LONDON Finance firms should not be forced by regulators to change location after Britain leaves the European Union in 2019, Andrew Bailey, chief executive of the UK's Financial Conduct Authority told a Reuters Newsmaker event on Thursday.

Banks, insurers and asset managers based in Britain are already making contingency plans to shift some operations to continental Europe after Brexit takes effect in case access to the EU single market is closed off.

But Bailey said Britain and the EU are in a position to preserve free trade for financial services, meaning such moves need not happen.

"Firms should be able to take their own decisions on where they locate, subject to appropriate regulatory arrangements being in place which preserve the public interest," Bailey said, in his first major speech on Brexit since Britain triggered the formal EU divorce proceedings in March.

"Authorities should not dictate the location of firms," he told an audience in Canary Wharf, home to some of the world's biggest banks.

Future financial sector relations between Britain and the EU should be based on "mutual recognition" or regulatory cooperation "but not exact mirroring" of rules, Bailey said.

Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Luxembourg and Dublin are all vying for a slice of Britain's financial services industry after Brexit. Bailey said such competition was good.

But he also said Brexit should not be used as an excuse to restrict the ability to have open markets and freedom of location.

"The roots exist to come out with sensible outcomes on this."

Some companies have already announced plans to move people to continental European locations to retain access to the EU single market. Bailey said a transition period based on current trading arrangements was needed this year.

This would avoid a "regrettable" situation whereby firms had to "press the button" on moves to the EU before they know what the outcome of Britain's negotiations with the bloc will be.

"It needs to be a sensible period," Bailey said.

Bailey questioned whether restricting trade in this way was an inevitable or necessary response to Brexit.

"When I hear people say firms need to re-locate in order to continue to benefit from access to EU financial markets, I start to seriously wonder."

NO LOCATION POLICIES

France and other EU countries, for example, want the clearing of euro denominated derivatives, which London dominates, "located" within the EU after Brexit.

"It does not require a location policy," Bailey said.

Joint oversight with the EU of clearing houses in London is "something that is very clearly preferable to the cost and risk that is introduced by a location based policy."

Such joint oversight was already working well between the UK and United States regulators in clearing, he said.

He dismissed talk in the EU that given the dominance of Britain's financial services sector, the largest in Europe, there should be specific rules for the UK, rather than the existing general regime for recognizing non-EU financial firms.

"I do not accept that," Bailey said.

Non-EU financial firms from the United States, Singapore and elsewhere can currently offer their services in the EU if their home regulation is deemed by Brussels to be "equivalent" or as tough as the bloc's own rules.

This regime should be applied to Britain in the same way.

"It would not be the best outcome to adopt a special treatment for the oversight of outsourced service provision arrangements involving the UK and EU when there are already arrangements in place which can form the basis of an equivalence arrangement," Bailey said.

NO RACE TO THE BOTTOM

Britain was not interested in a "race to the bottom" in regulation after Brexit, he said.

Britain has worked hard over the years to build up relations with EU and national regulators across the bloc, he said, though he conceded that he was already being locked out of EU regulatory discussions about Brexit.

"It's perfectly reasonable ... It does not concern me."

There are already fears that asset managers in Britain will be prevented from managing funds based in the EU after Brexit, but Bailey said this longstanding cross-border "delegation" should continue.

"It works well today. There is no reason to disrupt that model," Bailey said.

Critics of Brexit have said that Britain will end up being a "rule taker", meaning it will have to copy and paste the bloc's rules into UK law if it wants to maintain access in financial services.

"I don't want to be in a situation where we become a pure rule taker," Bailey said.

For live link to Newsmaker click on reut.rs/2thSd4S

(Reporting by Huw Jones; editing by Jason Neely and Jane Merriman)

U.S. stocks fell in late morning trading on Thursday as weak jobs data from the private sector struck a bleak tone for the critical non-farm payrolls report due on Friday, while investors fretted about rising tension in the Korean peninsula.

WASHINGTON U.S. private employers hired fewer workers than expected in June and applications for unemployment benefits last week increased for a third straight week, pointing to some loss of momentum in job growth as the labor market nears full employment.

See the original post:

Finance firms need freedom to choose location after Brexit - Reuters

Canada is now officially 150 years old. Some of us have been celebrating loudly, some of us have been protesting, and some of us have been doing both.

For those who wanted to simply have a fun Canada Day weekend, the right to dissent can seem like the right to be a nuisance. Some people even wonder why democracies protect the right to dissent when we already get to express our opinions at the ballot box during elections. After all, we choose the government that represents us. Those running for office tell us in advance what they plan to do. If they don't do what they promise, we can kick them out at the next election. That should be simple, right?

So why do we need to protect people who want to upstage or interrupt our celebrations, or other public gatherings?

On Canada Day, a group of Indigenous protesters attempted to raise a teepee on Parliament Hill. They told reporters that Canada Day was a painful reminder of the wrongs done to their people. They also wanted Canada to know that their people have been here for much longer than 150 years.

The protesters were told by Ottawa police and RCMP officers to take the teepee down. Several members of the protest group were arrested. Only later were they permitted to move the teepee to a place of prominence. No charges were laid against the protesters, who were subsequently released from custody.

The thing about protest is that it needs to be immediate. If we have to wait years between elections -- and goodness knows how long the First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples have been waiting for -- authorities to address their grievances, we run the risk that we will never be heard. Protest must strike while the iron is hot; while the public eye is turned toward them.

Governments and the public in general have short attention spans. What was a big issue a few weeks ago can fall out of the news very quickly. We cannot trust that our problems will be resolved solely in the halls of various governments. As citizens, we have the right to take nonviolent and persistent action, because elections are just not enough.

But why do some protests result in arrests and others in protection from censure? Why should our governments care about the content of the expression of the group gathered together? Shouldn't police be neutral on what is being said? Why should their focus be on anything other than the physical safety of the people present?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and of peaceful assembly. This appears to mean that the government (against whose unreasonable actions the Charter protects us), is obliged to let people in groups have their say, so long as they do so peacefully. This should be content neutral. Opposing voices need to be heard by those in authority and by passersby alike.

The freedom of expression of each of us means that we all must have the opportunity to gather information and evaluate it. If YOU are censored, MY freedom of expression is threatened. If I did not get to hear about the Indigenous people protesting on Canada Day on Parliament Hill, I cannot begin to understand what they want me to know. Now that I know, I can choose to support or to reject their argument. That is my right.

Why was the first instinct of the police in Ottawa to shut down the Indigenous protest? It is unclear to me whether the police did not want any unplanned structures to go up, whether they thought the protest against the Canada 150 celebrations constituted a threat to safety, or if they thought that Indigenous people were dangerous as a rule. We will likely never know.

But for me, the more important question remains, why did the police not understand their obligation to protect people's Charter rights? The right to peaceful protest, like all the other rights and freedoms, does not protect itself. Law enforcement is there to enforce laws equitably.

Do we need police to protect our safety? Without doubt. But we also need them to balance this objective with the protection of our right to be heard, to be seen even in unexpected places, and to be a nonviolent nuisance. Democracy demands no less.

Also on HuffPost:

Indigenous Concerns In Canada

Read more:

Democracy Demands The Freedom To Turn Celebration Into Protest - Huffington Post Canada

Local 0Updated at 7:50 pm, July 5th, 2017 By: Nate Eaton, EastIdahoNews.com We Matched

Officials say 170,000 people viewed the Melaleuca Freedom Celebration fireworks Tuesday night in and around Snake River Landing in Idaho Falls. | Photos & Video courtesy Melaleuca

IDAHO FALLS The Melaleuca Freedom Celebration drew the largest crowd in the events 25 year history Tuesday night.

