberattacks is through offensive capabilities and the destruction of opponent networks and systems.

While individual member states can take certain steps toward achieving this objectivethe United States, for example, has already employed strong offensive cyber capabilities, such as Stuxneta collective NATO doctrine would provide allied countries with the necessary guidelines regarding proportionality and subsidiarity when employing offensive cyber capabilities. NATOs cybersecurity policy should provide a clear framework to address the relatively uncharted territory of offensive cyber operations.

Recommendations

Current developments in the field of cybersecurity require a more proactive approach. In order to counter cyber threats, NATO should pursue a broader and more dynamic operational framework than that of collective defense. As the cyber capabilities of NATOs opponents grow more sophisticated, the Alliance should adopt a cybersecurity policy that can effectively counter these threats.

Primarily, this means that NATO should create a public doctrine, independent from the concept of collective defense, that allows member states to not only act defensively, but also offensively. Second, NATO should pursue a public policy that also effectively addresses cyber threats that stay below the armed attack-threshold. Overcoming these two challenges would enable the community of Allied countries to develop the necessary framework to comprehensively address current cybersecurity threats.

By Barbara Roggeveen, for Atlantic Council

Barbara Roggeveen is a research assistant at the Slavic Department of the University of Amsterdam and a former intern with the Atlantic Councils Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.

Read more:

NATO Needs an Offensive Cybersecurity Policy - StopFake.org

Russian Invasion? Moscow’s Rivals Say War Games Are Cover And Troops Won’t Leave – Newsweek

Russia has been sending troops into Belarus since Monday in preparation for massive upcoming war games that opponents in the neighboring Eastern European state worry could be acover for a long-term foreign military presence.

Despite Moscow repeatedly assuring rivals that next month's military maneuvers were simply that, critics in Belarus have joined a number of other regional countries in expressing concern about President Vladimir Putin's long-term goals. The Zapad, or "West," exercises are set to officially include 12,700 Russian soldiers across Russia's western flank as well as in Belarus, a traditional ally of the Kremlin. Putin has provided U.S.-led Western defense pact NATO with troop information and has invited foreign observers, including those from anxious Baltic states, but some in Belarus still fear the Russian leader's strategy.

Related:Russia, Iran, other Assad allies and enemies cash in on success in Syria, but U.S. left out

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

"He will lead this situation to what had happened in Ukraine, Aleksandr Konches, an elderly protestor told The New York Times Sunday. "Look at who came outpensioners, workers, simple people."

Russia's President Vladimir Putin (C), Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (R) and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko watch the joint war games Zapad-2013 (West-2013) at Khmelevka base in the Kaliningrad Region, September 26, 2013. After Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula, neighboring countries have expressed concern about the size of this year's Zapad exercise. Alexei Druzhinin/RIA Novosti/Kremlin/Reuters

Since Russia annexed the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014 amid widespread unrest in the neighboring country, Moscow's NATO-aligned neighbors have sought to boost protection against what they perceive to be aggressive Russian military and political moves in the region. In 2015, the U.S. mapped out four multinational battle groups in theBalticstates and Poland, intended to bolster NATO's military infrastructure on Russia's border. Russia has argued NATO's plans are an attempt to isolate it and has sought to improve its own defensive positions. Both NATO and Russia have since engaged in an arms race, including a near constant series of dueling military exercises.

Zapad has occurred every four years for decades and, despite heightened tensions between Russia and the West, nothing appears to set this exercise apart. Russian media have previously placed the number of troops involved as being up to 100,000, butMargarete Klein of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs told Germany's Deutsche Welle Thursday that this figure may refer to Russia's larger preparation for the upcoming exercises.

Other rumors have also contributed to popular concerns about Russia's intentions.Numerous Western media outlets reported that the 2009Zapad exercise ended with a simulated nuking of Poland, but no declassified evidence of such a scenario could be found, according to CNN.Some also speculate that the 2009 exercise was a cover for heightened military action in neighboring Georgia and the next installation in 2013 was designed to prepare for military action in Ukraine the following year, according to Real Clear Defense, which went on to say that this year's drills did not appear to be a cover for any real-world aggressions. Prominent opponents of Moscow, such asMikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president, have also shared their analysis.

