On a hot and languid morning in the city, as police made their usual patrols on littered streets with boarded-up buildings, a jubilant scene bloomed inside the gymnasium of Thirman L. Milner School.

Hip-hop thumped from a portable speaker at half court, the post-breakfast soundtrack for dozens of Hartford children who freestyled dance moves with shoulder leans and leaps into the air, fists raised to the ceiling minutes of unabashed joy that cut through the gym's stuffy humidity.

The elementary students were here for a summer literacy program called Freedom School, and for many there was nowhere else they'd rather be.

When the school's namesake arrived in his tan suit and offered a "good morning," the response for 83-year-old Thirman Milner, who was Hartford's first African American mayor, came to the beat of a drum.

"G-O-O-D M-O-R-N-I-N-G!" the kids chanted, before translating the greeting to Spanish. "Buenos dias!"

Midway through the six-week Freedom School program, a national initiative in its second summer at Milner, students had become well-versed in Afrocentric call-and-response, in affirmation and exultation, in letting their guard down enough to dream. They had taken field trips to farms, museums and bowling alleys, and picnicked near the pristine roses of Elizabeth Park, less than three miles from Milner's concrete courtyard.

Mark Mirko / Hartford Courant

Milner is a chronically low-performing neighborhood school in the North End. During Freedom School, children are told that they can be good readers and that they are worthy.

Messages of self-empowerment, and of helping one's community, are in the songs they sing and the culturally relevant books they read. As a guest reader that morning, Milner, the ex-mayor, brought a children's book version of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech.

"It builds their confidence up to make them believe in themselves that they can do anything," said Tamara Jones Roberts, one of the Milner mothers who took cellphone photos of their children dancing in the gym. The free spirit is part of a morning ritual called "Harambee!," which the program translates to "let's pull together" in Swahili. Students at the Milner site range from kindergartners to those who just finished third grade.

"Sometimes, outside of school," Roberts said, "they don't get that positive energy."

The network of Freedom Schools was founded by the Children's Defense Fund and the Black Community Crusade for Children in the 1990s, rooted in social justice tenets dating back to the civil rights movement. Now the Children's Defense Fund oversees sites in more than 25 states across the country, including three Freedom Schools in Connecticut all in north Hartford, where the programs preach a love for reading as an antidote to the blight of poverty.

Educators for Freedom Schools say the immediate goal is to stem summer reading loss, although the bigger vision revolves around literacy as power and disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline that disproportionately hurts black and Latino students.

"We don't want them to slip off in the summer," said Danny Baker, 23, of Hartford, one of the college students helping out children at Milner's Freedom School. "We want them to know that learning is a year-round thing ... . And I tell my students that they are the best, so don't let anybody tell them they're less than that."

Mark Mirko / Hartford Courant

A Hartford church group hosted an early version of the summer program in the mid-'90s, recruiting college students known as "crusaders" who helped students with their academics and self-esteem.

It would be another two decades before the current model took root in Connecticut's capital. Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund, gave a speech at the University of Hartford three months after the Dec. 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

Addressing hundreds in the audience, Edelman "challenged us to start Freedom Schools to have a more peaceful environment, so that's how it started," said Marge Swaye, a former director of literacy and language arts for the Hartford school system who helped set the wheels in motion.

The Women's League Child Development Center on Main Street, near SAND School, became a Freedom School site last summer and hosts 50 elementary students with $62,000 in funding, Swaye said. Milner's program is sponsored by Christian Activities Council, a community organizing group down the street from the school that raised $100,000 from a mix of public, church and philanthropic sources for the full-day program that regularly draws about 75 students who attend for free.

"It's designed to infuse a social-action component into literacy," said Cori Mackey, executive director of Christian Activities Council. "It really fits our mission of developing leaders."

Phillips Metropolitan CME Church on Main Street also hosts a Freedom School in a modified program, said Swaye, who is looking to expand to more Hartford schools and community groups.

The Hartford school system provides breakfast and lunches, as well as certified teachers in the case of Milner, which is designated as one of the district's Early Start summer schools. While not all of the Freedom School students at Milner attend the school during the regular academic year, many of them do and school leaders say it is critical to improve their reading skills by third grade.

Third-grade reading is a fundamental benchmark in education: Research has shown that children who fall behind at this pivotal point are less likely to graduate from high school, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Year to year, test scores show that few Milner third-graders are proficient in reading.

Experts say this achievement gap is why summer literacy initiatives are especially crucial for children in poor neighborhoods, who are more prone than wealthier students to losing reading skills during the extended break. Upper-income families have more resources to invest in camps, lessons or arrange for other structured activities that often weave in literacy, such as writing a script for a play at summer camp, said Catherine Augustine, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation.

Milner teacher Susan Hunt-LaKose, who usually teaches fifth grade during the year, said her Freedom School students had just read "Destiny's Gift" by Natasha Anastasia Tarpley, the story of a local bookstore on the verge of shutting down because rent is too high. An African American girl named Destiny, who loved hanging out at the store, rallied the community to try to save it.

"All you heard was, 'This reminds me of ... ,'" Hunt-LaKose said of her students. "It empowers them, even from a young age, to know that they make a difference."

Program leaders at Women's League and Milner said they assessed a sample group of students last summer, and found that at the end of the program, the vast majority had maintained or improved their reading level. Hunt-LaKose, in her second Freedom School summer, said the book selections with themes such as immigration and overcoming racism are enticing for kids because they can connect the reading to their everyday lives.

In a Milner classroom, students were asked what special talents they could use to help their community. Cesar Feliz, 7, who will be entering third grade soon, spoke of living his truest self.

"I'm just me. I'm my own person, and I will always be that person, and I will always be myself," Cesar told his teacher. "I am not a weapon I am me."

Read the original:

At 'Freedom' Summer School, Hartford Students Get Immersed In ... - Hartford Courant

Demonstrators outside Istanbuls courthouse, where 17 journalists are on trial. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals. Photograph: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images

Putting journalists on trial for doing their job, for informing the public or conveying opinion, is never acceptable. Like the canary in the mine, journalists can serve as an early alert to the erosion of the rights of every citizen. Where media freedom is curtailed other freedoms invariably follow. This may be stating the obvious, especially to those of us who enjoy the liberty and protection of democracy. But it is not an uncontested truth.

Freedom of the press is restricted wherever governments claim its exercise might run counter to political imperatives or what they define as national security. Itis a freedom enshrined in UN texts, but it is far from universally recognised as a basic right. It might be tolerated, but only within boundaries subject to whim, in jeopardy whenever those in power feel their interests might be threatened.

Totalitarian regimes (think North Korea) make no claim to upholding media freedom they dont even bother. But semi-dictatorships do pay lip service, at least formally. Regimes that claim to be democracies, and hold elections, often also work methodically to undermine the fundamental tenets of government by the people and for the people; essential pillars, like freedom of information, are gradually dismantled. Turkey today provides a strong example of just this pattern of behaviour.

On Monday, 17 journalists and executives of the independent newspaper Cumhuriyet were put on trial in Istanbul for no other reason than having done their jobs: for writing articles, publishing pictures, using social media, or even just making phone calls. Cumhuriyet is a flagship media organisation, Turkeys oldest daily, founded in 1924 shortly after Ataturk took power. It is the same age as the Republic and it is deeply committed to its founding promise of pluralism, minority rights, peace with the Kurds and investigating corruption; and it has been a harsh critic of Turkeys slide to autocracy in recent years.

It includes some of the best known and respected names in Turkish media, such as the columnist Kadri Gursel, the editor-in-chief Murat Sabuncu, the cartoonist Musa Kart and the investigative reporter Ahmet Sik. On Monday they were all in court, charged with having links to various terrorist groups. They face prison sentences of up to 43 years. Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, wants to crush this newspaper, just as he is ruthlessly stamping out dissent everywhere that he suspects it exists. Since last years failed coup attempt, 160 journalists have been detained across Turkey, and more than 150 media outlets shut down. At the Hamburg G20 earlier this month, Mr Erdoan warned that journalists also committed crimes and needed to be punished. No evidence has been produced against these journalists to suggest terrorist connections. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals.

Mr Erdoan may seem impervious to external pressure, but Europe could shout louder. As one of the defendants, Kadri Gursel, told the court on Monday: I am not here because I knowingly and willingly helped a terrorist organisation, but because Iam an independent, questioning and critical journalist. Its not too late for retreat, even as the country lurches ever more towards dictatorship: the journalists must be set free. The Guardian stands in solidarity withCumhuriyet.

Read the original:

The Guardian view on Turkish press freedom: standing up for democracy - The Guardian

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Democrats came out Monday with their agenda for the 2018 election, and to everyone's surprise, it's not terrible. In fact, it's sorta half-decent!

The slogan is "A Better Deal," and the agenda includes anti-trust reforms, cheaper prescription drugs, and a plan to create 10 million jobs with infrastructure spending and tax credits. There's a lot to like here, particularly in the clever and true way Democrats cast anti-trust reforms as a way to increase Americans' freedom. But Democrats are also missing the chance to sell universal social programs this way. These programs also increase freedom the freedom to not have to choose.

Republicans (and a significant fraction of neoliberal Democrats) often fetishize choice. They use blatantly circular reasoning to present any free-market system as evidence of free choices being freely made. But this is nonsense. Market concentration often reduces freedom.