Idaho Falls Police Chief Mark McBride said an estimated 170,000 people viewed the fireworks display. Around 110,000 watched from Snake River Landing, where more than 20,000 fireworks were shot off in 31 minutes. McBride said the remaining spectators viewed from nearby locations with crowd size estimates based on the number of vehicles in the area.

This was our most successful Melaleuca Freedom Celebration by far, said Tony Lima, Melaleuca director of Public Relations.

The Melaleuca Freedom Celebration moved this year from the Johns Hole boat dock near the Shilo Inn to Snake River Landing. The new fireworks launch pad was 40 times larger than the old site measuring 300 by 115 feet compared to the previous 50 by 25 feet. The new arrangement allowed for twice the firepower in the fireworks display.

These were the most amazing fireworks Ive ever seen, said Tommy Johnson, a Utah native visiting family in Idaho Falls. We came four hours early to get a good spot and within the first two minutes of the show I knew it was worth it. Ill be back next year.

Before the Melaleuca Freedom Celebration, tens of thousands attended Riverfest at Snake River Landing. More than 20 vendors sold food and activities such as wagon rides, horseback rides, bounce houses, and archery were offered.

Its really hot but this was the best way to spend the fourth of July, said Pocatello resident Lauren Jackson. We bought a funnel cake, snow cones and then the kids played in the bounce houses.

Emergency workers said no major incidents were reported at Riverfest or the Melaleuca Freedom Celebration but crews did extinguish some minor fires in grass along the Snake River caused by the fireworks.

Police were kept busy patrolling traffic around the site as many spectators waited over an hour to exit. Organizers admitted the large crowd caused challenges with traffic flow and they are reviewing ways to make improvements next year.

We planned for this event and overall things went pretty smoothly, said Idaho Falls city spokeswoman Kerry Hammon. This was good preparation for the large crowds that may show up for eclipse weekend next month.

Organizers of Riverfest and the Melaleuca Freedom Celebration will now meet to decide how to make next years events even better.

Excerpt from:

170,000 people watched 'most successful Melaleuca Freedom ... - East Idaho News

Every Independence Day is a day for me to step away from the distractions of our busy lives and personally reflect upon the truly amazing history of our country. I think about the ragtag bunch of brave souls who stood up against the most powerful military in the world, motivated by little more than a mere chance of possibly securing a subjective concept generally known as freedom. The degree of personal sacrifice under some of the worst circumstances imaginable is virtually impossible to fully appreciate from our generations comfy, secure perspective.

My thinking meanders through the years and gets to the big turning points like World War II and the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. Its impossible not to wonder how horrible the world would be today if not for American resolve to protect this hard-won freedom and to stop the spread of evil and tyranny in other places whenever possible. Of course, it still all goes back to what Thomas Paine described as those times that try mens souls during our fight for independence. Without those men rising to the challenge, there would have been no America to ride to the rescue on so many occasions.

Fortunately for all of us, Jefferson was a student of history like few others. That helped him form the foundation of the greatest and freest country the world has ever known.While this period of great celebration of our independence inspires me, it also reminds me of what is likely my single greatest concern: The general lack of education with regard to American history by many who reside in our country today is like a cancer spreading throughout a body, corrupting the integrity of essential life systems.

If you randomly stop 20-something-year-olds on the streets today and ask if they know anything about the contributions of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Benjamin Franklin, chances are good that in many cases you will get nothing more than a blank stare between nervous glances at whatever social media distracts them on their mobile phone that day.

Fortunately for all of us, Jefferson was a student of history like few others. That helped him form the foundation of the greatest and freest country the world has ever known. He knew what had been tried in the past and what had failed. America needed something new. He also wrote, If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Our growing ignorance should be a warning siren blaring in our ears. A terrible storm is on the horizon.

Should it be any surprise to us when the majority of emotional numbskulls operating the so-called mainstream media report farcicallysilly things as historical fact, knowing they are likely to do so with impunity? Whats not so lucky for those of us who care about individual freedom is that some of the best examples pertain to the Second Amendment. Many in the media routinely claim that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed really means the right of the government. Those founding fathers were just a little too careless with the words they chose back in those days, you know? The elites today know what those old guys really meant.

The historically ignorant often claim that those men born nearly three centuries ago could have never imagined the kind of technological advancements made in firearms manufacturing. They want us to believe that only the muskets used in that era were contemplated by those considering the Second Amendment because those men somehow believed technology of all stripes remains stagnant through time. However ridiculous claims like this are when put into historical context, they seem to be believed more often by an accepting, gullible public.

Too many of our fellow citizens lack the ability to think critically. When they hear claims like these, why dont they ask themselves if there are any other sections in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where the word people is considered synonymous with government or state? When they hear simpletons claim that the right to arms does not protect modern arms that look scary to them, do they ask whether the First Amendment protects speech on the Internet or whether the Fourth Amendment protects documents stored in the Cloud?

Without a great appreciation of history and the kind of sacrifice made by our founding fathers, it is easy to dismiss much of what they secured for us. Many pansies being reared today seem to be ready to squander their firearms freedoms because some bad people occasionally do bad things with guns.

Without a great appreciation of history and the kind of sacrifice made by our founding fathers, it is easy to dismiss much of what they secured for us.Its as if Madison and the others could have never imagined that there might be some cost associated with trusting free people with liberties enjoyed by few other populations anywhere on the planet. Certainly, they could not have thought that the benefits experienced by a free people would far outweigh any associated costs, right?

As the thinking of the radical left goes, free speech should be curtailed and censored because some say and write mean and dangerous things. The freedom from warrantless searches allows too many bad people to not be arrested, so it needs to be taken less seriously. Due process isnt really all that important if a right in jeopardy isnt one that is popular with todays Hollywood stars. Times have changed, so these antiquated concepts must change with them, they believe.

The historically ignorant think the best way to accomplish this is to simply reinterpret things willy-nilly as we go. They can do this with a clear conscience because they never think about the pain, anguish and challenge brought by the winter of 1777. They wouldnt know or care about the fact that the founders were actually humble and brilliant enough to accept that changes to our system of government would be needed and, therefore, created a process whereby the Constitution could be changed. Its a difficult path, but that is by design. People have to care for it to matter, though, and its hard for ignorant people to care.

The battle to educate our future generations is the battle to preserve our republic. We may be losing it, but there is still hope with organizations like the Joe Foss Institute. Foss was a man like few others. He was a WWII ace, a Medal of Honor recipient, a governor and past president of the NRA. Oh, he also pretty much created the Super Bowl, but no big deal. Im also lucky enough to know personally that he was a kind, great man who loved his country. No one could ever out-patriot Joe.

General Foss knew that to preserve our countrys rich history was to preserve our country. Because of this, he and his wife, Donna, established the Institute. Among other things, it provides free educational materials to schools, organizations and anyone else willing to take and use them to enlighten youth regarding civics and history. He wanted his Greatest Generation to have a chance to be challenged if the call should ever come again.

Foss and his wife stepped up to try to make a difference like they had time and time again. The Joe Foss Institute is certainly worth supporting as you consider charitable contributions. But we can also make a difference on our own. All parents should actively challenge their childrens schools to make sure they are being taught history, and not in the shameful manner that our immediately past president from Chicago might teach it.

Whether parents or not, we can all take the time to regularly talk with children in our lives about why America is exceptional. Hearing stories from the adults around me when I was very young was the thing that most motivated me to study history as aggressively as I have throughout my lifetime.