Russian servicemen celebrate their victory in the Safe Route competition at the International Army Games 2017 at the Andreyevsky military polygon outside Tyumen, August 6, 2017. Russia's military recently displayed its military might along with a number of nations as part of the International Army Games 2017, which it co-hosted with China. Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

"I think the most imminent threat [from Russia] is coming up against Belarus, because I think part of the military personnel and equipment will remain in Belarus after the exercises," Saakashvili told the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Libertyearlier this month.

"It is unlikely they will do anything during the exercises. But any trap might be expected after the exercises. I think they are considering the possibility of the complete occupation of Belarus, and possibly an annexation of that country. That would be yet another big crisis in the region."

Russia has denied any plans to compromise the sovereignty of Belarus, where Aleksandr Lukashenko has been a supporter of the Kremlin since becoming the country's first post-Soviet president in 1994. Prior to the Zapad exercises, Russia and Belarus will conduct command and control exercises from Monday through Friday, the Belarusian Telegraph Agency cited the country's defense ministry as saying.

See more here:

Russian Invasion? Moscow's Rivals Say War Games Are Cover And Troops Won't Leave - Newsweek

One chart sums up how little faith American allies have in Trump – Vox

Russian President Vladimir Putin has illegally seized Crimea, invaded Ukraine, and meddled in the US and French elections. Yet people in more than half a dozen NATO countries still trust him to do the right thing in international affairs more than they trust President Trump to, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Thats pretty wild.

NATO is a Cold Warera military alliance that was formed to protect Europe from the Soviet Union, and one of its key roles today is serving as a bulwark against Russian influence and expansionism. The US is the backbone of NATO in terms of military power and financing, and its essential to keeping Russian influence in Europe in check.

Yet majorities in seven NATO countries Greece, Germany, Turkey, Hungary, France, Italy, and Spain said they had more faith that Putin would do the right thing in global affairs than Trump, often by huge margins. The chart below shows the results from 36 of the countries included in the survey. All the countries listed above that black line about halfway down are the ones in which more people said they trust Putin than Trump:

But take a look at the three countries that are right under that black line: Australia, Canada, and the UK. Two of those (Canada and the UK) are NATO members, and Australia is one of Americas closest allies, having fought alongside the US in every major conflict since World War I. Yet those three countries only barely made it under that line: In Australia, confidence in Trump was just 2 points more than in Putin; it was only 3 points more in both Canada and the UK.

The prompt that pollsters posed to respondents is extremely broad do the right thing could be interpreted in a number of ways. On one hand, trust in a leader by that metric could signal approval of his worldview and his policies. In that case, it would seem Putin is generally more well-liked in these countries.

Alternatively, it could mean that someone believes the leader is judicious and not inclined to act rashly in his foreign policy. Through that lens, respondents could simply be saying they think Putin is a more prudent strategist than Trump, who is famously inexperienced and impulsive.

In all likelihood, the poll results suggest a blend of the two both unfavorable views of Trump and mistrust in his ability to navigate international affairs wisely. In either case, its an amazing finding, and yet another indicator of sharply declining trust in American leadership.

Continue reading here:

One chart sums up how little faith American allies have in Trump - Vox

Accused NSA leaker will get to see classified evidence in her espionage prosecution – The Augusta Chronicle

The Augusta National Security Agency leak suspect will get to review classified information federal prosecutors might use against her during her upcoming espionage trial.

In an supplemental protective order signed by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on Wednesday, both sides have agreed to the procedure which will allow Reality Leigh Winner to access evidence the prosecutors may use to prove she committed the crime of willful retention and transmission of national defense information.

Winner, 25, has pleaded not guilty. She has been held without bond since her June 3 arrest in which federal agents armed with a search warrant raided her Battle Row rental home. The search was brought on by a federal investigation launched after a National Security Agency official was approached by a reporter seeking to authenticate a national security document.

The prosecutors contend Winner accessed and copied a classified document through her job with the National Security Agency contractor Pluribus International Corp., at Fort Gordon. Winner, who served in the Air Force for six years as a linguist specializing in Middle Eastern languages, had a top security clearance.

