Liberty Counsel: ‘Homosexualization’ of Military Leading to ‘Marxist’ Persecution – Video

Posted on by


Liberty Counsel: #39;Homosexualization #39; of Military Leading to #39;Marxist #39; Persecution
Liberty Counsel #39;s Matt Barber says that the #39;homosexualization #39; of the military is leading to a #39;Marxist #39; persecution. --On the Bonus Show: Obama billed fo...

By: David Pakman

Read more:

Liberty Counsel: 'Homosexualization' of Military Leading to 'Marxist' Persecution - Video

Pete Eyre – Copblocking the Police State – New Hampshire Liberty Forum 22 Feb 2013 – Video

Posted on by


Pete Eyre - Copblocking the Police State - New Hampshire Liberty Forum 22 Feb 2013
Liberty in our lifetime cannot include institutionalized violence. Join the freewheeling conversation and learn tactics to safeguard your personal rights dur...

By: Athena Roberts

See the rest here:

Pete Eyre - Copblocking the Police State - New Hampshire Liberty Forum 22 Feb 2013 - Video

Homeland Insecurity: After Boston, Weighing Liberty vs. Security

Posted on by

Photo-Illustration by Ji Lee for TIME. Statue of Liberty: Tetra Images / Getty Images, Cameras: iStockphoto, Background: Martin Llad

The contest between liberty and security has been with America since its founding. It has been fought on the public stage by every President from George Washington to Barack Obama. Each generation, from those facing rebellion in the 1860s to those pushing back against government intrusions a century later, has debated where to strike a balance. But in the dark world of 21stcentury law enforcement, where terrorist threats can hide behind our most cherished freedoms, the battle sometimes takes place in government documents so obscure that they escape public notice.

Take the case of the FBIs Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide. In October 2011, Obamas Justice Department, mindful of increasing signs of homegrown terrorism, quietly granted FBI agents new powers that disturbed civil libertarians. Federal agents could now data-mine vast stores of information about individuals without making a reviewable record of their actions. They could conduct extensive physical surveillance of suspects without firm evidence of criminal or terrorist activity. They could interview people under false pretenses. They even had wider freedom to rummage through the trash of potential sources.

(MORE:A Dead Militant in Dagestan: Did This Slain Jihadi Meet Tamerlan Tsarnaev?)

But the new guidelines also featured added restrictions on an especially sensitive area of FBI counterterrorism work: mosques. Under the new rules, agents could no longer enter a religious organization without special new approvalin some cases directly from FBI headquarters. Moreover, according to still-classified sections of the new rules made available to Time, any plan to go undercover in a place of worshipa tactic employed by the bureau after Sept.11, 2001, that drew protests from Muslim Americans and at least one lawsuit from a California mosquewould now need special approval from a newly established oversight body at Department of Justice headquarters called the Sensitive Operations Review Committee, or SORC.

On January 18, 15 months after those guidelines were issued and just a few days before Martin Luther King Jr.s birthday, a young immigrant from the Russian region of Dagestan, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, stood up in his mosque in Cambridge, Mass., and confronted his imam when the religious leader extolled Kings greatness. Tamerlan yelled that the preacher was a nonbeliever and was contaminating his followers minds. The congregation shouted Tamerlan down and hounded him out the door. The FBI didnt learn about the episode, or the fact that Tamerlan had been posting radical Islamic videos on his YouTube page, until after three people were dead on Boylston Street.

Theres no telling whether closer monitoring of Tamerlans mosque might have stopped him. But the Tsarnaev case raises, once again, hard questions about how we want to apply the Bill of Rights and the postCivil War guarantees of equal protection in our time. Where is the limit to what Washington should do in the name of our security? Do Americans want undercover agents spying on their prayers? What aspect of privacy might we give up in the interest of better security? Perhaps the FBI agents who were alerted to Tamerlans radical turn by Russian intelligence in 2011 should have monitored his Internet activity long enough to spot his terrorist sympathies. Should Americans let the government sniff through their communications? According to a new Time/CNN/ORC International poll, nearly twice as many Americans are concerned about a loss of civil liberties as are worried about a weakening of anti-terror policies.

(MORE: Exclusive: Imam of Mosque Visited by Bombing Suspect Speaks to TIME)

It is still unclear whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev, whose body is being released to his relatives, and his younger brother Dzhokhar, now in custody, were self-radicalized and acted independentlyor whether they acted at the behest of an ideological mentor or foreign organization. Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies are now studying whether warning signs were tragically missed. But it seems increasingly clear that the activities of the Tsarnaev brothers and many other would-be homegrown terrorists can be detected not through travel records and financial transactions but only through the more opaque realm of online activities and religious attitudes.