An ignorant citizenry will squander its freedoms for convenience or some sense of security. Our cherished Second Amendment rights are most vulnerable to this phenomenon because of the overwhelming emotion consuming those who advocate reading it into obscurity, including, most prominently, the press. That is why we, as gun rights advocates, also must be advocates of education beyond the kind dealing with a gun muzzle and where it should and should not be pointing.

Darren LaSorte lobbied with NRA-ILA for 14 years and now lives and works in Dallas. His passions are shooting, hunting and self-defense training.

Go here to read the rest:

Teaching The History Of Freedom To A New Generation - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)

Ali Razi fled Iran in 1978, came to Los Angeles, and found a place where he could thrive. He traced much of his success and that of others here to one core principle: freedom.

On Tuesday the Fourth of July the prominent developer, now 77, was on hand to unveil a new public art installation in Los Angeles, the Freedom Sculpture, which Razi and others in the Iranian American community hope will be a beacon for the world.

America is great because of all the beautiful cultures brought by immigrants, Razi said. When people drive by the sculpture along Santa Monica Boulevard, he said, he hopes they ask: What is this freedom? This shared dream is based on what?

Artist and designer Cecil Balmond agrees it is a symbol of timeless values of freedom and tolerance. Balmond, whose proposal was chosen from among more than 300 others as the design for the $2.2-million sculpture, said the pair of gold and silver cylinders set atop rings is to be seen at speed.

I know Santa Monica Boulevard well, said Balmond, who lives in Britain and has completed large public art installations around the world. As you drive by at 30 to 40 miles an hour, you feel the script moving. Its not static.. When you move past, its alive.

Production of the sculpture was organized by the Farhang Foundation, an L.A.-based nonprofit organization, and the unveiling was part of the inaugural Freedom Festival, a nightlong block party that featured live music, food and fireworks. The Farhang Foundation promotes the study and appreciation of Iranian art and culture. Organizers said they hope the Freedom Festival becomes an annual event.

The sculpture is a permanent addition to the median at Century Park East, about a block from the Westfield Century City Mall and at the gateway to Beverly Hills. The area is home to many from a sizable diaspora of Iranian Americans in Southern California. Community groups estimate that about 500,000 Iranian Americans live in the region, the largest enclave outside Iran.

The 20,000-pound piece is set upon travertine stone and was built entirely in the U.S. It is the newest addition to Century City a neighborhood of towering office buildings but it traces its inspiration back 2,500 years to the Cyrus Cylinder, which was unearthed by the British Museum in 1879.

The 9-inch barrel is inscribed with the story of Cyrus, the king of Persia, and his conquest of Babylon. The artifact is seen as a testament to how Cyrus brought justice and peace to Bablyon.

Razi, the founding chairman of the Farhang Foundation, said the Cyrus Cylinder carries special symbolic weight on the Fourth of July.

This conqueror, rather than killing or stealing, let people practice their own religion. He was the first to put together a multinational empire based on freedom of religion, Razi said.

Funding for the sculpture came from a large crowdfunding campaign that saw contributions from about 1.1 million supporters from around the world, said Farhad Mohit, the founding vice chairman of the foundation. Organizers did not want one or two wealthy donors underwriting the project, Mohit said.

Its led by Iranian Americans but it represents much more than that. We wanted the sculpture to be in the heart of Los Angeles, Mohit said. Los Angeles embodies diversity in its ideal form. All beliefs and religions belong together here in a beautiful place.

The event in Century City was not the only show of diversity in Los Angeles celebration of the holiday. In downtown Los Angeles Grand Park, hundreds of people milled across closed streets, snapping selfies with sno-cones or perusing food trucks selling grilled cheese and pizza.

Natalie Ayala, 15, stood in the center of a closed First Street with her mom and two sisters, soaking it all in. The Fourth of July symbolized freedom and independence, she said, but also something else.

America is so diverse, she said. I think it represents that too.

Back in Century City, a crowd of thousands enjoyed musical performances and a mix of Persian food and local favorites such as Van Leeuwen ice cream.

Elham Sadegh, 38, made the trek from Salt Lake City after she heard about the festival and sculpture unveiling on Facebook. Sadegh, who emigrated from Iran to the U.S. two years ago, said she was excited to be among fellow Iranians and ring in the Independence Day festivities. The sculpture, she said, was a way of commemorating Persian history while celebrating life here.

We came here for freedom, Sadegh said. Everybody loves freedom.

Times staff writer Kate Mather contributed to this report.

matt.hamilton@latimes.com

Twitter: @MattHjourno

ALSO

La Habra police shoot 'confused' and 'agitated' man armed with ax

Three boys hurt in fireworks-related incident in San Bernardino

2 LAFD firefighters injured in condominium fire in Chatsworth

Go here to read the rest:

'Los Angeles embodies diversity.' The city's new sculpture celebrating freedom is unveiled - Los Angeles Times

Why we should still be worried about Trump's Religious Liberty order

On May 4, President Donald Trump signed an executive order entitled Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, and liberals everywhere shivered with terror. According to opponents, the order was an endorsement of faith-based discrimination that would be the beginning of the end for separation of church and state.

The order called upon the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective. It told the Secretaries of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate. And it told the Attorney General to issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

But the executive order doesn't actually hold weight as law, and the words themselves came across less as an order and more as a suggestion. The doom prophesied by progressives and LGBTQ activists failed to materialize, leading the majority of the media to downplay the whole thing as an empty gesturewhich might be the most dangerous thing about it.

See: According to Trump and other conservatives, religious freedom is under attack from the government, a belief he stated clearly in June at the Faith and Freedom Coalition's annual gathering, where he told a group of evangelical Christians that they were under siege.

This rhetoric has been around for years amongst the religious Right, but it ramped up again last year when a number of conservative governors started pushing state bills under the banner of religious freedom that would allow business owners to refuse service to customers if it was on the grounds of religious conviction. Proponents of these bills pointed to real world examples of people being punished for following through with their religious beliefs, like the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and was briefly jailed for it, or the owner of a Colorado bakery who was found by an appellate court to be in violation of anti-discrimination laws when he refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Trump made it a discussion point along the campaign trail (along with some anti-abortion talk), and after half a year in the Oval Office, the Christian Right has been getting antsy about seeing some results. In this light, the knee-jerk reaction that the executive order was an attack on womens reproductive rights or antigay is a bit disingenuous. The truth behind the order is probably less sinister and even more worrisome.

On Trump's part, the order can possibly be seen as a token to the far-right conservative Christians who got him into officethe return of a favor. On their part, the order isn't a strike against women or the LGBTQ community, it's a strike against acts that they sincerely believe are wrong. That's actually more terrifying, since it implies that a person's religious beliefsno matter how contrary they are to popular opinionshould overrule agreed upon federal law.

What's weird about it is that the evangelical Christian groups who support these changes don't seem to realize that if they become law, they'll apply to all religious beliefs. They've apparently forgotten that there's more to America than just evangelicals and atheists. The shortsightedness of this track is frightening. Beyond arguments of whether or not the goals of President Trump and the religious Right are correct or ethical, by starting down this path of religious liberty and allowing religious convictions to override federal medical coverage laws, the way will be made clear for all sorts of future wackiness.

If Christian employers are given a pass to offering insurance that covers contraceptives, then will Scientologist employers be allowed to withhold coverage for psychiatric care? (Scientologists absolutely hate psychiatry. They even built a museum in Los Angeles called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum.) Or will followers of Christian Science (a belief system that up until 2010 disavowed medical science as a sham and forbade members of the church to visit doctors, instead relying on the power of prayer) be allowed to not offer health insurance at all? Let's see Snake handlers? Satanists?