In the order Epps signed this week, Winner will be held to the obligations of her security clearance. She can face further prosecution if she releases any classified information she may learn through the discovery materials in her case. She may see any document that is deemed unclassified or is specifically marked by federal prosecutors as authorized for disclosure to Reality Leigh Winner. That material is expected to include intelligence reporting, network audit logs of U.S. government agency, FBI interview reports including Winners own interview, and correspondence of contractors from May 24 to June 1.

Although federal prosecutors insist the document Winner allegedly leaked is classified, The Intercept online news media produced an in-depth report on a classified document it received this summer that is an analysis of the extent of Russias tampering efforts during the latest presidential election.

Winners trial is tentatively set to begin the week of Oct. 23.

Reach Sandy Hodson at sandy.hodson@augustachronicle.com or (706) 823-3226

More here:

Accused NSA leaker will get to see classified evidence in her espionage prosecution - The Augusta Chronicle

Posted in NSA

UP: Madrassas defying order on I-Day may face action under NSA – citytoday

Prime News, Nation, (Bareilly), August 17:-Madrassas in Bareilly area which defied the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government order on unfurling the national flag and singing the national anthem on Independence Day may face action, including under the stringent National Security Act (NSA), a senior official said here.

If we get a complaint that any madrassa did not comply with the government order on the unfurling the national flag and the recital of national anthem, we will get it probed and after giving a chance to all, action will be taken against the guilty as per the law, Bareilly Divisional Commissioner, P V Jaganmohan said today.

He added that action could be initiated as per the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), besides other laws, for showing disregard to the national flag and national anthem, including the National Security Act (NSA).

Under the NSA, a person can be detained without bail or trial and the authorities need not disclose the grounds of detention if they believe the detainee can act in a way that poses a threat to the security of the state, country or the maintenance of public order.

Jaganmohan said that all the minority welfare officers had been asked to immediately submit a list of madrassas where the national anthem was not recited. Complaints from the public in this regard will also be probed, he said. According to officials, a majority of the madrassas followed the order.

However, according to some reports, the call by some clerics to defy the order had an impact in some madrassas and Saare jahan se achcha Hindustan hamara was sung instead of the national anthem. However there was no official confirmation about this.

-(NAV, Inputs: Agencies)

View post:

UP: Madrassas defying order on I-Day may face action under NSA - citytoday

Posted in NSA

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF’s petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County – Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

This week several groups filed friend of the court briefs supporting PLFs Supreme Court petition inWayside Church v. Van Buren County.

Two of the amicus briefsone by AARP and the other by the Buckeye Institutefocus on the need for the Court to review Michigans unjust tax foreclosure law. Under this unjust and unconstitutional law, Van Buren County took Wayside Churchs property, sold it for $206,000 to pay around $16,750 in property taxes, penalties, fees, and interest. The County then pocketed all of the remaining profit as a windfall. Similarly, the county took the farm and home where Henderson Hodgens grew up, and sold it for $47,750 to pay a $5,900 debt. The County kept the entire profit, even though it already got significant benefit from the penalties and high interest rate due under state law. The amicus briefs offer additional arguments that explain why the County violated the constitution when it took thesurplus profit and why it is important that the Court overturn the practice.

The other two briefsoneby Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the other by NFIB Small Business Legal Center, The Cato Institute, and Southeastern Legal Foundationask the Supreme Court to review an important jurisdictional issue in this case. As they succinctly explain, this case presents the Supreme Court with a great opportunity to open the federal courthouse doors to individuals who seek to enforce their Fifth Amendment right to just compensation. Congress intended that the federal courthouses be open for these sorts of claims and there is no reasonto deny individuals of that right.

We are grateful for these organizations support and hope the Supreme Court will grant the petition to remedy the injustice suffered by our clients.