A deep market with lots of independent sellers is one thing. But a market with just a few or one seller is quite another. (For cable internet at my apartment in D.C., for example, I have the "choice" of Comcast or nothing.) The Better Deal agenda presents this quite nicely, showing that monopolies and oligopolies are not just economically inefficient, but also a sharp abridgment of individual liberty. People are forced not only to pay whatever the monopolist demands, but also to accept its (generally horrible) regulations of service.

Worse, unlike a government-run monopoly like the Post Office or a power utility, people have no democratic say in the operation of a monopoly. Its corporate management gets to invoke the violent authority of the state to enforce its (invariably foot-thick) contracts getting cops to drag a paying customer off a plane if the airline decides he doesn't get to fly, for example while making no concession to democratic oversight. It is, in essence, statist authoritarianism.

But another aspect of valorizing market choices as the fountainhead of freedom is how it implicitly leaves out non-market options in particular, the freedom to not choose. As anyone who has tried to corral a pack of millennials trying to figure out which bar to attend for happy hour can attest, making decisions takes work and the more complicated the decision, the more work it requires. Americans today are constantly forced to make staggeringly complex decisions about the most important issues of life health care, education, retirement, and more.

Even for people with good health insurance, simply accessing it properly is often a dreadful chore. You've got to make sure you've got the right program, correctly navigate the rapidly shifting coverage networks, and schedule an appointment all done under the looming knowledge that one screwup could cost thousands as the provider seizes the opportunity to mercilessly price-gouge an out-of-network patient. Afterwards, there's a good chance you're in for a prolonged battle with the provider and the insurer about who will pay and how much.

Wouldn't it be better and simpler to just have straightforward health coverage ensured by the government and not have to make all these frustratingly complex choices?

The experience of investing for retirement is even worse (though the potential negative consequences not as bad). Which mutual fund to select? What portfolio balance? How much to contribute? Answering these questions cleverly would be extremely challenging for average people even without the associated industry of swindlers who make their money tricking people into high-fee plans.

Then there is the sheer fact of having to interact with financial companies at all. Like many in my generation, coming of age precisely when Wall Street crooks blew up the world economy instilled a strong dislike for and suspicion of the financial system. Those feelings strengthened exponentially as I did more research and discovered the role of Big Finance in skyrocketing inequality, monopolization, and asset-stripping thousands of American companies as well as immense crimes like systematic mortgage fraud, money laundering for drug cartels and terrorists, and market rigging. The fact that retirement tax benefits are thinly disguised tax shelters for the rich, and that banksters invariably get off with, at worst, a wrist-slap fine, added fury to my dislike.

Wouldn't it be better and simpler to just make Social Security more robust and spare most Americans from dealing with these crooks?

Private monopolies that rob consumers of choice obviously limit Americans' liberty. Democrats are right to crack down on corporate America with aggressive anti-trust reform. But not all choice is good. Indeed, for the basics of life education, health care, retirement, and so on people don't want to waste away precious hours and days navigating needlessly complex choices, many of which are deviously engineered to screw over normal working stiffs. Most of us just want decent schools for our kids, good health care for ourselves and our families, and a retirement that won't leave us starved and forgotten. We don't want to make endless choices every step of the way.

A Medicare-for-all health-care system or expanded Social Security benefits (which have increasing support among Democrats, but are not contained in their Better Deal plan) would allow citizens to not bother. Instead of being forced to "take responsibility" for such things individually, they would simply always be there, paid out of taxes. The motivation is not to get "free" benefits from the government. I, for one, would be happy to pay a large premium in taxes to get such benefits, if only to save myself from multiple future stress-induced heart attacks.

I might be somewhat out of the ordinary in just how much I dislike being rammed into Neoliberal Decision Hell. But I think it's safe to assume the percentage of people who actually enjoy figuring out insurance networks or poring over mutual fund packets is small. People have better things to do than become amateur experts in a dozen different white-collar professions. Democrats should realize this. A Better Deal ought to mean saving Americans from ever having to deal with this maddening nonsense.

Go here to read the rest:

Democrats should embrace the freedom to not choose - The Week Magazine

Conservative hard-liners in the House are hoping to gut the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper whose analysis has recently bedeviled Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, by amending a massive spending bill set to be debated later this week.

An amendment filed Monday by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) would eliminate the agencys Budget Analysis Division, cutting 89 jobs and $15 million of the CBOs proposed $48.5 million budget. A separate amendment filed by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) would also eliminate the same division and specify that the CBO instead evaluate legislation by facilitating and assimilating scoring data compiled by four private think tanks the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Urban Institute.

Both Griffith and Meadows are members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, but complaints about the CBO have been widespread among Republicans in recent months after the agency found that various iterations of the partys health-care legislation would result in an increase of more than 20 million uninsured Americans over the coming decade. Critics have attacked the CBOs analysis and pointed to its projections on the Affordable Care Act as evidence that the office, now led by a Republican-selected director, cannot be trusted to accurately analyze complex legislation.

The criticism compelled the eight former directors of the CBO, which was created in 1974, to sign a letter Friday objecting to recent attacks on the integrity and professionalism of the agency and on the agencys role in the legislative process.

But conservatives say the CBOs scorekeeping function is best left to other outlets.

Theyre the one group that makes a weathermans 10-day forecast look accurate, said Meadows, the Freedom Caucus chairman, during a Monday appearance at the National Press Club. Theres plenty of think tanks that are out there. And so we ought to take a score from Heritage, from AEI, from Brookings, from the Urban Institute and bring them together for a composite score that would represent a very wide swath of think tanks and their abilities. We think thats a pragmatic way to use the private sector and yet let Congress depend on a score that is accurate.

The White House has also attacked the CBOs credibility as the health-care repeal effort has languished. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) at times has criticized the agencys health-care estimates, but he also defended it from attacks last month, telling reporters that its important that we have a referee.

It is important that we have a scorekeeper, he said. We can always complain about the nature of the score.

The amendments are being offered to a $790 billion spending bill that combines appropriations for the military, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy and for Congress itself scheduled to come to the House floor for debate on Wednesday. The bill was largely written by Republicans and is not expected to garner support from Democrats, meaning that even if it passes the House, it is unlikely to emerge from the Senate intact. But the CBO provision could become subject to negotiations if it is adopted in the House.

Both amendments take advantage of a recent change to House rules pushed by Griffith that allows any member to target discrete programs or even individual employees for reduction or elimination. The provision, known as the Holman rule, was in effect from 1876 until 1983.

When someone gives you bad advice again and again, why would you trust them to help you make big decisions? Griffith said in a statement explaining his amendment. I believe Congress would be better served if CBO becomes an aggregator of predictions made by third-party public policy groups across the political spectrum, from left to center to right.

Visit link:

Congressional Budget Office is Freedom Caucus's target in spending bill - Washington Post

Its probably safe to say that philosophy is to psychology as the body of a beer is to its head. That being true, then we live in an age in which its fashionable to swim in the foam bubbles of psychology. And thats true because people are fascinated with the subconscious, which has the unpredictability and energy of an untied balloon: In the context of the daily routine of modern life the subconscious adds excitement.

For example, the subconscious is unpredictable and energetic when it answers Socrates very conscious observation that to know the good is to do the good with now wait just one minute ... not always.

But psychology doesnt answer the larger questions of philosophy. For Americans, a large philosophical question is the scope of freedom; Americans love freedom.

Freedom in America has been defined as the freedom to conform to ones religion, freedom from discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom from colonialism, freedom of choice.

Today, the reigning definition of freedom in America is found in economics: the freedom of choice in the marketplace, the freedom to choose among a variety of products. Other concepts of freedom are not as discussed because over the last 17 years theres been a psychological tension between freedom and security: greater freedom, less security; greater security, less freedom.

This tension is not new in America the 1950s Red Scare, McCarthy hearings and Cold War represented a time when Americans reduced the scope of their freedoms to consumerism. Americans in the 1950s referred to each other as hollow man and hollow woman of the consumerist age; Richard Nixon was the hollow man of the 1960 presidential election.

But the 1950s narrow conception of freedom gave way to the larger one of the 1960s, reconstituting the psychology of freedom in the American.

Link:

Americans' conception of freedom changes - LancasterOnline

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Opinion contributor Published 2:58 p.m. ET July 24, 2017 | Updated 3:15 a.m. ET July 25, 2017

Protest in Chicago in June 2017.(Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images)

What is the health care debate all about? Freedom. Specifically two different conceptions of freedom.

One is freedom to buy what you want. In this view, the country is a collection of 325 million individuals, and freedom is everyone pursuing their lives without interference. The other is freedom from worry. It views America as a community, and freedom is knowing you can get help when you are sick and in need.

The difference is illustrated by one of my late patients, DotAhern, whohad chronic myelogenous leukemia. She was kept alive and continued to actively work as a substitute teacher in the public schools ofWorcester, Mass., by a medicine that cost tens of thousands of dollars every year. While comfortably middle class with a suburban house, she could not afford to pay for that medication out of her own salary.

Fortunately, her insurance paid. And her insurance premium was affordable. Why? Because other people were also buying health insurance, but they did not need tens of thousands of dollars in drugs or medical services.

Obamacare repeal fever: Obvious fixes, or a disastrous mess? Mastio & Lawrence

There is no way of sugarcoating it: The other people buying insurance were subsidizing Ms. Aherns care. Eventually, when they had an illness or accident requiring expensive medical care, thatin turn would be subsidized by still others. Ms. Aherns freedom to have health insurance at an affordable premium required other people to buy health insurance.