While this choke hold on healthcare is bad enough on its own, an even scarier part of the order was the portions that dealt with adverse action against religious organizations for speaking about moral or political issues from a religious perspective. This might sound benevolent enough, but it refers to another campaign promise Trump made to evangelicals: to repeal the Johnson Amendmenta provision in the US tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing specific political candidates. These organizations range from churches and charities to universities. The idea behind the provision is to protect voters from being unduly influenced by spiritual or community leaders when they visit the polls. The law doesn't bar these organizations from taking political stances, just from endorsing candidates. I'm sure Trump imagines his name being preached from pulpits when he thinks of killing the damned thing.

But President Trump knows he can't just get rid of the Johnson Amendment, no matter what he told voters on the campaign trail. His hands are likewise tied when it comes to insurance coverage for birth control. So in this sense, the order doesn't officially do anything.

It does, however, tell the people who can do something to expect his support. Like Attorney General Jeff Sessions (reportedly a devout Christian), to whom the order is given to issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law. Or Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price (who is staunchly anti-abortion and has voted against funding for Planned Parenthood), who is one of the people asked to consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.

Depending on how these people decide to go forward with the president's order, we could be opening a box that will prove troublesome to close. Already, the rippling effects can be seen. Late in May, the White House announced that the federal mandate requiring employers to provide health coverage for contraception was being rewritten. The Office of Management and Budgets website lists the rulethe details of which are unknownas an interim final rule that's pending regulatory review. It's almost a certainty that the new rule will be in line with the president's executive order, and if that happens, it will just be a matter of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Ah, freedom.

See the rest here:

More Equal Than Others - Weekly Alibi

Photo Katy Perry said at the Chanel show: Ill eat a cheeseburger, sure. But I also think we are all redefining what freedom actually means in the States right now. Credit Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images

This season, the Chanel couture show fell on July 4. And in the front row, following a catwalk extravaganza that took place beneath a large reproduction of the Eiffel Tower inside the Grand Palais, the American pop star Katy Perry was pondering the meaning of true independence.

This year I am going to celebrate the holiday by thinking about what freedom really means, said the singer. She was sporting a silver choker, astronaut-emblazoned Chanel ensemble and peroxide pixie-cropped haircut which meant she blended in with fellow celebrity guests including Cara Delevingne, Kristen Stewart and Tilda Swinton, all with similar hairdos.

Ms. Perrys mother, Mary, who had never been to a fashion show before, stood nearby, beaming.

Ill eat a cheeseburger, sure. But I also think we are all redefining what freedom actually means in the States right now, said Ms. Perry, a vocal supporter of the Democratic Party. I think that looking at the social injustices that are happening before our very eyes and saying Oh, we think we are free to live as we please, is becoming a myth. Im not quite sure that we are. We are not there yet.

As she was greeted by Tonne Goodman, fashion director of American Vogue, Ms. Perry, the magazines May cover star, suggested that making society a better place to live often started at home.

All we can do is look after ourselves, our neighbors and our local communities, Ms. Perry said. I think we all get very preoccupied with ideas of saving the world, but sometimes it is always important to look what is going on on our doorsteps. Often, there is plenty to be doing there.

Continue following our fashion and lifestyle coverage on Facebook (Styles and Modern Love), Twitter (Styles, Fashion and Weddings) and Instagram.

A version of this article appears in print on July 6, 2017, on Page A8, in The International New York Times.

Link:

Katy Perry on Freedom, Neighbors and the Fourth of July - New York Times

Provo Freedom Festival revokes approval for LGBT resource center in Grand Parade (File photo: MGN Online)

(KUTV) The annual Provo Freedom Festival decided July 3 that a local LGBT resource center would not be allowed to walk in Grand Parade, according to Encircle: LGBT + Family & Youth Resource Center.

The Festival, according to its website, "highlights freedom through bands, professionally crafted floats, giant helium balloons and local and national performers," while encouraging participants to "promote patriotism and traditional family values to around 300,000 spectators."

According to a Facebook post by Encircle, the Festival revoked its previously approved application to participate because it is being classified as an advocacy group.

Encircle disputes that classification, however, citing its status as a 501c3 nonprofit organization.

Nolo, a website offering multiple types of legal guidance, says 501c3 organizations may not participate in political campaigns. Nolo advises they may, however, "engage in non-partisan activities and legislative or issue advocacy."

Encircle maintains it does not advocate any "certain political party or legal action."

According to its website, the group "functions as a hub for resources that support the overall well being of LGBTQ individuals." Encircle, which opened its doors February 14 of this year, offers community, skills training, and counseling, among other services.

"We maintain, as we always have, that our mission is to 'Empower families to sustain the circle of their love, enabling each member to thrive,'" the group said in its Facebook post addressing the parade's decision. "We respect the decision of the parade committee and will use this as an opportunity to show Provo who we are. We will always come from a place of love and intention, never fear or reaction. We are here to be a safe space for all, which means being planted firmly."

The group will hold a pancake breakfast at 8 a.m. July 4 at its Provo Resource Center, located at 91 West 200 South.

Encircle's statement, in its entirety, reads as follows:

View post:

Provo Freedom Festival revokes approval for LGBT resource center ... - KUTV 2News

AS LUCK and serendipity would have it, we have not only one but two great pieces in this weeks issue about self-driving cars.

Our urbanism columnist Jason Combs has written a compelling piece from the point of view of someone initially skeptical of the concept who has come to (almost) fully embrace it.

Straight Dope columnist Cecil Adams, in his regular syndicated column, explains some of the reservations about self-driving cars and some of the challenges facing its widespread adoption and acceptance.

Having these two columns in the same issue is coincidental, but then again maybe not so much: Self-driving cars are a topic on a lot of minds these days, and the idea is definitely a conversation (or argument) starter, thats for sure.

One of the great things about Connect Savannah is we have a wide range of viewpoints here, some of which conflict with each other. Thats a feature, not a bug.

A core mission of the paper is to provide a venue for different viewpoints, ones you may not typically hear in the mainstream, or ones you may not come across in your possibly tightly curated Facebook feed.

I sometimes enjoy good-natured debates with our own writers about issues, and this is one of them.

I certainly dont have the urban planning and design credentials of Jason, nor the research staff available to Cecil. I tend to approach these things from more of a historical, cultural, and political basis.

My initial, kneejerk take was that self-driving cars are a grossly unrealistic form of corporate/government overreach, one that inevitably would be used to control, track, and manipulate citizens into being ever more compliant members of a sort of soft-totalitarian, technocratic hive mind, our heads buried in our iPhones, frantically liking social media posts while robots do all the important work.

A self-driving car means a tracked car, with all your movements, whether for work or for pleasure or for no particular reason at all, becoming part of a record.

And how long before the government says, oops, looks like you owe some parking tickets, or back taxes, or got flagged on Facebook. We wont let any self-driving cars start for you today.

But the simple truth is that in an age of drone warfare, AI, algorithms, the sharing economy, and rapidly expanding wireless/cloud connectivity not to mention cheaper global fuel prices in order to make all that electricity affordable in the first place self-driving cars arent unrealistic at all. That is actually one of the weakest arguments against them.

A stronger argument against self-driving cars, and the ride-sharing economy itself, might be that they might act as a steroid rather than as a remedy for overreliance on automobiles further marginalizing efforts to improve public transportation and alternative transportation, like bicycles.

But that is a question for more learned minds than mine.

Personally, the more I look at it, the more I see that the real issue is about differing concepts about what freedom itself means. That to me is the core debate.

More and more, Im finding that younger generations tend to find security and a sense of freedom in what an older generation, like mine, would consider a stifling and insulting lack of freedom and respect.

Both points of view are understandable.