Continued here:

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF's petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

You Should Be Able to Vindicate Federal Property Rights in Federal Court – Cato Institute (blog)

In 2012, various properties in Van Buren County, Michigan became subject to foreclosure for property tax delinquencies. In 2014, the properties were subject to an order of foreclosure and were auctioned off to satisfy the delinquencies. Wayside Church owed $16,750 in back taxes on a parcel it used as a youth camp. When the property was sold for $206,000, Van Buren County kept the $189,250 in surplus as required by Michigans General Property Tax Act. Other taxpayers were similarly situated. For example, Myron Stahl and Henderson Hodgens had their properties auctioned for $68,750 to pay a $25,000 debt and $47,750 to pay a $5,900 debt, respectively.

Michigan law doesnt recognize a right to surplus proceeds from tax sales, so the property owners sued in federal court, alleging that the county violated the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause when it kept the surplus proceeds from the sale of their properties. The district court dismissed the suit, precisely because Michigan law doesnt recognize a right to surplus proceeds in such cases. On appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Citing the Supreme Courts ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), the court held that plaintiffs failure to first pursue avenues of relief in state court barred the door to federal court.

Wayside Church and the other property owners filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case and clarify takings law. Along with the National Federation of Independent Business, Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Prof. Ilya Somin, Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting that petition. We argue that this case provides an excellent opportunity to preferably overrule, but at least reconsider, Williamson Countys requirement that a property owner must first sue in state court to ripen a federal takings claim.

The reality is that Williamson Countys state-remedies requirement results in constitutional absurdity: the very state court decision that a property owner must receive in order to ripen their claim simultaneously bars the owner from (re)litigating the issue in federal court. The Williamson County rule has also proven to be a potent weapon in the hands of manipulative defendants. Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a takings claim filed in state court could be removed to federal court (because of the federal constitutional issue), governmental defendants have removed claims to federal court, and then argued that they should be dismissed as unripe!

The state-remedies rule has no doctrinal basis and is antithetical to the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified to secure constitutional rights against the states and was seen as necessary to curb state government abuses. Fearing state courts could not be trusted to enforce the U.S. Constitution against their own state governments, a federal civil rights law 42 U.S.C. 1983 was then enacted to ensure a federal forum for vindicating federal rights. Yet Williamson County has effectively gutted the protections of both of these Reconstruction-era reforms.

Before Williamson County, there was no rule that required a property owner to resort to litigation in order to ripen a takings claim, and nothing in the text of the Fifth Amendment suggests that litigation in state court is necessary to ripen a takings claim. Instead, the text should be read to recognize a ripened claim the moment property is taken if there isnt a readily available administrative procedure for obtaining just compensation.

The Supreme Court will decide this fall whether to take upWayside Church v. Van Buren County.

Go here to read the rest:

You Should Be Able to Vindicate Federal Property Rights in Federal Court - Cato Institute (blog)

Armed private militias like Charlottesville’s offend the Founding Fathers’ intent: This is not what the Second … – New York Daily News

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 12:27 PM

The armed encampment formerly known as the idyllic college town of Charlottesville showed the world what a gun-happy nation looks like: a toxic mix of armed white supremacist alt-right Neo-Nazis and KKK members protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, counter-demonstrators, some of whom were armed, Charlottesville police, Virginia state National Guard and other so-called militias private citizens armed and outfitted in military garb who claimed to be there to keep the peace.

This confrontation revealed two epic American blunders: the idea that arming hostile groups somehow improves public safety, and the parallel notion that so-called private militias are a legitimate expression of Second Amendment rights.

To its detriment, Virginias lax gun laws allow for open civilian gun carrying and easy gun access to virtually any kind of hand-held firearm, including assault weapons. While Virginias law enforcement has been criticized for not intervening more effectively between the opposing groups, the situation was only complicated by the presence of self-styled militias, including representatives from the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, who claimed to be there not to take sides-although they were initially invited by the white supremacists but to help keep the peace (although theres no evidence they did anything of the kind).

According to a typical news account, these unofficial paramilitary groups . . . have long thrived across America due to the second amendments directive: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Make America Gray again: Trump's betrayal of American values

America and the rest of the world need to know that this is false: the Second Amendments right to bear arms does not protect, much less encourage, private citizens to form their own armed para-military groups.