That is how all insurance works. Lots of people buy car, homeownersor flood insurance paying premiums but only a few people use the insurance in any given year. Those who dont file claims are subsidizing those who do.

But what if these other people said they wanted the freedom to buy health insurance that covered fewer services, and therefore had a lower premium?

House SpeakerPaul Ryan says the Republican approach is better forthese people: Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need. Or as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthyput it: Were taking steps toward a free and open marketplace where families can buy health insurance that works for them.

But if many people decide to buy insurance that covers less, then Ms. Ahern will have to pay more lots more for her insurance. And if this process continues, her premiums will eventually be unaffordable or, more precisely, there will be no insurance. She alone will be responsible for paying tens of thousands of dollars for the drugs thatkeep her alive and working.

The freedom Ryan and McCarthy laud isthe freedom of individuals to buy only what they want at that very moment, and not have to pay for rehabilitative services or maternity care or mental health care or dental care for children or Ms. Aherns expensive cancer drugs. Itmeans that older individuals and people who have cancer, Parkinsons diseaseor diabetes will be priced out and lose the freedom from fear that accompanies having health insurance.

Senate health bill: Don't throw momma from the Medicaid train

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

The fundamental and inviolate law of health insurance is that the only way to ensure that a person with cancer or an older person who is at high risk of having heart disease or diabetes can have the freedom that comes with affordable health insurance is to require other Americans who are unlikely to use much health care to buy health insurance, too and not just insurance that covers the few services they will use. Freedom not to have health insurance for some necessarily, inescapably means the loss of freedom to have health insurance for others.

This requirement can be accomplished in two ways:We cankeepthe Obamacare approach ofrequiringeveryoneto buy health insurance and subsidizingthose with lower incomes so that they canafford the premiums. Or we can adopt the Medicare approach thegovernment providesall Americans with a minimum health insurance package and they canbuy coverage for additional services,such as drug coverage,at subsidized rates.

There are no other options that really work. Approaches that charge much more a penalty payment to people who dont buy insurance immediately are not sufficiently effective. Besides, paying a penalty for not buying insurance looks a lot like the Obamacare mandate Republicans deride.

The basic choice on health care reform is this: We can givefreedom to young healthy people to buy what they want and deny the Ms. Aherns of this country freedom from worry about whether theycan afford health insurance and get theirlifesaving drugs. Or, we can recognize that at some point in our lives, most of uswill be like Ms. Ahern we will contract an expensive illness and need other people to help us by keeping health insurance affordable.

Unless you are invincible, and will never get sick or in an accident and needa doctor or hospital, you too will need the help of others, and the freedom that comes with knowing you will be able to count on them and get the care you need.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist, a venture partner at Oak HC/FT and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, advised the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act. His new book, Prescription for the Future: The Twelve Transformational Practices of Highly Effective Medical Organizations, was published last month.

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

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

Original post:

GOP health bill offers freedom of choice. But what about freedom from fear? - USA TODAY

With your existing account from... {* loginWidget *} With a traditional account... {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *} {* /signInForm *} Welcome back, {* welcomeName *} {* loginWidget *} Welcome back! {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *}

Sign In

Your account has been deactivated.

You must verify your email address before signing in. Check your email for your verification email, or enter your email address in the form below to resend the email.

Please confirm the information below before signing in. Sign In

We have sent a confirmation email to {* emailAddressData *}. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{| foundExistingAccountText |} {| current_emailAddress |}.

{| existing_displayName |} {| existing_provider_emailAddress |}

Created {| existing_createdDate |} at {| existing_siteName |}

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Check your email for a link to reset your password.

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Password has been successfully updated.

We didn't recognize that password reset code. Enter your email address to get a new one.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{* photoManager *}

{* loginWidget *}

{* publicPrivate *} {* journalistContact *} {* aboutMe *} {* usernameTwPublic *} {* preferedContactLanguages *} {* arabicUsername *} {* persianUsername *} {* skypeId *} {* usernameTw *} {* journalistContact *} {* publicPrivate *} {* profession *}

{* newsMenu *} {* optinalert *} {* optinBestofWeek *} {* optinBestofWEnd *} {* optinBestofObs *}

{* newsMenuEn *} {* optinalertEn *} {* optinBestofWeekEn *} {* optinBestofWEndEn *} {* optinBestofObsEn *}

{* newsMenuAr *} {* optinalertAr *} {* optinBestofWeekAr *} {* optinBestofWEndAr *} {* optinBestofObsAr *}

{* newsMenuEs *} {* optinalertEs *} {* optinbestofweekEs *} {* optinbestofwendEs *}

{* optinQuotidienne *} {* optinBreaking *}

{* optinAutopromo *} {* optinPartenaires *}

{* optinActuMonde *} {* optinActuAfrique *} {* optinAlert *} {* optinRfiAfriqueFootFr *} {* optinMfi *} {* optinActuMusique *} {* optinOffreRfi *} {* optinOffrePartenaire *}

{* savedProfileMessage *}

Are you sure you want to deactivate your account? You will no longer have access to your profile.

Originally posted here:

Staff of leading Turkish daily face trial in press freedom test - FRANCE 24

When it seems anyone can say or write almost anything and have it published on the internet, recent events offer reminders that the freedom of expression is not universal.

The Financial Times first reported this week that the Chinese government has banned Winnie-the-Poohs likeness and name on social media.

Yes, that Winnie-the-Pooh, the anthropomorphic bear created by author A.A. Milne and digitized by Disney. As USA Today reported in a follow-up: The characters name in Chinese was censored in posts on Sina Weibo, a social media platform similar to Twitter, while a collection of Winnie-the-Pooh gifts vanished from social messaging service WeChat. ... Any attempts to post Poohs Chinese name on Weibo prompted a message: 'Content is illegal.' "

Insiders speculated that government censors acted on behalf of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was the subject of an internet meme featuring roly-poly Pooh and his wiry pal Tigger. Those images emerged in 2013 after the stout Xi was photographed with the slender President Barack Obama.

As is often the case, examples of absurd government censorship in China and elsewhere are accompanied by appalling abuses of human rights. Too often one leads to another, or vice versa.

It has been widely reported in the free world that Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, recently died in Chinese custody denied access to his wife, who is under house arrest. But Chinese officials who control the media have been on social sites busily blocking news of Lius death and monitoring private conversations.

Liu was in state custody because he had been sentenced to 11 years in prison for writing about and advocating universal values shared by all humankind, including human rights, equality, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Eleven years.

For advocating universal values shared by all humankind.

Horrifying.

China is one of the most populous offenders but hardly alone. We have written previously about Raif Badawi, a blogger who has criticized the entanglement of religion, namely Islam, and government in Saudi Arabia and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes as a result. Considered a foe of the state and the national religion, he remains in custody; little is known about his condition or the extent of the beatings he has suffered.

Examples of repression are everywhere. Credible reports by watchdogs show that 34 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000 with evidence that the killings were in retribution for coverage of public- and private-sector corruption. Turkey has recently jailed human-rights advocates.

And, yes, in the United States, there are troubling signs of intolerance: Campus speakers have been threatened and shouted down by political opponents, the tenor of the cultural wars is increasingly hostile and dishonest journalists have been labeled by the president as enemies of the people.

But at least in America we have the First Amendment and its protections, which have seldom seemed more necessary and valuable.

This editorial was originally published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a sister newspaper of the Daily News within GateHouse Media.

Read the original:

EDITORIAL: Freedom of speech never more valuable - The Northwest Florida Daily News

The health-care clusterfudge continues. Senator John McCain has brain cancer. President Trump throws another public tantrum. Russia, Russia, Russia.

That about covers the Big Political Headlines of the week. Now for something really sexy: the creeping assault on the Freedom of Information Act.

The GOP Health-Care Bill's Byrd Rule Dilemma

Stop right there! No clicking over to that Tucker Carlson YouTube rant. This is another one of those ticky-tacky, below-the-radar issues that may sound like a nonprescription substitute for Ambien but is, practically speaking, super importantespecially in the Age of Trump.

FOIA is what enables regular people to pester powerful federal agencies into handing over information about what theyve been up to. FOIAs website calls it the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Though a tad grandiose, that characterization is pretty much accurate. And never has such a tool been quite so vital as with the current White House, which has adopted a policy of unabashedly lying about pretty much everything.

Its hardly surprising then that government accountability groups balked when, in early April, House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling directed multiple agencies under his committees jurisdiction to start classifying all communications with the committee as official congressional records not subject to FOIA.

Probably best to back up a tick: FOIA applies only to executive agency records. Congressional records are a different creature entirely (as are presidential records), enjoying greater privacy protections. But not every document that has been created by or sent to Congress qualifies as a congressional record.

There has to be an expression of intent by Congress to treat a particular record or group of records as something that is a congressional recordthat it belongs to Congress and is only being given to an agency for a specific purpose, explained Lee Steven, assistant vice president with Cause of Action Institute, a pro-transparency, anti-big government nonprofit. What the courts have in the past said is that you cant put a blanket, before-the-fact designation on such a broad category. As such, Steven told me, Hensarlings directive is an egregious, possibly illegal case of overreach.