When I learned how to drive, cars were just plain faster and the roads, frankly, were much less crowded. Driving was a real pleasure, and to this day its an activity I really enjoy.

The concept of public transportation wasnt popular then outside a small handful of major metro areas. Some of that resistance was political and cultural, i.e. the push to spread outward into the suburbs ran counter to the idea of urban density.

But some of it was simply practical: There was more room on the roads, because there were fewer people. The population of the earth has doubled just in my own lifetime.

However, in an ever more urbanizing America, as the phenomenon of White Flight reverses itself and investment returns to city centers all over the U.S., automotive congestion has reached critical mass in the places where people most want to live.

Public transportation and ride-sharing are now not only desired politically by a larger and larger group of people, they are becoming more practical solutions than packing people onto roads which in many cases cant be widened any further.

When my friends and I turned 16, that very day, we all insisted on getting our drivers licenses first thing in the morning and zooming off by ourselves and with friends everywhere, as soon as humanly possible.

(Often, we even drove cars with gasp! manual transmissions. Oh, the humanity!)

Nowadays its a standard joke among parents that pushing their teenagers to go get their drivers license is like pulling teeth. They just dont care about it.

Millennials, quite simply, for the most part just dont like cars very much, nor do many of them like to drive. Its not a priority. A stick shift seems like a medieval torture device or inexplicable ancient mystery to them.

And in their own context, that is as understandable as people in prior generations finding a sense of freedom in driving on the open road, in their own car, answerable to no one. (Bruce Springsteen built an entire career writing songs about that.)

There is freedom in firing up a fast car, or even a not-so-fast car, and just taking to the road and being your own boss a feeling you might not have in many other parts of your life.

Then again, theres also very real freedom in tapping on Uber or Lyft or soon enough, summoning a shareable self-driving vehicle and having your ride show up 60 seconds later to take you wherever you need to go, without you having to pay for insurance, or maintenance, or new tires, or gas, or killing someone on the road because youre over the legal limit.

Thats a form of freedom too, and in the end every generation gets to determine what freedom means to them, for better or worse.

cs

See original here:

Self-driving cars and the shifting definition of freedom - Connect Savannah.com

Playerunknowns Battlegrounds is a very, very difficult game and while its easy to play badly, its hard to be truly awful. Thats why Polygon formed Awful Squad, a hand-selected group of the worst warriors in the world.

What is Awful Squad? Thats kind of like asking how much existential despair comes pre-packaged with Minecraft for the Nintendo Switch. Thats why we invited Polygons Simone De Rochefort to join our crack team. Just how much punishment can Awful Squad take? Thats like asking if a crash test dummy can feel pain. Thats why we signed on soft boys Nick Robinson and Griffin McElroy. What is the right outfit for hunting your fellow man across a post-apocalyptic Russian landscape? Thats like asking for the perfect picture of a very good Toad. And that, dear readers, is why Patrick Gill is here.

For a time I even joined them myself, but I just wasnt Awful enough.

Happy Independence Day, America. As you grill meats and drink beers, tune in to this YouTube playlist of Polygons Awful Squad, because freedoms just another word for nothin left to lose.

Read more from the original source:

Celebrate freedom with Polygon's Awful Squad - Polygon

ORLANDO, Fla. (CNS) -- In the July 3 closing Mass for the Fortnight for Freedom, Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori called on Catholics to thank God for the gift of freedom and to pray that they "use this gift well and wisely."

"It's too easy to let this gift lie dormant or be neglected," he said in his homily at the Mass celebrated during the "Convocation of Catholic Leaders: The Joy of the Gospel in America" in Orlando.

Archbishop Lori, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee for Religious Liberty, had celebrated the fortnight's opening Mass June 21 at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Baltimore.

This is the sixth year of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Fortnight for Freedom -- a two-week period of prayer, advocacy and education on religious freedom. It starts on the vigil of the shared feast day of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More - martyrs who fought religious persecution -- and ends on Independence Day.

In his homily, the archbishop urged convocation delegates to advocate for those whose freedoms have been denied and to seek better laws and engage political leaders but he also stressed that nothing is more important that bearing witness to Catholic teaching and "fulfilling our mission to love."

He did not list current challenges to religious freedom but he noted that before "religious liberty is a political or legal issue it is first and foremost a matter of human dignity."

He said for Catholics to fully embrace this understanding of religious freedom they might need to "undergo a process of conversion" not unlike St. Thomas, whose feast was celebrated July 3. The apostle would not believe Christ had risen until he touched his wounds and saw it was true.

The archbishop urged Catholic leaders attending Mass in the hotel ballroom to go back to their dioceses and parish settings with a renewed sense of mission and a deeper understanding of religious freedom which he said is "entangled in the DNA of responsive faith."

When Catholics understand how they are spiritually set free, he said, they are able to "witness to those alienated from their faith or those who are lukewarm or on the cusp of vocation or mission."

Isn't that why we came here and what we are praying for, he asked the convocation delegates.

At the start of his homily he told the congregation delegates of his own "doubting Thomas" experience. When he was about 10 years old, the family TV set in their house broke down and was "pronounced unfixable."

During this time, he was visiting a friend, "allegedly doing homework" but he confessed to the congregation he was watching "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom." While he was there, his parents got a call from the parish that they had won a raffle prize of a portable Zenith TV.

"When I got back my parents told me but I didn't believe it. I thought it was terrible they would make up such a story knowing how I felt," he said.

Only later, when the TV was delivered, did he believe it.

The archbishop then spoke of the experience of disbelief on the grander scale of Thomas, whose lack of faith was described by St. Gregory the Great as doing more than the other apostles to rekindle faith. Tradition holds that he spread the Gospel message to present-day India.

His encounter with the risen Lord "changed him forever" and prompted him to "go far beyond his comfort zone" the archbishop said, echoing a theme of the four-day convocation that all Catholics are called to be missionary disciples.

- - -

Follow Zimmermann on Twitter: @carolmaczim.

See more here:

Use gift of freedom well, Archbishop Lori tells convocation delegates - Catholic News Service

Ministers have been accused of double standards afteradmitting that UK farmers benefit from EU free movement rules which the Governments critics say are incompatible with its net migration target.

Brandon Lewis, the Immigration Minister, told the Commons thatthe agricultural sector would continue to benefit from free movement of labour until Britain leaves the EU as he tried to allay MPs fears about a shortage of EU migrant workers.

He promised talks with farmers leaders as the Government works out a post-Brexit migration regime.

Open Britain, the successor to the Remain campaign in last years referendum, seized on the ministers remarks as evidence that the Governments plan to end free movement means its target to reduce annual net migration below 100,000 is unworkable.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna, a leading supporter of the group, said: When the Immigration Minister himself admits that the free movement of labour has been good for Britains farmers, it clearly shows that ministers themselves do not believe their own rhetoric.

In a letter to Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, Mr Umunna said the National Farmers Union estimated that the sector will require 90,000 seasonal workers a year from the EU, which he claimed would make the Governments tens of thousands target impossible to achieve.

The letter asked whether the Government officially accepts that British farmers benefit from free movement, as Mr Lewis said. If so, why are you, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet committed to ending a system which you believe to be beneficial? Mr Umunna asked.

Do you accept that hitting the target would do significant damage to British agriculture, other sectors of our economy and our public services (not least the NHS), which are dependent on workers from the EU?

He told the Home Secretary: Government policy remains committed to cutting net migration to levels that we all agree will be intensely damaging to businesses and public services alike. This Government has no mandate to leave the EU in a way which will destroy peoples livelihoods. So I urge you and the Prime Minister to be honest with the country and drop the target.