From the colonial era on, Americans organized as militias did so and sought to do so-under the recognition and control of the state or national governments. The Bill of Rights had just been ratified when Congress enacted the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, a law designed to bring greater uniformity and control to the nations militias, which at the time were central to national defense.

In a little-known Supreme Court case from 1886, Presser vs. Illinois, the court made clear why private militias are not, and cannot be, militias under law. In ruling against the right of an armed paramilitary group to march in Chicago, the court explained that Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government. . . . They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.

To deny the government the right to restrict or outlaw such private groups would be tantamount to denying the government the right to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine (looting).

Trumps America is an alien nation

As the court said then, the only legal militia is the National Guard. That is no less true today.

Every state in the union, including Virginia, has laws against private armies, but law enforcement is often reluctant to press the matter with armed private militias for fear of provoking an armed response. And when anyone can carry guns openly, law enforcement finds itself boxed in.

Too bad that Virginia has missed the lesson of Americas actual gun law past: by the end of the 19th century, every state but four had enacted laws to restrict civilian gun carrying, especially in the cities and towns of the old West. The best way to keep trouble from escalating, they knew, was to require everyone entering town to surrender their firearms, to be retrieved only when they left.

In the upside down world of todays gun laws, at a time of record low crime, places like Virginia seem to say the opposite: bring your guns! Carry them openly!

Our countrys forebears knew that hostilities could only be made worse when antagonists were armed, and that law enforcement was best left to the professionals. And as for private militias, if they really want to serve their country, the National Guard is still taking applications.

Spitzer is distinguished service professor and chair of political science at SUNY Cortland, and the author of five books on gun policy, including Guns Across America.

Visit link:

Armed private militias like Charlottesville's offend the Founding Fathers' intent: This is not what the Second ... - New York Daily News

Ban the Open Carry of Firearms – New York Times

Photo Members of a white supremacists militia stand in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday. Credit Joshua Roberts/Reuters

When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.

They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but lets not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.

Plain and simple, public terror is not protected under the Constitution. That has been the case throughout history. And now is the time to look to that history and prohibit open carry, before the next Charlottesville.

Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror (including the murder of dozens of freedmen and Republicans at the 1866 Louisiana Constitutional Convention) by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places. Later, in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized. For states, such a law was necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.

In other words, our political forebears would not have tolerated open carry as racially motivated terrorists practiced it in Charlottesville. They did not view open carry as protected speech. According to the framers, the First Amendment protected the right to peaceably not violently or threateningly assemble. The Second Amendment did not protect private paramilitary organizations or an individual menacingly carrying a loaded weapon. Open carry was antithetical to the public peace. Lawmakers were not about to let people take the law into their own hands, so they proactively and explicitly prohibited it.

See the article here:

Ban the Open Carry of Firearms - New York Times

Is There a Way to Prevent the Next Charlottesville? – Slate Magazine (blog)

These guys aren't law enforcement. Is this about to become normal?

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

With more white nationalist rallies planned in the coming weeks, including one this upcoming Saturday in Boston, cities across the country may soon be looking for ways to try to prevent the sort of violence that took place last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Bostons Mayor Martin Walsh is reportedly looking into legal grounds to stop the next alt-right rally from happening in his city. Those rallygoers are permitted, though, and have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

Peaceablyis the key word there, however. The white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville were reportedly armed to the teeth. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe claimed his state police were outgunned on Saturday, while one white nationalist leader showed off his firepower in a popular Vice News documentary about the weekends events. Another rallygoer in that videoclad in camouflageseemed to be warning police that he planned to send at least 200 people with guns to gather equipment that was at the site of the rally. Heavily armed paramilitary groups barely distinguishable in appearance from law enforcement officials, meanwhile, made their own show of force in Charlottesville, saying they were there to keep the peace between white nationalist rallygoers and counter-protesters.

As my Slate colleagues Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern reported on Monday, those trying to exercise First Amendment rights clashed with those claiming to exercise Second Amendment rightsincluding Virginias open-carry lawsin Charlottesville, and the guns won. Current constitutional doctrine, they argued, is poorly equipped to handle a situation where one heavily armed group of assemblers is able to silence with their weaponry the free speech rights of a different group of would-be assemblers.