Hensarlings letter to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin wound up in the press for all to peruse. The chairman indeed appears intent on sweeping all agency communications with his committee out of the public eye. (I reached out to multiple Republican Finance staffers about this. No one responded.) This would include not just memos to or from the committee or documents generated by an agency in response to a committee request. Hensarling also wants to reclassify pre-existing agency records that are compiled and sent over to the Hill for any reason.

Basically, if anyone at an agency is interacting with the finance committee in any way, Hensarling wants to make sure that you cant find out any details about it.

You can see how this might not be great in terms of promoting government accountability.

In early May, 21 good-government groups sent an open letter to Hensarling, asking him to rescind his directive. CoAI took it a step farther, issuing a FOIA request to the Department of Justicewhich oversees FOIA compliance for all agenciesfor any interaction the department may have had with the Finance Committee on this issue. The Department of Justice has so far ignored that request, prompting CoAI to file a lawsuit aimed at goosing it to comply.

To clarify: CoAI is not some lefty resistance group looking to make life hard for a Republican administration or Congress. It is generally considered a conservative organization. (The liberal Media Matters huffed in 2015 when CoAI was annoying the Obama White House: The group has received funding from the Koch brothers' financial network, and its [now former] executive director worked for Charles Koch and for the House Oversight Committee under Republican Rep. Darrell Issa.)

So to review: What you have here is a conservative group suing a conservative Justice Department for ignoring a FOIA request concerning a conservative House chairmans efforts to kneecap FOIA.

Even my head hurts at this point.

Steven clarifies that CoAIs suit against the Justice Department, for which oral arguments begin next month, may not have an initial impact on Hensarlings directive. (Where the case ultimately goes will depend on whether DoJ hands over the requested communicationsor maybe cites Hensarlings directive as an excuse not to; what those communications say; whether the White House was involved; and so on.) This is sort of a first step, said Steven.

But make no mistake: The ultimate goal is to stop lawmakers from undercutting one of the key tools the public has for keeping an eye on its government.

Were not saying that the idea of congressional records is completely off base. Not at all, stressed Steven. But this directive, as written, is way too broad.

This is in no way to suggest Hensarling is the only lawmaker looking for a little extra cover. CoAI has a near identical suit already making its way through the courts, stemming from a squabble it got into with the Obama-era IRSs dealings with Congresss Joint Committee on Taxation. The JCT basically did the same thing as what Hensarling is doing here, with respect to the IRS, said Steven. The ruling on that case, he noted, should provide a good indication of how this one will fare.

Its as inevitable as Trumps next Twit-fit: Those in power dislike the public nosing around in their business and are forever looking to shield themselves from scrutiny. But when that happens, the public needs to push back. Hard. No matter which team is in charge. And no matter how unsexy the details of the battle may be.

Read the rest here:

The War on the Freedom of Information Act - The Atlantic

Less than 24 hours after Washington celebrated Independence Day, in the midst of a two-week stretch of round-the-clock discussions on healthcare reform and the GOP agenda, Rep. Mark Meadows drove up to the White House to talk strategy.

"Can you hold on just a second?" he asked the Washington Examiner as he rolled down the window to speak to security. "I'm heading in the guard gate." He's a busy guy, and he was in the middle of phone interview as he pulled into the executive mansion.

"I'm going up to see Steve Bannon," he said, not to his interviewer but to one of the rings of security. "Thank you."

Most lawmakers had gone home for a week's recess, but Meadows stuck around for a while at least. He and his wife, Debbie, had to celebrate America's 241st birthday with friends, but he also had business to attend to.

Healthcare reform and the rest of the Republican legislative agenda evolve continuously, and as they have, Meadows has become a central figure and a chief influencer in a federal Washington run by President Trump.

He has arrived in this unaccustomed position after years cementing his standing as the consummate outsider. Meadows is in his third term as a member of the House of Representatives. He won North Carolina's drastically-redrawn 11th District after an eight-way Republican primary contest in 2012.

He has certainly made his presence felt more than ever before in the first six months of the Trump presidency. Despite his nearly constant smile and an aw-shucks demeanor being very different from Trump's jaw-jutting demeanor, Meadows resembles the president in unmistakeable ways. He has challenged the party's traditional leaders and bucked the establishment. He used to be a real estate broker, he pitches himself as a negotiator, and uses news media effectively to build his influence. Who does that remind you of? But it must be conceded that Meadows is an emollient character and considerably less pugnacious than his president.

He's been a thorn in the side of the GOP leadership for years. But despite this, he has now cultivated a fruitful relationship with the Trump administration and has established a rapport with House leadership cordial enough to give the Freedom Caucus, of which he is head, not just a seat at the table but real influence.

This is what its members have pined for since the group was formed. The caucus famously tangled with the GOP's House conference when it was led by Speaker John Boehner, especially over a push in 2013 to defund Obamacare. That effort was spearheaded by Meadows. But the arrival of Trump has changed everything and has pushed the Freedom Caucus to the negotiating table, where Meadows, the real estate executive, is in his comfort zone.

"Before, it was very easy to be against things, and just say, 'This is our position. This is where we're going to be,'" Meadows said in one of three interviews with the Washington Examiner. "If you just say, 'Well, this is our position. That's all we're going to support,' we have at best four years to make this all work. Maybe, at worst, two years, and so becoming so rigid in a unified government makes you miss opportunities.

"Here, we know every single time if we're going to be a conservative conference, the votes of the 36 House Freedom Caucus members, every one of them counts. It's important that we get it right, but it's also important that we don't frustrate some of our colleagues, which we have done in the past and that we might have even done last week. But it's important that we see that we're persuadable, and hopefully the whole healthcare debate showed both ends of the spectrum not persuadable, but persuadable."

Household name

The Freedom Caucus famously tangled with the GOP's House conference when it was led by Speaker John Boehner. (AP Photos)

The mild-mannered North Carolinian first gained attention, not to mention notoriety, for his repeated clashes with Boehner. He now regards his effort to oust Boehner by introducing a motion to "vacate the chair" as a "low point" and concedes that he was "naive." But he's changed since then. And in doing so, he has become a household name, at least inside Washington, during the healthcare fight, which he says was a "defining moment" for the caucus he leads. During that defining moment, Meadows was engulfed in the media crush that usually surrounds political A-listers or people drowning in scandal.

The healthcare fight was bruising for a caucus that wanted to get to "yes." When the caucus's opposition was at its peak, on March 21, Trump went to Capitol Hill for the House Republicans' weekly conference meeting and called out Meadows for the Freedom Caucus's recalcitrant opposition to the bill.

The president told GOP lawmakers that he could "come after" Meadows, but didn't think it would be necessary, which prompted Meadows to blush "sheepishly," according to a conservative aide. But Trump's jokey coercion backfired and instead of winning over or cajoling the Freedom Caucus into acquiescence, it stiffened members' opposition to the bill as 35 of the 38 members stood with their chairman.

"Anytime that you get called out by the president, it's not necessarily a good thing. I saw it as just the person he is where he's going to call me out and put that kind of pressure on me that would make most people wilt. I didn't take it personally," Meadows said, but "I felt unbelievable pressure. I think that what he doesn't realize is that the pressure I felt was already Herculean before he called me out, and then when he called me out, it was even greater."

Days later, just hours before the vote, when the American Health Care Act appeared to be on its deathbed, Meadows and the Freedom Caucus held an emotional meeting with Vice President Mike Pence at the Capitol Hill Club, a Republican hotspot next to the Republican National Committee.

To this day, Meadows has no clue how Pence found out where the group was meeting, or who let him know about it. "I was quickly looking for NSA intel to have gathered enough to let him know where we were meeting," Meadows said of the gathering. Pence made an "impassioned plea," and managed to swing more than a handful of votes to "yes," but not nearly enough. At least 18 members remained hard "nos."

"[Meadows] was literally in tears," said a Freedom Caucus member, "He felt the weight of that meeting, and he wanted so much to get to yes.'"

Less than two hours later, Trump and House leadership canceled the vote, and talks went on for the next 40 days, after which the bill passed with Freedom Caucus support on May 4. The final bill included the so-called MacArthur amendment, which Meadows negotiated with Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., to allow states to opt out of providing various health benefits in reduce the price of premiums.

Meadows was "worn down" during discussions "physically and mentally," a Freedom Caucus source recalls, thanks partly to nonstop calls to and from the White House and House Speaker Paul Ryan. There were many sleepless nights and a lot of work in the wee hours of the morning, Meadows says.

Once, days before the bill passed, an exhausted Meadows lamented to reporters outside the House chamber that it had been a long week, only to be reminded that it was only Monday.

Helping pass the bill was crucial to the Freedom Caucus. Many of its members, including Meadows, knew that others in the party conference said the group could never get to "yes."

"If we had not gotten to yes' in the end, that would have been a problem," Meadows said. "It was a defining moment [H]ad there not been a bill that was pulled on the Thursday or Friday, there would always have been the idea that the Freedom Caucus will cave in the end. But equally as important, had we not come around and provided the votes a few weeks later for 'yes,' there would have been the typical stereotype that they'll never get to 'yes.' "

Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., a Freedom Caucus member, put it more bluntly. "For a caucus or a group, simply no' gets to be very, very dangerous in political terms," Sanford said. "You, at some point, have to find a way to get to yes.' Not on every bill, but certainly on some of them, cause if not, there's no reason to come your way from a negotiation standpoint and spend time with you. If it's just going to be no,' I'll go elsewhere."