The Independent and Open Britain are running a Drop the Target campaign urging the Government to abandon its goal.

David Davis suggests immigration target won't happen during next parliament

The Immigration Minister was replying to Tory MP Helen Whately, who said farmers in her Faversham constituency in Kent needed thousands of workers to pick their fruit every summer but only 705 local people were claiming Jobseekers Allowance.

Its very difficult for them to recruit enough workers locally, she said, calling on the Government to bring in a permit scheme for seasonal agricultural workers.

Mr Lewis replied: As we continue as full members of the EU we have that free movement of labour that farmers can benefit from.

Although several ministers believe the Governments target will never be hit, Theresa May has stuck to it.

Mr Lewis is the latest in a line of ministers who have acknowledged the vital role played by EU migrant workers in the areas for which they have responsibility.

Others include Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary and Philip Hammond, the Chancellor. David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, has conceded that migration levels might rise from time to time according to the economys needs.

Business groups are lobbying hard for a flexible approach to EU migration when the Government sets outs its plans in an Immigration Bill, which is likely to include a work visa scheme.

The Home Office said: We are working across government to identify and develop options to shape our future immigration system and will ensure businesses and communities are given the opportunity to contribute their views.

See the original post here:

Brexit: Farmers will benefit from freedom of movement until Britain leaves EU, admits Tory minister - The Independent

On Saturday night, roughly 12 hours after tweeting that Mika Brzezinski was dumb as a rock and 12 hours before tweeting a video of himself side-slamming CNN, Donald Trump spoke at a Celebrate Freedom Concert at Washingtons Kennedy Center. Journalists covering the event focused on Trumps jabs at the media. But they missed his veiled attack on another group of Americans whose First Amendment rights he threatens: Muslims.

In his remarks, Trump promised (in July!) that, Were going to start saying Merry Christmas again. He referred repeatedly to our God. And he explained that, we want to make sure that anyone who wants to join our country shares our values.

By Trumps standards, those comments might sound anodyne. But consider his audience. The Celebrate Freedom Concert was co-hosted by the First Baptist Church of Dallas. Warming up the crowd before Trump spoke were the churchs choir and orchestra and its senior pastor, Robert Jeffress, one of Trumps favorite evangelicals. During the campaign, when other Christian leaders were criticizing Trumps vulgarity and religious illiteracy, Jeffress declared that, I dont care about that candidates tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can findand I believe thats biblical. Christians, he explained, should look for a strongman. Jeffress later said he was getting sick and tired of these namby-pamby, pantywaisted, weak-kneed Christians who say theyre going to stay home in November out of moral principle.

Trump rewarded Jeffress by inviting him to give the sermon at the church service he attended on inauguration morning. In his remarks, Jeffress told Trump that, I dont believe we have ever had a president with as many natural gifts as you. In May, Trump invited Jeffress to the White House to watch him sign an executive order on religious liberty. As the Messiah College professor John Fea has noted, many Christian conservatives derided Trumps move as meaningless and useless. Not Jeffress, who called Trump the most faith-friendly president in U.S. history. In introducing him at the Freedom Concert on Saturday night, Jeffress said the President has not only met but he has exceeded our every expectation and that we thank God every day that he gave us a leader like Donald Trump

But Jeffress and Trump share more than just a high opinion of Donald Trump. They share a deep antipathy toward Muslims and Islam. Jeffress, to be fair, isnt exactly ecumenical when it comes to any other faith. Hes called Buddhism and Hinduism false religions. Hes said, you cant be saved being a Jew. Hes called Mormonism a cult. And hes called Catholicism a counterfeit religion invented by Satan.

But hes saved his harshest and most extensive vitriol for Islam. In 2010, Jeffress criticized conservatives who opposed building an Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan merely because they considered the location insensitive. Jeffress offered a broader justification. The only argument that makes sense against building that mosque, he insisted, is that Islam is an oppressive religion. Islam, he added, is a religion that promotes pedophilia. It is time to take off the gloves and stand up and tell the truth about this evil, evil religion. Jeffress logic, needless to say, justifies opposing the construction of a mosque anywhere in the United States.

In 2015, Jeffress showed up Fox News to defend Ben Carsons claim that a Muslim should not be president. Jeffress explained that he could only vote for a Muslim who disavowed portions of the Koran and renounce[d] Mohammed. That same year, Jeffress called the Koran a false book, Mohammed a false prophet and Islam a false religion that will lead you to hell. Last July, he declared that, Mohammad was nothing but a bloodthirsty warlord. And last March, he said President Obama was once again assuming his favorite role, not as commander in chief but as defender in chief of Islam. By contrast, Jeffress insisted, Donald Trumps statements that Islam hates us was absolutely true. There is something within Islam that is engendering this hatred toward the rest of the world Trump is telling the politically incorrect truth.

Jeffress also shares Trumps enthusiasm for the words Merry Christmas. In 2015 he actually created a website that listed the Dallas-area businesses that used the salutation (they received the honorific nice) and those that did not (which were classified as naughty). But Trumps promotion of the phrase takes on a different meaning at an event co-sponsored by an avowed anti-Muslim bigot. So do Trumps references to our God and his declaration that we want to make sure that anyone who wants to join our country shares our values.

What values, after all, do Trump and Jeffress share? Not a commitment to marital fidelity. Not a commitment to honesty, charity, or humility. The value that unites them, above allthe one that led Jeffress to favor Trump over his more devout, more socially conservative Republican rivals during the primariesis their shared belief that the American government should favor Christianity over Islam. Thats the odd form of freedom they celebrated together at the Kennedy Center on Saturday night.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump's Celebration of an Exclusionary Vision of Freedom - The Atlantic

What is the Fourth of July? Its a wonderful time. Were outdoors. Were with family and friends. Were playing golf or fishing. There are barbecues and baseball and fireworks and all that good stuff.

And beneath it all, supporting it all, there is freedom. Freedom. The Fourth of July is about freedom, if nothing else. Americas freedom, of course. But a freedom that extends to all people. One that leads to greatness and prosperity. A freedom that has become the backbone of the world.

I would like to take a moment this holiday to revisit the sources of that freedom. They were outlined so eloquently in perhaps the greatest document ever written, the Declaration of Independence. And theyre as crucial now as they were 241 years ago.

Its a well-known story. Back in 1776, the Continental Congress sought freedom from tyranny. They said, Were revolting against a British monarchy and parliament that doesnt represent us. Were rebelling against laws we dont control and are capricious to say the least.

To formalize this revolt, the congress formed a committee of five. Chosen were Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingstone (New Jersey), John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Roger Sherman (Connecticut). A pretty spiffy group of thinkers and writers.

Their task was to draft a statement of independence although what they came up with was so much more.

Their document, The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, was adopted on July 4, 1776, after days of debate and revision. The document begins:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Id like to underscore the civility of that opening. This document is an example of civility. The great American revolt was a defense of the right of discussion. Civil discourse. Respectful disagreement.

Then there are The Laws of Nature and Natures God. We derive our freedoms not from governments, but from God. It was a revolutionary thought at a time when dictatorial monarchs across Europe believed they were gods.

Then we have perhaps the most famous sentence in the English language, if any language:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That truly was revolutionary stuff. And it was beyond just the colonies.

The authors were saying, Were speaking about the people here, but also about oppressed peoples everywhere, those burdened with dictatorial, who-cares-about-the-little-people governments.

And they spoke of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Life. Our very existence.

Liberty. You cant take my freedom away.

The pursuit of happiness. To live the way we want to live, to do the work we want to do, to marry whom we want to marry; to have kids, accumulate property, and be prosperous.