But University of Virginia professor Philip Zelikow argues that the Constitution does allow for restricting armed rallies. Writing in Lawfare, Zelikow notes that there is precedent for preventing groups of heavily armed white supremacists from gathering in intimidating mass assemblies:

The judge granted their request, the order worked, and the group was enjoined from displays of intimidation.

Reading a description of one white supremacist group in Charlottesville by BuzzFeed News reporter Blake Montgomery, its hard not to think of that standard for an illegal paramilitary gathering:

In his article, Zelikow went onto write that, while the Second Amendment guarantees a right to a well-regulated militia, federal courts have held that private militias do not have the right to free reign.

When private self-styled militias get organized, equipped to fight, and travel to my town for a confrontation, this is not a Second Amendment story, Zelikow told me over email. They are organized to violate civil rights and intimidate my townspeople, to show their strength not with their speech, but with their firepower.

Zelikow argues that towns and citizens have the right to sue and enjoin such heavily armed organized groups from staging such rallies. He also suggests that rallygoers like the ones in Charlottesvilleas well as some of the counter-protestersmight have fit the standard for such an injunction. [T]here were a number of clusters that deployed together with standardized dress (to recognize each other), standardized insignia, similar combat/riot gear, and similar classes of weapons, Zelikow, who worked in multiple prior presidential administrations, said over email. Not incidentally, the Antifa [anti-fascist] group also has some standardized identifiers (red neckerchiefs, for example), deploys together in an obviously coordinated way, and carried assault weapons.

(At least one leftist group was reported to have showed up armed with guns.)

Ultimately, Zelikow compares the appearance of these sorts of heavily armed groups asserting the right to mass public assembly to darker periods in world and U.S. history:

The coming weeks seem likely to continue to test that line between protected assembly and unprotected civil violence. The ability of civil authorities to respond when that line is crossed also seems likely to face some very serious challenges.

See more here:

Is There a Way to Prevent the Next Charlottesville? - Slate Magazine (blog)

Police must act fast to protect First Amendment rights: Robert Shibley – USA TODAY

Robert Shibley, Opinion contributor Published 10:22 a.m. ET Aug. 17, 2017 | Updated 10:24 a.m. ET Aug. 17, 2017

In Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 13, 2017.(Photo: Tasos Katopodis, epa)

Americans were shocked by the naked political violence we saw this weekend in Charlottesville, Va. Commenters on the left and the right immediately blamed the usual suspects. The right blamed identity politics. The left blamed entrenched racism. But an obvious cause of injury and death is once again being overlooked: the fact that the violence was allowed to get underway at all.

State, local, and even college campus leadership appear to be telling police to stand by while some degree of unlawful violence takes place right before their eyes. Yet when that violence predictably spirals out of control, the authorities profess their inability to have done anything to stop it. Meanwhile, those inclined to violence are emboldened, secure in the knowledge that the publicity payoff is high and the odds of punishment low.

More: Three homeland security lessons from Charlottesville: Michael Chertoff

More: Trump Tower presser proved our president is far worse than a racist

This must stop. Freedom of expression is what gives us the ability to hash out societal issues through argument instead of physical conflict, but it is only meaningful when people are reasonably confident that they will be physically safe while they speak and listen. When the authorities simply stand by and let political violence occur, even in the hope of the conflict somehow de-escalating itself, they send the message that both sides have a free hand to violently attack their opponents. This makes a mockery of the First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.

After the riot that successfully prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, in February, many reported on the conspicuous lack of police involvement despite the injuriesand destruction. I personally spoke to a woman who had come to see the speech. Having been pepper-sprayed and nearly blinded by a violent protester, she told me she crawled over three layers of crowd barriers to reach a building with dozens of police inside. Yet when she reached the door, the police refused her entry.

Likewise, CNN reported that in Charlottesville, both sides agree that one group didn't do enough to prevent the violence as the crowds grew and tensions flared: the police. The organizer of the Unite the Right rally complained that police purposefully created the catastrophe that led to a melee in the streets of Charlottesville, while a Black Lives Matter leader attending the counter-protest remarked, It's almost as if they wanted us to fight each other.