Taking over

Rep. Mark Meadows took over as leader of the Freedom Caucus in December from Rep. Jim Jordan.

After years of being a leading figure in what was known on Capitol Hill as the "hell no" caucus, Meadows took over as leader in December from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. The group had discussed making Jordan chairman for life, so it was a hard act to follow.

Jordan still commands respect, and he and Meadows describe each other as best friends, but the change in the caucus since Meadows took charge has been noticed on Capitol Hill and among members. Many argue that Jordan was a better fit for the Obama years but Meadows is right for today. Additionally, some members believe that without Meadows' negotiating, the bill would have failed.

Sanford said, "The personalities fit. Jim Jordan's background as a wrestler absolutely fit with his willingness to engage and tangle with the [Obama] administration. He's a fighter, and that's what the ring is all about.

"Mark is much more conciliatory. He's genteel. He's southern. He's cordial, and at times you can get more, certainly with this administration, with sweet rather than sour."

Meadows hardly disputes this, saying, "Do we have two different styles? Yeah. Jim was a two-time national champion wrestler, and I wasn't. I've gotta go to my strengths, and he can go to his."

Still, the Freedom Caucus is still regarded with skepticism months after it support the healthcare bill. Outsiders wonder whether the healthcare bill was a one-off or whether a readiness to compromise will also be apparent in negotiations over tax reform and other items on the GOP agenda.

"Only time will tell," said Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., another Trump ally. "I actually think all of us took a step, hopefully, forward ... in the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus, let's hope."

Not everyone agrees with Sanford. Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a former Freedom Caucus stalwart, said, "I don't think the organization is any different with Meadows than it is with Jordan. If Mark Meadows gets run over by a bus tomorrow, I don't think it changes the nature of the Freedom Caucus."

Whatever is the case, Meadows has become an ally of the White House. He has shown an ability to bridge the gap between the administration and his group of more than 30 conservatives lawmakers. He texts with Steve Bannon nearly every day, and keeps in regular contact with Marc Short, White House director of legislative affairs, Kellyanne Conway, and Reince Priebus. His warm relationship these senior lieutenants, and with the president, dates back to the campaign, during which he and his wife, Debbie, worked extensively for Trump.

After the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape was leaked to the press, setting off scandalized and electorally dangerous discussion about Trump's treatment of women, Republicans of many stripes, especially those facing tough re-election battles, abandoned Trump. But Meadows and his wife stayed on board, literally and figuratively. Debbie Meadows boarded a "Women for Trump" bus with 10 other wives of congressmen, and defended the candidate. Trump and the White House have not forgotten this, and are unlikely ever to do so.

"We will always remember how tenacious and loyal Mark and Debbie Meadows were, especially after Oct. 7. They're definitely members of what we call the Oct. 8th coalition,'" said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, in an interview.

"In the final month, beginning with her boarding that bus in the face of a great deal of pressure to do otherwise tells you something about their tenacity and loyalty," Conway added.

The relationship between the White House and the Meadows couple goes a lot further than politics. In the middle of an interview at the Congressional Baseball Game in June, Conway stopped briefly to take a selfie with a Meadows staffer before the two bonded momentarily over Debbie's culinary skills.

"Guess what's in my bag in the car," Conway said to the staffer.

Staffer: "No way, what is it?!"

Conway: "Debbie Meadows' cookies! She sent me cookies the other day,"

Staffer: "Oh my God. Are you serious?!"

Conway: "Oh my God, the filled ones ... Here, we need to get a good picture."

Meadows knows his wife's cookies, saying the above exchange was about a fruit-filled variety, and that his wife has also been known to send those, and pound cakes, to friends and Capitol Police officers.

Meeting the press

President Trump brought many House Republicans to the Rose Garden to celebrate the passage of their bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. (Bloomberg Photo)

Given the relationship with Trump and the White House, it's no surprise that Meadows has seen his profile grow exponentially.

When Trump brought many House Republicans to the Rose Garden to celebrate the passage of their repeal and replace bill, Meadows stood prominently at the president's right shoulder next to Ryan and House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady.

In subsequent days, Meadows was hailed for his role. Breitbart, the pro-Trump website, ran a headline reading, "SPEAKER MEADOWS?"

A former House leadership aide described Meadows back in the Boehner days as someone with a penchant for saying completely contradictory things, no matter the issue, adding, "You never knew what to believe."

These days, Meadows keeps in touch with Ryan, often via text, and meets him weekly for lunch with Jordan, top members of the Tuesday Group, Republican Study Committee, and the House leadership.

"His outreach is certainly not being lost on me," Meadows said of Ryan. But their relationship isn't where it could be or where leadership would like it to be. "I wouldn't say [it's] good... it's tenuous and strained at times. It's much easier if you say yes and go along."

Meadows is well liked by House members, and counts most GOP conference and some Democrats as friends. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., a fellow member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says Meadows' "charm" and "humor" help the two find common ground.

"He listens, he's willing to learn, and he doesn't come necessarily with an ideological, a priori, view on an issue," Connolly said. "I can't ask more from a colleague than that."

Meadows greatly desires to be liked, colleagues say, and this can make him thin-skinned.

"He's very sensitive and takes criticism very harshly," a Freedom Caucus source said, pointing to Meadows getting worked up over Facebook comments from constituents and phoning them personally. "He is deeply hurt if people dislike him." Meadows doesn't deny it, but says he'd rather be "understood" than liked.

Meadows reportedly got down on his knees in front of Boehner in 2013 and apologized for leading the coup. Boehner spread the story in 2015, but a Meadows staffer says it's not true.

Meadows' approach couldn't be more different from that of the White Houses, which is hostile with the press and frequently decries reports it disagrees with as Fake News.

He has courted the press, and can often be found talking to reporters. The Freedom Caucus is a press-friendly group and has negotiated through the media, including recently when it wanted members to stay in Washington and work through the August recess.

"I love [the media]. I'll tell you what, I don't know if they like me, but I like them. I really do," Meadows said. "You got two options: You either don't talk to the press and the story is written, or you do talk to the press and the story is written. I try to give as much possible time as I can. We do think that it's important that we share our side of the story."

Meadows' approach couldn't be more different from that of the White House's, which is hostile with the press and frequently decries reports it disagrees with as "Fake News." Meadows doesn't criticize or buck the White House often, but breaks with it about the news media.

"I made a rule a long time ago," Meadows said, quoting an old adage. "You never make enemies with people who buy ink in barrels.

"My style is one that is less confrontational. [I] try to win people over with the argument more than arguing. So as I see it, it's just making sure that you present the best case that you can to the media and I think the larger story there is being able to interact with the media at times when you feel like they're not giving you a fair shake. You have to make sure that you call it out," he said. "But I've always found that I'm going to focus on the argument [rather] than trying to create a sense of fairness."

Reporters stake out Caucus dinners, held weekly on the second floor of the Rayburn House Office Building. The dinners used to be held at Tortilla Coast or Hunan Dynasty, both Capitol Hill locales, but were relocated due to structural deficiencies, specifically after Tortilla Coast's basement flooded and Hunan Dynasty caught fire in November.

Meadows' coziness with the press is reviled in other quarters of the GOP conference. Members of the Freedom Caucus are known for giving their cellphone members to reporters and being widely accessible.

"He leaks, and he likes the media a lot. Sometimes, it makes it difficult to work with him," a longtime colleague said, adding that the Freedom Caucus is a mirror image in that sense. "I think that maybe their desire to get on the media undermines their credibility with some of their colleagues."

But while Meadows' closeness with the press is bound to keep him in headlines, his real power is in the roughly 36 votes he can help sway, enough to derail or prop up legislation, and his closeness with a president who could make or break his future.

Read more:

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows takes a seat at the top table - Washington Examiner

The first trailer for the next CW Seed animated series,Freedom Fighters: The Ray, was released at San Diego Comic-Con, and it is shockingly dark. In a parallel world new to the CW's "Arrowverse," Earth X, the Nazis won World War II and their superteam, the New Reichsmen, rule America. That superteam? Nazi versions of the main trio of CW superheroes: The Flash, Arrow, and Supergirl.

The trailer centers on Ray, based on the reinvention of the character in Grant Morrison'sMultiversity, a member of the Freedom Fighters trying to take America back from the Nazis. It's brutal, violent, and altogether doesn't look like the Freedom Fighters have much of a chance -- the perfect setup for a season of stories.

The Ray will debut this fall on CW Seed. Check out the trailer below the official synopsis.

Raymond Ray Terrill was a reporter who discovered a group of government scientists working on a secret project to turn light into a weapon of mass destruction. But before he could report on his findings, the project head exposed Ray to a genetic light bomb. The bomb failed to kill him and instead gifted Ray with light-based powers. With these abilities, Ray realized he could go beyond reporting on injustice he could take action to help stop it. Calling himself The Ray, he was recruited by Uncle Sam and the Freedom Fighters to fight violence and oppression wherever it exists.

Link:

Syfy - The CW's Freedom Fighters: The Ray SDCC trailer introduces ... - SYFY WIRE (blog)

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., and Donald Trump (Photo: Twitter)

Senate Republicans appear unable to pass a straight repeal of Obamacare or a more comprehensive plan, and one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress says the GOP either needs to do what it promised or prepare to watch the rest of the Trump agenda wither away.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he still plans to hold a vote on repeal, identical to the one that passed Congress in 2015. However, four Republicans are already opposed, including three who voted for the 2015 plan thatwas vetoed by President Obama.

Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, are now opposing the plan they backed two years ago. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is also opposed, but she also rejected the 2015 bill.

For those pounding the table for repeal, the Senates failure is stunning.

I thought there would be some movement toward the 2015 plan, but then the three senators who previously voted for the 2015 bill came out and said they were going to vote against the 2015 bill. That is fairly shocking, said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., a member of the House Freedom Caucus and the House Budget Committee.

When you vote 50 times to repeal and you say youre going to repeal, then its fairly simple. You ought to do what you told the American people you were going to do. So now these folks are really, really hurting the Republican brand, said Brat.

What do YOU think?Do Republicans need new leadership in House and Senate? Sound off in todays WND poll!

He says the GOP needs some serious soul-searching.

What do we stand for? Do we stand for small federal government? Do we stand for free markets? Do we stand for fiscal responsibility, or are we just going down the Democrat path and bankrupting the country? asked Brat.

The rest is just pure politics, and I dont care for that realm. The first principles are what made us the greatest country on earth. You put Adam Smith and James Madison together and you get some great outcomes. Were departing from those first principles every day, said Brat.

Hear the interview:

He says what many Republicans are focused on in Washington is a far cry from what voters want from them.

I just dont understand how you can be that far off the reservation politically and that tone deaf to what the American people want. Everybody back home is just yelling to get it done. Were once again tone deaf up in the bubble, said Brat.

Brat is also frustrated by how Republicans have tortured a simple policy approach into something far more complicated.

Once you change the definition of repeal to a health care thing run by the federal government with all sorts of subsidies and billions of dollars for other programs attached, youre getting too far away from Republican first principles. The messaging hasnt been good because we keep twisting the meaning of common sense words, said Brat.

Brat is also concerned about how the failure to pass health care legislation will impact other major priorities in this Congress, especially major tax reform. He says that between not eliminating Obamacare taxes and the expected scuttling of the border adjustability tax, Congress is already starting with a $2 trillion disadvantage.

As a result, the Trump administration is now adjusting its push to lower the corporate tax rate. Instead of dropping it to 15 percent, Brat says the presidents team is now gunning for the 20-25 percent range.

He says the GOP simply cannot screw up tax reform.

The worst thing we can do is to goof up tax reform and not get this economy rolling again. Everything hinges on that, he said.

Brat still holds out hope for a health-care bill since President Trump is still energized to get something done, although Brat suggests the president has been more transactional in his approach and needs to be more specific about what he wants.

He is not enthused about bringing Democrats into the talks since that would lead to government in health care.

I think hes starting to recognize that when you move toward the Democrat side, the policy end up utterly complex and fails, said Brat.

The congressman also laughs off the assertion of Democrats that Republican opposition to Obamacare and not the law itself is responsible for uncertainty that drives up the cost of premiums and deductibles for many Americans.

Whats a central planner going to say about the monopoly. Its never their fault because they own it, said Brat. They have to give that kind of response because they dont have a free market system that is sustainable over the long run.

Continue reading here:

Freedom Caucus member: Senators' betrayal 'shocking' - WND.com

Cars crossing from Italy into France are being stopped and searched. Their drivers and passengers are being interrogated and made to show their national identity documents. So much for open borders. Presumably France is being permitted to puncture the spirit of the Schengen agreement because Emmanuel Macron is the current darling of European Union optimists.

He is taking apparent liberties with what Michel Barnier constantly reminds us is the sacred EU principle of free movement of people, for which the leaders of countries such as Poland and Hungary would be castigated.

MrMacron and his border enforcement teams would, of course, argue that these procedures are not designed to prevent the populations of member states from exercising their right to live and work anywhere within the EU, but to prevent an unlimited influx of migrants from the rest of the world being transported across the continentillegally....

Read the original post:

Freedom of movement in Europe will end. But will it be orderly or chaotic? - Telegraph.co.uk

Protesters in front of the Polish parliament as senators voted on laws giving politicians control over judges. Photograph: Wojtek Radwaski/AFP/Getty Images

The EU is expected to give Polands rightwing government until September to reverse a controversial set of laws that give the countrys politicians control over its supreme court.

The Polish senate defied international condemnation early on Saturday and mass demonstrations in Warsaw to approve a law that allows the firing of its current supreme court judges, except those chosen by the justice minister and approved by the president.

Protests continued in Poland. on Saturday. But despite increasing dismay at developments, the European commission knows it needs time to build support before moving towards what is regarded as the nuclear option of suspending a countrys voting rights in the EU for the first time. Last week the first vice-president of the EUs executive, Frans Timmermans, warned that Brussels was very close to triggering the sanction, which would spark a major confrontation with one of the EUs most populous member states.

The legislation passed on Saturday is only one of a series of contentious legal reforms being pursued by the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) which have prompted thousands to take to the streets in protest against what many claim is the death of Polish democracy.

The new law gives the president the power to issue regulations for the supreme courts work. It also introduces a disciplinary chamber that, on a motion from the justice minister, would handle suspected breaches of regulations or ethics. The law now requires only the signature of the president, Andrzej Duda, who was previously a member of PiS, to become binding.

With Brexit negotiations in full flow, there is unease in Brussels at taking any action that could be seen as heavy-handed in relation to a member state.

With the EU engaged in a difficult balancing act, it is understood Timmermans will suggest at a meeting of commissioners on Wednesday that Poland be given until the next general affairs council of EU ministers, on 25 September, to respond to claims that its measures are a systemic threat to the rule of law. While Poland has ignored the commission when it has previously set deadlines on this issue, the move would at least give the commission the summer months to garner the support required to impose tough sanctions.

The EU believes, however, that it will be in a position to launch two infringement proceedings against Poland as soon as this week, in an attempt to slow the countrys drift towards what Brussels regards as authoritarianism.

The first, it is understood, will highlight that the governments insistence on the early retirement of judges is discriminatory towards women, as the age thresholds are different for the sexes under the new laws.

The second infringement proceeding focuses on the failure of Poland to give its people effective access to justice, by undermining the independence of the courts. Both legal arguments have been deployed by the European commission before in the case of Hungary, and forced the country to rethink.

Jarosaw Kaczyski, head of Polands ruling party, claims the judiciary in Poland still works to a communist-era model and that the system needs radical changes to become efficient and reliable. The Polish prime minister, Beata Szydo, says the legislation is an internal matter and the government will not bow to any foreign pressure.

About 200 protesters have gathered in front of Dudas holiday home in Jurata, on the Baltic coast, to demand that he does not sign the bill.

The president has 21 days to sign it and is not expected to do so before his meeting on Monday with the head of the court, Magorzata Gersdorf. Two other bills, on a key judicial body and on regular courts, also await Dudas signature.

On Friday the US state department urged all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Polands constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers, and urged dialogue.

So far Duda has not accepted an invitation for talks on the issue from the European council president, Donald Tusk, a former Polish prime minister. Speaking to Polish broadcasters, Tusk repeated his readiness for talks and said he was a little disappointed there had been no meeting. Polands president should be concerned about a situation that is, lets say, serious, he said.

The Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbn, said on Saturday that Budapest would fight to defend Poland. The inquisition offensive against Poland can never succeed, because Hungary will use all legal options in the European Union to show solidarity with the Poles, he said.

Excerpt from:

EU will hit Poland with deadline to reverse curbs on judicial freedom - The Guardian

US President Donald Trump has reportedly approved a plan to give the United States Navy more freedom to carry out patrols in the South China Sea a move analysts say will add to uncertainties over Sino-US relations and regional security issues.

US patrols challenging Beijing in South China Sea will continue, says US Navy commander

The plan, submitted to the White House in April by Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, outlines a full-year schedule of when US navy ships will sail through contested waters in the South China Sea, the far-right Breitbart News website cited a US official as saying yesterday.

Such a move could be seen as a challenge to Chinas maritime claims in the disputed waters.

The White House would be aware of all planned freedom of navigation operations so it would not be a surprise when requests came up the chain of command, and they would be approved faster than before, the official said.

The faster approval process would mean operations could be conducted on a very routine, very regular basis, as part of a programme to keep the waters open, rather than as a one-off event, the person said.

It is not yet clear if the plan is part of a larger Asia-Pacific strategy or whether it is simply designed to make freedom of navigation operations more routine in the South China Sea.

US Navy carrier group begins South China Sea patrols

The US regularly undertook freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea under the previous Obama administration, but there have been suggestions that Trump was putting them off to avoid antagonising Beijing. Chinas defence ministry did not reply to requests for comment.

Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University, said the move would worsen the situation in the disputed waters, where patrols by US naval ships to within 12 nautical miles of artificial islands built by China have been met with protest from Beijing.

China shows US its military muscle with patrol off Hong Kong waters amid rising maritime tensions

If this report is true, I cant see the patrols being any more regular given that they were routine under Obama, Shi said. But they could be stepped up they could stay longer or they could involve military drills.

In the first freedom of navigation operation by the US Navy under the Trump administration, the USS Dewey sailed within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef, in the Spratly Island chain, in May, staying for more than an hour and carrying out a man overboard rescue drill as it passed the island.