Ive said this often: The most populist desire of the people of the United States and other free nations is long-lasting, deep-seated prosperity. Speaking of which, the long list of complaints against George IIIs Britain included: cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world (protectionism), imposing Taxes on us without our Consent (remedied with supply-side tax cuts), and (hat tip Seth Lipsky, New York Sun) a hint of stable money: the amount and payment of [judges] salaries.

But the Declaration, critically, goes on:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Taking these statements together, we see a pecking order. There is God, a higher power or Natures God, who grants us the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And whatever government is formed around this works for the people. And if the government lacks the consent of the people, there must be great change.

From the Lord, to us, and then to government.

And when government breaks down, does poorly, or becomes corrupt, it needs to be replaced one way or another.

Theres a little bit of that going on today, is there not?

Its the Fourth of July. Its freedom day. The government works for us, not the other way around.

If it doesnt, the government gets kicked out on its keister.

Larry Kudlow is CNBCs senior contributor. His new book is JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity, written with Brian Domitrovic.

Here is the original post:

Keeping Freedom, and Growth, in the Fourth - National Review

More than 200 years ago, the young United States was learning to walk in its freshly won freedom and the Constitution born of it. Our experiment in self-governance, based on the idea that our Creator endowed all of us with certain inalienable rights as reflected in our Declaration of Independence, was unique in the history of the world.

Among these rightswhich we recognize are not given by government but granted by Godis our right to religious freedom. Its importance is signified by the fact that it precedes all the other rights listed in the amendments to our Constitution.

In our early years, imperfect to be sure, as a nation we nevertheless persisted and advanced to embrace the ideal of religious freedom articulated in the First Amendment to our Constitution. That we are still governed by the same Constitution after more than 200 years is itself a miracle, and speaks to the vigilance Americans have exercised and must continue to exercise to guard our freedom.

Generations later, hostility to religion in the public square of the United States has grown significantly. The changes may seem incremental until one compares the social situation at the time of our founding with our present state. Religion was embraced then, and is censored now. It was esteemed at that time; these days it is often disparaged.

From militant atheist hostility to the presence of religious symbols in public and expressions of religious belief by government actors, to government hostility to religious beliefs regarding sexuality, the overall climate for the religious believer is one of apprehension at best. Indeed, some have lost their jobs or been financially penalized due to their beliefsright here in the United States.

To track and address these troubling developments, Family Research Council released a report in 2014 titled Hostility to Religion: The Growing Threat to Religious Liberty in the United States. It documented accounts of hostility toward faith in the United States today, defined in four areas: (1) Suppression of Religious Expression in the Public Square; (2) Suppression of Religious Expression in Schools and Universities; (3) Censure of Religious Viewpoints Regarding Sexuality; and (4) Suppression of Religious Expression on Sexuality Using Nondiscrimination Laws. That catalogue of violations, spanning over ten years, contained 90 incidents.

Many would likely suspect that religious freedom troubles have grown worse during the past three years. They would be correct. Just this past week, we released the updated 2017 report, which showsconservatively estimateda 76 percent increase in overall religious freedom violations documented over the past three years.

The last two sections, dealing with human sexuality, have seen a 114 percent surge. These types of incidents were already on the rise, and the Supreme Courts decision in Obergefell v. Hodges only accelerated the trend. If one reads through the last two sections, many cases will be familiar from the news and cultural discussion. Among those featured is the story of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who was sued after he obeyed his conscience and politely declined to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Supreme Court accepted his case for review just several days ago, and will decide it during the next term.

The first step toward action is information. We hope this report will serve as a resource for those who wonder about the state of religious freedom in America. It can also be useful to those who wonder where the evidence is when others cite a trend of religious freedom violations. With this information, our representatives can respond appropriately. Concerned citizens can engage with the media and in their communities. Certainly, our religious freedom problems could be much worse. But our goal is not to get to that much worse place.

When Communism began to spread during the beginning of the twentieth century, many ignored or brushed off concerns as relatively mild, especially in light of other concerns at the time. Only when it was too late and the grip of authoritarian regimes was strong did many realize the horror and carnage that the ideology had wrought worldwide. This is clear in hindsight but was not so apparent at the time.

Our country has been blessed with a long history of freedom. On its birthday, it is appropriate to be thankful and reflect on how we can guard against the suppression of religious freedom we do see now before it is too late. If we Americans can acknowledge the troubling trends now, and work to reverse them while we still have the freedom to do so, we will have a future America that embraces liberty and remains free for all.

More here:

Report: Attacks On Religious Freedom Increased 76 Percent In 3 ... - The Federalist

Minnesota residents have the option of purchasing alcohol from their local liquor store on a Sunday for the first time in history.

Alcohol retailers are allowed to remain open from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sundays now that Minnesota has ended its more than century-old ban on Sunday liquor sales, the Star Tribune ( http://strib.mn/2tfKUeb ) reported.

Previously, residents who wanted a drink on Sunday had to head to a bar or drive to a liquor store in Wisconsin.

"It feels as if a freedom has been lifted," said Fred Kreider, who went to Zipps Liquors in Minneapolis to buy a keg of beer Sunday.

Sales were brisk for Zipps Liquor during the first day of the new law, said owner Jennifer Schoenzeit.

Liquor vendors in Wisconsin said they didn't notice a difference in their sales.

"We're open 13 hours, and six of those hours Minnesota is closed," said Shelton Davis, the night manager at Chicones Liquor Mart in Hudson, Wisconsin. "We don't panic; we've got good deals."

Ending the ban could lead to further deregulation, said Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association Executive Director Paul Kaspszak. Grocery stores, convenience stories and big-box retailers such as Total Wine may lobby for fewer restrictions, he said.

"All of a sudden they want to sell chardonnay with the Cheerios, and they want to sell beer with the chicken and then we have a problem," Kaspszak said.

The increased operating costs of staying open an additional day are also a cause of concern, said Buffalo Lake Liquor manager Karissa Kurth.

Some store owners fear the increased overhead will make it difficult for small family-owned stores to compete against bigger retailers.

North St. Paul's Brightwines is a one-man shop that specializes in high-quality wines.

"This law is not designed to help us; this, in fact, ignores us," said owner Dave Kuennen.

Information from: Star Tribune, http://www.startribune.com

Go here to see the original:

'Freedom': Minnesota liquor stores now legally open Sundays - ABC News

(Where have we seen that sort of thing before Russia maybe?)

Or when the White House plays so many games with its press briefings, taking them off camera and placing conditions on how and when they can run or, in the case of its rare, unrestricted live briefings, using them to falsely accuse the news media of dishonesty?

For those who cherish a robust free press, its hard to feel much like partying after witnessing how some cheered Representative Greg Gianforte, Republican of Montana, for body slamming a reporter for The Guardian, Ben Jacobs. His sin: asking unwelcome questions.

The he had it coming camps celebration of the violence against a reporter seemed out of step with Mr. Gianfortes own response. He ultimately apologized, pleaded guilty to assault and pledged a $50,000 donation to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Then again, it wasnt out of step with President Trump, whose weekend tweet appeared to promote violence against CNN which, some argued, violated Twitters harassment policies certainly undercut Mr. Gianfortes message of contrition.

Yes, America, all of the attacks against something so central to your identity must have you in quite the birthday funk.

The likely reaction in anti-press precincts to a column like this one will be that mainstream journalists think theyre above reproach, which is nonsense.

When a real news organization makes a mistake, it takes action, as CNN recently did when it retracted an article about the Russia investigation, saying the article had not received the proper vetting. Three people lost their jobs.

The Trump administration torqued it into supposed proof that CNN and much of the rest of the news media including The New York Times and The Washington Post are fake news.