More: Trump champion: Bury Confederate romanticism. It's indefensible and bad for GOP.

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

Its hard to think of a more thankless task than riot policing. But when authorities fail at the basic task of preventing mob violence, both political and policy questions need to be asked. When the Huffington Post reports that Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State played a more active role in breaking up fights than the police, law enforcements response needs serious rethinking.

There is one group of people who have so far consistently benefitted when political violence has been allowed to take place: the politicians who lead our localities and the de facto politicians who run our campuses. They avoid the political fallout from images of police confronting violent protesters (who may also be their supporters), they get to blame whichever side they like less for causing the violence, and get to pretend to fulfill their responsibility to keep people safe by making it harder for controversial viewpoints to be expressed.

Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at Berkeley after the school insisted it would not be safe for her to speak on campus. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe blamed the ACLU of Virginia and a federal judge for blocking the citys attempt to revoke the rallys permit, saying We've got to look at these permits. This week, Texas A&M and the University of Florida announced that safety concerns prevented them from hosting speeches by Richard Spencer that are several weeks away. In contrast, in the 1960s American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell was able to speak at UCLA, Michigan State, Brown, and other colleges, before audiences containing people who might have fought or lost loved ones to actual German Nazis. How can it be that hosting a similar speaker is impossible now?

Trading our free speech rights for the opportunity to be victimized by political violence is tremendously foolish, as is turning the blame for it on our civil liberties or those who defend them. Benjamin Franklin famously told a curious Philadelphian that Americas founders had given us a republic, if you can keep it. This is exactly what he was talking about.

Robert Shibley, an attorney, is executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

You can read diverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers on theOpinion front page, on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment toletters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2wdmXID

See more here:

Police must act fast to protect First Amendment rights: Robert Shibley - USA TODAY

Podcast: Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment – Constitution Daily (blog)

Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? Hear about the First Amendment aspects of this pending legal case.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has filed suit on behalf of several Twitter users who were denied the ability to follow the Presidents Twitter feed after they made comments critical of him. The Institute claims that the ban is a violation of a First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly, and that a public officials social media page is a designated public forum.

The Justice Department, defending President Trump, says the courts are powerless to tell President Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle and the Institutes requests would send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters.

Joining our We The People podcast to discuss these arguments are Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law.

CREDITS

Todays show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Ugonna Ezeand Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly.

Continue todays conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.

Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at Americas Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

We the Peopleis a member of SlatesPanoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm.

And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visitconstitutioncenter.orgto learn more.

Filed Under: First Amendment

Read the original:

Podcast: Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog)

How groups use ‘First Amendment’ permits for protests at National Parks – ABC10

Alexa Renee, KXTV 3:14 PM. PDT August 17, 2017

7. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park (Photo: TripAdvisor)

A right wing group has been granted legal permission through the National Parks Service to protest at Crissy Field in San Francisco.

The group, Patriot Prayer, obtained a "First Amendment" permit to be at the site Saturday, Aug. 26 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., according to KGO.

So what is a "First Amendment" permit?

Under federal law policy, the National Park Service (NPS) recognizes freedom of speech, press, religion, and public assembly, according to their website.

However, the agency also has an interest in protecting park resources and the public's use of parks, and is given the right to regulate events held on national parks. The NPS requires a permit establishing a date, time, location, number of participants and other details related to a First Amendment event.

The content of First Amendment activities doesn't need to reflect the NPS mission or views to be reviewed for a permit.

Each national park has its own set of details and rules for a permit but in general, a group of more than 25 people are required to apply for a permit to hold a First Amendment event.

Crissy Field is apark unit of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. A First Amendment permit is required for use of the area if a group will have more than 25 people, is utilizing special equipment such as generators and tents, if the organizers would like priority use of the area and if the group is requesting an area not otherwise open to the public, according to the NPS.

While a First Amendment permit is free to apply for at Golden Gate Park, large groups require a Special Events permit application fee of $45 and a certificate of liability insurance for $1,000,000.

Permit costs are separate from application costs and can range from free to $40,000, according to the NPS.

Ten business days is the minimum amount of time required to review most permit applications but larger events may take more time.