Mischief Reef is controlled by Beijing, which has built airstrips in the area, but is also claimed by the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

In April, during a hearing before a House Armed Services Committee, Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the US Pacific Command, suggested that the US would likely carry out new freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, citing direction and guidance from the secretary of defence and the national command authority.

Chinas coastguard staking claim to contested reefs in South China Sea

Li Jie, a Beijing-based military analyst, said he would not be surprised if such patrols became a regular occurrence under Trump, who was being advised by hawkish military officials such as Mattis.

At the same time, the US could gain leverage to contain China in terms of its maritime affairs by increasing its military presence in the region, Li said.

On Thursday, the US asked China to provide more support in monitoring North Koreas military activities, as tensions rise over Pyongyangs nuclear weapons programme. The call came during a rare one-hour video conference between Admiral John Richardson, US chief of naval operations, and Vice Admiral Shen Jinlong, the PLA Navy commander.

A CNN report the same day said Pentagon intelligence suggested Pyongyang could be planning to launch a nuclear missile from a submarine. It cited two US defence officials as saying a North Korean submarine had been engaged in unusual deployment activity in the previous 48 hours.

It said the vessel had sailed about 100km into international waters in the East China Sea, further than it had ever gone before, prompting the US and South Korea to raise their alert level slightly.

Read more here:

Trump signs off on plan to allow US Navy more freedom to patrol in South China Sea, report says - South China Morning Post

Our Founding Fathers considered a free press so instrinsic to the democratic ideal that they wrote it into the very first amendment of the document that launched our nation. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the only security of all is in a free press." Subsequent statesmen have had their ups and downs with the fourth estate, but have always understood and respected the need for a truly independent media.

President Donald Trump, as he so often does, stands as an exception and the tone he chooses to set in the Oval Office poses a clear threat not only to the press, but to American citizens in general.

What is at risk here is your access to information.

The president has hurled many epithets at the media "scum" and "sleaze" are among the more tame ones. But those words are the smokescreen that distracts the public's attention, and sometimes even the media's attention, from the more alarming pattern of behavior in which he is methodically chipping away at the very institution of a free press.

Mr. Trump has vowed, both before and after his election, to gut the First Amendment and "open up" libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations for critical coverage. This spring he suggested the White House could dispense with press briefings and instead simply hand out written statements for the media to publish, unquestioned. It hasn't gotten to that point yet, but the White House has taken the rather stunning step of excluding TV cameras from briefings.

This attempt to undermine the fundamental institution of a free press are nothing short of insidious. The First Amendment, which also covers freedom of speech and religion, states that neither an individual nor a news organization can be prosecuted for criticizing the government. It seems so obvious now, but it was a revolutionary thought at the time.

The crucial watchdog role implicitly bestowed upon a free press has been instrumental in the continued development of our nation. The free press, unheard of in King George III's England, rallied colonists behind the revolution. It played a role in the abolition of slavery and a century later in the success of the Civil Rights movement.

Racers came to practice and run the track before race day tomorrow at the Langley Speedway in Hampton.

Racers came to practice and run the track before race day tomorrow at the Langley Speedway in Hampton.

Investigations that were only possible under the protections of the First Amendment have challenged unethical industries and fought for the rights and safety of workers and other American citizens. The free press has uncovered government corruption and held the offenders responsible.

Here on the Peninsula, reporting by the Daily Press uncovered a police sting operation that churned $4 million through its coffers without a single arrest; parsed crime and sentencing statistics to see if all of our citizens are treated farily by the legal system; and most recently, called out the Peninsula Airport Commission for throwing away millions of your tax dollars to pay off someone else's bad loan as part of a back room deal.

None of this would have been possible without the First Amendment freedoms that are now being threatened.

President Trump's ascent to the White House came at a time when the public's right to know was already under attack. Government bodies at all levels have been working to punch holes in the Freedom of Information Act, which guarantees the media and citizens access to public information and details about how your tax dollars are spent.

We find ourselves fighting these battles more and more these days battling a state clerk's office in an attempt to see a database of crime and sentencing statistics culled from public records around the state, or dealing with a judge who wanted to close a county supervisor's domestic violence trial to the media (but allow the public to attend).

The tone set by the president encourages this kind of response, making it easier for millions of citizens to shrug (or even cheer) when the press is denied access to important information that pertains to your tax dollars, your laws and your lives.

When we seek access to public records, when we use FOIA to investigate public officials and agencies, it is part of our job as the eyes and ears of the readers whom we represent and serve. It is our duty to keep a close watch on how your tax dollars are spent and on how the public's business is being conducted.

The free press is one of the critical pillars that supports any democracy. An attack on that foundation is an attack on the entire democratic system.

When someone wants to limit the press' freedom, they are really limiting your freedom. When they keep information from us, they are keeping it from you.

That notion offends us. It should offend you.

The rest is here:

Editorial: Foundation of our freedom - Daily Press

Free Press readers Published 12:06 a.m. ET July 22, 2017

As citizens, we are not truly free if we do not have realistic access to good health care, one Free Press reader wrote.(Photo: TNS)

Free Press readers share their opinions on the health care reform debate in Washington:

Our national anthem ends with the words land of the free and home of the brave. As citizens, we are not truly free if we do not have realistic access to good health care. Republicans, pushing for the repeal and replacement of the ACA, and now just the repeal, are selling the warped notion that freedom is the right to choose to not have insurance, or to have a junk insurance policy. I doubt this freedom is ever chosen by those with financial means.

This version of freedom is packaged and sold to less affluent Americans because, for many of them, obtaining health care currently requires hard choices. Our countrys version of freedom should not be that we allow vulnerable citizens the choice to meet other essential needs while they forgo health insurance and gamble that they will not become sick. For this wealthy, bountiful country, freedom should be something more noble than that.

Freedom should be the ability to choose to leave your current job and start a new business, knowing that you can buy health insurance, and that pre-existing conditions will not affect your ability to obtain or keep that insurance. Freedom is saving and planning for retirement and not worrying that you will lose all of that hard-earned retirement savings should you become ill or have an accident. Freedom is retiring when you want, without having to wait until age 65 when you will be eligible for Medicare. Freedom is not worrying about how you will pay for doctors visits, hospital visits, a childs birth, medicines, or expensive lifesaving treatments. Shouldnt we want these freedoms for all Americans?

If the Republicans repeal the ACA or fail to work with Democrats to fix the ACA, many Americans will be denied the essential freedom to live healthy lives without fear of whether they can pay for it.

Lauren Lisi

Huntington Woods

People forget or never realized how long it took to get a health care plan for all Americans. Finally came the Affordable Care Act. It works to a large degree but has weaknesses. Those problems could have been overcome without so many wasted months if the GOP accepted the ACA and worked to make it a success. Of course, that would mean working for the benefit of the American people rather than the party.

Ron DePentu

Canton

The Republicans had seven years to come up with their version of a health care plan they chose to spend it on meaningless repeal votes on the Affordable Care Act. When it came time to deliver their plan, after claiming for years that they had all the answers, a chosen few went behind closed doors and threw something together in a few short weeks and their own party couldnt support it.

One of the most disturbing things that has come out of all of this is that Mitch McConnell threatened the recalcitrant senators by vowing to work with the Democrats to get a bipartisan agreement if the Republicans didnt fall in line. Well, heaven forbid! Work together for the common good of the American people? Thats something that the Senate on both sides of the aisle seems to have forgotten is their purpose.

Lenore S. Litwin

South Lyon

There is an answer to the health care/health care insurance problem in this country. All federal employees starting with the president down should be on the same plan as citizens. All state employees from the governors down should be on the same plan as citizens. Once that is accomplished I think that federal and state governments will very quickly come up with an excellent health plan for all of American citizens.

M. Chudnov

Farmington Hills

Wouldnt it be something if Congress rallied around Sen. John McCain, and came together to reach a consensus for a health care bill. They certainly have not felt compelled to rally around the people they represent.

Ron Ustruck

Davisburg

Read or Share this story: http://on.freep.com/2toHvc7

Original post:

There is freedom in good health insurance for all - Detroit Free Press

O.J. Simpson was on the move again this time to his own cell in the Lovelock Correctional Facility.

Prison officials said Friday the former football star was removed from the general population for his own protection as he waits for his release in early October.

Brooke Keast, spokeswoman for the Nevada Department of Corrections, said after Simpson was granted parole Thursday, officials decided it made sense to keep him out of harms way.

Keast said prison officials usually dont allow hearings to be viewed by the nearly 1,700 inmates, but with the widespread attention Simpson received, that proved impossible.

When you have people who are lifers that are not going to be getting out, there are some people who might want to make a name for themselves, Keast said. Its not worth the risk.

Simpsons parole hearing like most legal issues with the 70-year-old was a spectacle that grabbed international attention. Media flooded Carson City, the small capital city of Nevada, with large array of satellite television trucks. His conviction on robbery charges nine years ago landed him in Lovelock, a speck of a town two hours northeast of Carson City, where the four-member parole board unanimously granted his release.

The decision to grant parole proved disappointing to some who were hoping Simpson would serve a longer sentence as payback for being acquitted in the 1994 double murder of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman.

David Montero and Matt Pearce

Goldmans father, Fred Goldman, who along with the Brown estate successfully sued Simpson in a civil lawsuit related to the deaths, told Good Morning America on Friday that the family was disappointed with the parole commissioners decision.