It was a powerful reminder to journalists everywhere to take the extra time to get it right, to make sure that the processes that ensure editorial quality and accuracy remain intact and strong.

The stakes are higher now, as the anti-press sentiment veers into calls for more action against journalists, if not against journalism itself.

Look no further than the new National Rifle Association advertisement. In it, the conservative radio and television star Dana Loesch angrily describes how they whoever they are use their media to assassinate real news, contributing to a violence of lies that needs to be combated with the clenched fist of truth.

Given that the ad was for a pro-gun group, this sort of thing tends toward incitement, Charles P. Pierce wrote in Esquire. (Added context: The N.R.A. chief Wayne LaPierre recently called academic elites, political elites and media elites Americas greatest domestic threats.)

The Fox News host Sean Hannity has urged the Trump administration to force reporters to submit written requests in advance of the daily White House press briefing, which, he said, should be narrowly tailored to specific topics the administration wants to talk about.

Mr. Hannitys good buddy Newt Gingrich went one better, suggesting that administration officials fully close the briefing room to the news media, which he has called a danger to the country right now.

Whats most extraordinary in all of this is how many people calling for curtailments on the free press are such professed constitutionalists and admirers of the founders.

The founders didnt view the press as particularly enlightened, and from the earliest days of the republic it certainly wasnt. (To wit, a passage in The Aurora, an early publication, described George Washington as the source of all the misfortunes of our country.)

But they drafted the founding documents to enshrine press freedom for good reason. As the Stanford University history professor Jack Rakove said in an interview last week, James Madison was most concerned about a misinformed publics acting on misplaced passions, and saw the press as an antidote. Were he alive now, Mr. Rakove said, Madison would be worried by the idea of government whipping up or exploiting what he called badly formed passions.

Sure, there were the occasional stumbles, like the short-lived Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which banned false, scandalous and malicious writing about the government, but they led to stronger free speech protections.

So this, our 241st birthday, seems just the time to invite some of our forebears to remind us including those at the top of the government why a free press is so important.

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Benjamin Franklin, 1722

There is nothing so fretting and vexatious, nothing so justly terrible to tyrants, and their tools and abettors, as a free press. Samuel Adams, 1768

The freedom of speech may be taken away and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter. George Washington, to officers of the Army, 1783

Nothing could be more irrational than to give the people power, and to withhold from them information without which power is abused. A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. James Madison, 1822

There is a terrific disadvantage not having the abrasive quality of the press applied to you daily, to an administration. even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didnt write it, and even though we disapprove, there still isnt any doubt that we couldnt do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press. John F. Kennedy, 1962

Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life. There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success in what the founding fathers called our noble experiment in self-government. Ronald Reagan, 1983

Power can be very addictive, and it can be corrosive. And its important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power, whether it be here or elsewhere. George W. Bush, 2017

Jaclyn Peiser contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on July 3, 2017, on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Celebrating Independence As Free Press Is Besieged.

Excerpt from:

Independent Press Is Under Siege as Freedom Rings - New York Times

Dr. Leif Nelson, who worked on the development of the LUKE arm, said that the number of people who had lost arms relative to those who had lost legs was too small to spur private research and development. Thats when Darpa, along with the Department of Veterans Affairs, funded studies to develop the latest prosthesis. They in turn were able to enlist private companies, working with Dean Kamen, who invented the Segway.

Sensors, similar to the ones found in smartphones that automatically sense when the screen has been flipped, were strapped to a persons feet, enabling arm control by moving the foot side to side or back and forth. And for those who had lost an entire arm, motors at shoulder level enabled people to lift their arms above their head. The next step, Dr. Nelson said, was to develop on-skin sensors that would detect nerve signals and translate them into specific movements.

This is the first device that intuitively moves multiple joints at one time, he said. With other technology, you had to use the hand, then stop. Use the wrist, then stop. It wasnt fluid.

The arm, which will be commercially available through the manufacturer Mobius and sold to civilians too, will cost in the low six figures, though pricing is being worked out, officials said. An initial order of 10 has been placed for veterans.

Mr. Downs and Mr. McAuley were chosen as recipients based on medical necessity and because they participated in the research that led to the LUKE arms development.

Mr. McAuley, 70, who lives in Richmond Hill, Queens, where he cares for his mother, spent most of his post-military life without a prosthetic arm. I did one-armed stuff, he said. I tied my tie with one arm. I tied sneakers with one arm. I typed with one finger. I was strictly a one-sided person.

He participated in Darpas research project, he said, not so much for himself but to help others. Its given me hope for the future, he said. Its not that I want to be remembered, but I would like this to be an inspiration for people down the road.

Mr. Downs, a former Veterans Affairs official who lives in Maryland and is now a consultant to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, had long used a hook arm. But his new prosthesis will finally let him do tasks that require greater dexterity or the ability to hold his hand close to his face.

The symbolism of getting his new arm this weekend was not lost on him.

When you lose an upper extremity, you lose your independence, your ability to take care of yourself, he said. When you lose your independence, you lose somewhat of your dignity as a human being because you have to depend on others to comb your hair, go to the bathroom. With a prosthetic limb, your independence and dignity are returned to you. This is freedom, let me tell you. When I dont have my arm on, I think I am disabled. But when I have this arm on, I dont think Im disabled.

A version of this article appears in print on July 3, 2017, on Page A15 of the New York edition with the headline: For Two Veterans, a Freedom Restored for Independence Day.

Read this article:

For Two Veterans, a Freedom Restored for Independence Day - New York Times

U.S. President Donald Trump waves at the Celebrate Freedom Rally in Washington, U.S. July 1, 2017. Photo by Yuri Gripas/Reuters

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump vowed to support and defend religious liberty, telling a gathering of evangelical Christians that the threat of terrorism is one of the most grave and dire threats to religious freedom in the world today.

We cannot allow this terrorism and extremism to spread in our country, or to find sanctuary on our shores or in our cities, Trump said Saturday night at a Celebrate Freedom concert honoring veterans. We want to make sure that anyone who seeks to join our country shares our values and has the capacity to love our people.

The evangelical megachurch First Baptist Dallas and Salem Media Group sponsored the event at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. First Baptist Pastor Robert Jeffress was a strong backer of Trump during the 2016 campaign.

The event at times felt like one of Trumps signature campaign rallies, with the president promising an adoring crowd that America would win again and prompting cheers with attacks on the news media.

The fake media tried to stop us from going to the White House, but Im president and theyre not, he said.

READ NEXT: Trump vows to repeal political limits on churches

Trump appeared on a stage decorated with a massive American flag. Choirs performed The Battle Hymn of the Republic and other hymns and debuted a song with the lyrics make America great again Trumps campaign slogan.

Besides speaking to the events religious theme, Trump renewed his campaign promise to always take care of Americas veterans.

Not only has God bestowed on us the gift of freedom, hes also given us the gift of heroes willing to give their lives to defend that freedom, he said.

Overwhelming support from evangelical voters helped propel Trump to victory in 2016. Since he took office, Christian conservatives have been overjoyed by Trumps appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and his executive order ordering the IRS to ease up on a rarely enforced limit on partisan political activity by churches.

Trump was spending the pre-Independence Day weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, but traveled back to Washington for the event.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump vows to support and defend religious freedom in US - PBS NewsHour

BBC News

Press freedom 'under threat' in new Myanmar BBC News When the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Laureate kept under house arrest for years because of her democratic activism, won historic elections in 2015, many expected more media freedom would follow. But journalists and press freedom advocates are ... and more »

More here:

Press freedom 'under threat' in new Myanmar - BBC News