Some sensitive areas could be restricted and at least one park ranger needs to be present during an event as well as when loading and unloading.

For more details about First Amendment permits at national parks go to http://www.nps.gov.

2017 KXTV-TV

Visit link:

How groups use 'First Amendment' permits for protests at National Parks - ABC10

Between the lines: Cops caught in the First Amendment war zone – Police News

Earlier this week, far-right groups announced intentions to organize a March on Google in response to that companys firing of an employee over a memo he wrote about the companys diversity policies. The cities the groups were targeting were Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Los Angeles, Mountain View, New York, Pittsburgh, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

Days later, citing credible alt-left terrorist threats, those right-wing groups called off their planned demonstrations. It is presently unclear whether or not those demonstrations will take place, or have indeed been called off.

What is plainly evident is that police in those cities and across America must gird for the worst. The law enforcement officers who are charged with protecting peoples First Amendment rights to free speech will be forced to hold the ground in the middle, caught between the lines formed by the warring factions of left-wing and right-wing protesters and counter-protesters.

Those cops are on the front lines of what may turn into violent conflict, whether they like it or not.

There are conflicting reports floating around the internet about whether or not political leadership in Virginia told law enforcement to stand down and allow the violence in Charlottesville to escalate to the point of murder, attempted murder and domestic terrorism.

Whether or not a stand down order was given, we must take stock of the fact that violent conflict between these groups was as predictable as the sunset. Anyone who was paying even the slightest attention to the 18 months that preceded the election of Donald Trump to the presidency could have predicted an escalation of violence.

During the campaign, we saw people shouting down the group they oppose. On both the left and the right we saw people throwing punches at each other rather than sitting down and trying to talk.

We saw protesters on both sides of the political spectrum show up at gatherings held by their perceived opposition, armed not just with grievances, but with clubs and bats and improvised shields. They came in fatigues, or dressed in all black clothing. They wore masks and bandanas over their faces. Fists flew and blood was shed on multiple occasions.

In many of those cases, these groups were separated by an emasculated force of peace officers who had neither the commands nor the capabilities to actually keep the peace. In many cases, those cops were ordered to not carry riot shields. They could not wear protective helmets. They could not carry OC spray. They were basically told, You cannot have the tools and tactics to keep these two sides apart.

This cannot be the plan going forward.

Gordon Graham, a retired California Highway Patrol Captain and risk management expert, has famously said for many years that nearly every bad outcome is predictable and that predictable is preventable.

It must be remembered that the First Amendment allows for peaceable assembly and that violence is not free speech. Mayhem and lawlessness must be stopped before it can start. This can only happen if police across the country are empowered to show up to these demonstrations in full riot gear, with well-defined marching orders to stop protests from devolving into madness.

Whether or not the announced (and then, apparently, cancelled) white nationalist demonstrations take place this weekend, we know that such events will inevitably happen in the coming weeks and months. Events will be organized by the other side too.

The politics of hate and intolerance has been worsening for too long.

Last weekend in Charlottesville ended in tragedy, and some pundits have said that we as a nation are as divided as we were during the tumultuous 1960s.

The question becomes, will political leaders have the fortitude to give the cops the authority to quell the violence in a tactically appropriate fashion?

Can police forces in the United States prevent future bloodshed? I hope so. But hope is not a strategy, and luck is not a tactic. So as a police leader, you need to lobby your elected officials to give you the permission to do whatever is necessary when your day comes.

More:

Between the lines: Cops caught in the First Amendment war zone - Police News

Equality, Justice and the First Amendment – Common Dreams


Common Dreams
Equality, Justice and the First Amendment
Common Dreams
The ACLU has represented or publicly supported Black Lives Matter activists in First Amendment matters at least five times in recent months. Our work against police agencies' surveillance of activists has been frequently in support of the Black Lives ...
The ACLU Needs to Rethink Free SpeechNew York Times
When free speech devolves into violence: Roy S. GuttermanSyracuse.com
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Why hate speech is always protectedFox News
Washington Post -Independent Journal Review
all 100 news articles »

Read the original post:

Equality, Justice and the First Amendment - Common Dreams