They never pressed him about anything," he said. "He snapped at one of the commissioners. ... The first gentleman who spoke, he snapped at him. There was no feedback to that. He lied numerous times about many things. He was never re-questioned about anything.

Goldman said the commissioners appeared to go over a checklist of conditions that make inmates eligible for parole, and they checked them off, and as long as he answered the proper number of items on the checklist, it was a done deal."

During the parole hearing, the commissioners said they received letters of support for Simpsons release as well as those who wished to see him remain behind bars, but they couldnt consider the 1995 acquittal in their deliberations.

Simpson told the board hed led a conflict-free life" and repeatedly said he was a good guy." Fred Goldman took offense at the remarks.

"Everybody in the world except him knows that he has not led a conflict-free life," Goldman said. "He beat up his first wife, he beat up Nicole numerous times, he had numerous other altercations with people over the years hardly conflict-free, nor do I suspect it'll ever be conflict-free. He's just not capable of being that person."

Kim Goldman, Ron Goldmans sister, told Good Morning America that the family had a nine-year reprieve with Simpson serving the minimum amount of time for the robbery conviction. His sentence couldve been as long as 33 years.

We're going to go back to doing what we've done. I run a nonprofit working with teenagers, I do stories on other victims and survivors, I'm raising my kids, she said. We're active in the world of victims and survivors' advocacy. We're going to continue doing those things and take it one day at a time, and if he chooses to write a book, or do a reality show, we'll be there."

Simpsons plans for when he is released indicate a desire to move to Florida, though the state would have to accept him as a parolee. He told the parole commission he wanted to be with his family already living there.

Tanya Brown, Nicole Brown Simpsons sister, told CNN on Thursday night that she watched the hearing, but said their life doesnt revolve around Simpson.

If you cant change it, you have to at least try to accept it," she said. It works for me. I know it is what it is, and I know its cliche to a lot of people, but it's what gets me through.

Sights, sounds, and the people that made the first day of 2017's Comic-Con a sight to behold.

Sights, sounds, and the people that made the first day of 2017's Comic-Con a sight to behold.

Democrats Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova are preparing already for their August 2018 congressional primary rematch by raising and spending campaign money.

Democrats Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova are preparing already for their August 2018 congressional primary rematch by raising and spending campaign money.

david.montero@latimes.com

Twitter: @davemontero

ALSO

Timeline: O.J. Simpson's journey from sports legend to murder suspect to prisoner

This is what happened to all the important people in O.J. Simpson's life

Bill Plaschke: USC seems to be unwavering in its fond remembrance of former Trojan O.J. Simpson

Read this article:

As freedom awaits, newly paroled OJ Simpson isolated at prison for his protection - Los Angeles Times

STERLING HEIGHTS -- Sterling Heights, eh? virtuosic bassist and enigmatic Primus front man Les Claypool asked the sold-out Freedom Hill crowd on Thursday night, July 20, as his band commenced its set. In case you stumbled into the wrong venue, we are not a Foreigner cover band.

It was an ironic witticism from a man who has made a career on incongruity. Perhaps best known as the textbook weirdo who wears a derby hat and penned the iconic South Park theme song, Claypool is thought of by throngs of his rabid fans as one of the most inventive bassist who ever drew breath, an acid-soaked cross between Larry Graham and Jaco Pastorius. Over the course of Primus 75-minute set, Claypool moved the needle on his legend.

Appearing after a raucously loud if straightforward performance by stoner metal outfit Clutch, Primus which formed in Northern California over 30 years ago -- took the stage to circus music, as is its wont. Signaled by drummer Tim Alexanders cymbal hits, Claypool and company immediately launched into the supremely weird Too Many Puppies. Alexanders polyrhythmic playing was MVP from the get-go, while Claypools emotional note choice was set off by the versatility of guitarist Larry LaLonde who, for the lions share of the night, oscillated between hardcore thrash metal licks and cleanly rendered psychedelic euphoria.

Save for a new song mid-set, which Claypool promised the crowd was going to bring goblin rock back into common parlance, the trio focused on exploring the outer limits of some of the most well-loved pieces in its catalog. Frizzle Fry was ramped up in the live set, breaking from the composition and entering a space somewhere between free jazz and metal. The improvised section stretched out in epic fashion, while freakish imagery of green neon eyes and dayglo American flags flashed upon three colossal LED screens.

Advertisement

The centerpiece of the show was coiled around the dark psychedelia of Jillys On Smack, which saw Claypool performing on an upright bass and donning a pig mask while Alexander and LaLonde occupied the negative space with a sense of musical urgency. The song ultimately melded with the staccato rhythms of Mr. Krinkle with, as always, Claypools slap bass intensity taking the spotlight. The valorous musical forays resolved themselves into the beginnings of a straightforward and satisfying Jerry Was a Race Car Driver, the song that shot the band to momentary stardom during the early. Customary satirical chants of Primus Sucks! filled the shed, the official Primus fan seal of approval for a job well done at the nights end. And the adoration was reciprocated by the trio.

We liked you so much, Michigan, that we played right up against our curfew, Claypool said, suddenly realizing it was five minutes until 11 p.m. and the group was short on time after getting sidetracked by their fierce predilection for audacious improvisation and musicianship. Its hard to say that Primus stand alone, because it doesnt; the band is just one in a long tradition of quintessentially risky bands. But its only getting more compelling the higher its mystery rises.

Read the original here:

Review: Primus plays it weird in hot Freedom Hill show - The Oakland Press

By Francis Ewherido

As parents gathered in the chapel of St. Gregorys College, Ikoyi, Lagos, for the Holy Mass to commence the graduation ceremonies of their children last Saturday, one feeling was mutual: joy. Beyond that, there were divergent feelings.

For some parents, St. Gregorys was a refuge for their children while away from home. Now they are moving to the university with cultism and other social vices and they are worried about how their children would cope. Some are worried about how their children will manage the new found freedom when they get to the university.

Those who will send their children to private universities or foreign universities were probably dealing with the arithmetic of the increased expenses. But while parents were struggling with their mixed emotions, the graduating students were chatting away in low tones, hugging and back-slapping themselves before the Mass started. They were certainly cherishing their impending freedom, away from the regimented life at St. Gregorys: low hair cut, waking up at a specific hour, food timetable, etc.

The homilist and St. Gregorys Assistant Administrator, the very cerebral Rev. Fr. John Njorteah, correctly gauged the feelings of the students. Seizing the opportunity of talking to them together for probably the last time, he told them some home truths about life out there. Parents kept nodding as Fr. John spoke. Please find below excerpts of the homily, a reference for every teenager and young adult.

My dear little ones, as you step out of this college today to go into the world, I humbly implore you to listen attentively to me as I share with you the word of God on this auspicious occasion. First, I would like you all (the graduands) to look around and see yourselves again. Today marks the end of your gathering together as a group.

Never shall you all be complete as a class. You have journeyed together as a group and today you are beginning another journey on your own. Yes, your individuality will be key in determining the extent you will go in life.

My dear friends, for some years now the college has taught and protected you, and now you are being unleashed into the world. This is the world that is full of evils and times have really changed. Insecurity is at its peak, kidnapping has become commonplace, economic hardship is killing our people, suicides and suicidal attempts are becoming rife among our people. Our cultural values are being eroded in the wake of imitating western trends and fashions, and there is less of everything in the world today.

Our phones have become wireless; cars, keyless; our dresses have become sleeveless, our youths, jobless; our leaders, shameless; our relationships, meaningless; our attitudes, careless; our feelings, heartless; our education, valueless and our children manner-less (ill-mannered).

Do not, therefore, fail to make recourse to the good training you had in the college. Indeed friends, you have been given the flesh of moral discipline and uprightness. Remain firm and sturdy in this path. Lies fill the length and breadth of the social media and move faster than the speed of light; thanks to the power of the internet.

Your academic foundation is one that is the envy of many who are not privileged and who might have desired to be beneficiaries. Let it not amount to naught. Your desire for freedom is realised. Know your freedom comes with responsibility. The era of pushing the blame to someone else gives way to the era of I did it. Put your future in good handsyour own.

Remember that we led you to God, allow Him to accompany you through your life. You were always instructed that there is a God who seeks the response of your love and wants you never to forget Him. Today, there is a neo-atheism.

Denial of spiritual realities and replacing God with money. We see the extent to which money has driven people to do the unimaginable in the country. Do not live above your means. Do not impress anyone. Practice your faith, live your faith and be glad to share it. Do not be ashamed to live for God.

Your time is limited, so dont waste it

living someone elses life. Dont let the noise of other peoples opinion drown your own inner voice. Be focused and firm on whatever path you want to tow in the university and with Gods help you will succeed. Remember that bad company corrupts good manners. Choose your friends and do not let your friends choose you, and ensure that you do not make friends with people of questionable character.

Today, you have a new mother in this institution, please do not put her to shame by your conduct and ways of life. Just as Jesus Christ enjoined his disciples in Mt. 28:19 to Go therefore make disciples of all nations, in the same way you are being charged to become ambassadors of this college, and see to it that you contribute your own quota to the growth and development of this institution.

Continue to rely on the promise of Christ to you in the gospel reading when he says, In the world you will suffer, take courage for I have overcome the world. You are being charged then to heal and not to contaminate the world, to build and not to destroy, to uplift and not to bring down, to support and not to oppose, to renew and not to ruin.

Continue reading here:

Freedom comes with concomitant responsibility - Vanguard