With al-Qaeda weakened abroad but self-taught, wi-fi-empowered jihadis increasingly a threat at home, balancing freedom and security is an old problem well have to get used to once again.

See more here:

Homeland Insecurity: After Boston, Weighing Liberty vs. Security

Liberty Mutual earnings drop more than 30 percent

Posted on by

Liberty Mutual Insurances first-quarter earnings sank 30.7 percent, due largely to a $130 million loss tied to Venezuelas recent devaluation of its currency in an effort to shore up its own finances.

The Boston-based insurers net income fell by $141 million to $318 million for the three months that ended March 31.

Revenue climbed 3 percent to $9.14 billion from $8.88 billion in the same period of 2012.

CEO David H. Long said the companys improved results, with pre-tax operating income up $79 million to $656 million, were masked by the impact of the Venezuelan currency devaluation, which will be substantially offset during the remainder of the year.

More importantly, our decision to grow where we can do so profitably, and to raise prices or contract in under-performing lines, is gaining traction, Long said in a statement. This pricing, profitability and selective growth momentum should continue for the foreseeable future as we adhere to the same disciplined strategy.

Liberty Mutual is the third largest property and casualty insurer in the United States based on 2012 direct written premiums.

Its net written premiums totaled $8.59 billion for the quarter, a 6.4 percent increase from last year.

See the article here:

Liberty Mutual earnings drop more than 30 percent

Liberty University Cinematic Arts Students Work alongside Film Professionals in Major Movie Project

Posted on by

Lynchburg, VA (PRWEB) May 02, 2013

Downtown Lynchburg, Va., and Liberty Universitys campus were bustling as they provided various movie set locations for the Liberty University Cinematic Arts, Zaki Gordon Centers first full-length motion picture. Shooting wrapped up Friday after about a month of filming.

The project, called Letting Go, is in collaboration with EchoLight Studios, a world class Christian film studio, who Liberty recently partnered with in a five-year, multimillion-dollar agreement. Letting Go is the first of five Liberty movies that will be financed, produced, and distributed worldwide by EchoLight.

Our goal at the Liberty cinema program is to build Hollywood East right here in Lynchburg, Va., said alumnus Scotty Curlee, assistant professor of cinematic arts. We want to create industry here so that when our students graduate they can certainly go to Hollywood, New York, London, and Paris but if they want to stay here in Lynchburg and make movies they can.

Right now, the new film school plans to create one full-length feature film per year but the goal is to eventually make two movies per year, Curlee said.

It is all about developing our talent and getting our students to the level where their skill sets are meeting and exceeding industry standards.

For Libertys 31 current film students in the major, Letting Go gives them an opportunity to get a professional credit for their resum and on the Internet Movie Database before graduation. They get the added benefits of working with and learning from industry professionals. In addition to some professional actors, the movie features veterans as its director and producer.

Students are assuming many of the roles behind the scenes, including operating camera and sound equipment. Many Liberty students portrayed extras in the film and two staff members, Jill Acosta, cinematic arts administrative assistant, and Chris Nelson, assistant professor in Libertys Department of Theatre Arts, played supporting roles.

Unique to Libertys film school is that our students learn to make feature films by making (them) and gaining professional credits while in school, said Stephan Schultze, executive director of Cinematic Arts. These projects engage students in roles they would need to work for years in the industry (before) finally getting their chance.

He said the professionals they hired to work alongside the students said they would hire these students right now and that they are as good now as many professionals (they) have worked with.

See more here:

Liberty University Cinematic Arts Students Work alongside Film Professionals in Major Movie Project

Liberty Mutual Insurance Reports First Quarter 2013 Results

Posted on by

BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively LMHC or the Company) today reported net income of $318 million for the three months ended March 31, 2013, a decrease of $141 million from the same period in 2012.

First quarter operating results improved over the prior year quarter with pre-tax operating income up $79 million to $656 million, said David H. Long, President and CEO of Liberty Mutual Insurance. The improvement was masked by the immediate impact of the Venezuelan currency devaluation, which will be substantially offset over the remainder of the year. More importantly, our decision to grow where we can do so profitably, and to raise prices or contract in underperforming lines is gaining traction as evidenced by a 2.6 point reduction in combined ratio to 98.3%.

This pricing, profitability, and selective growth momentum should continue for the foreseeable future as we adhere to the same disciplined strategy.

First Quarter Highlights

A Catastrophes include all current accident year catastrophe losses excluding losses related to the Companys external reinsurance assumed lines except for the 2012 tornadoes and other severe storms in the U.S. Catastrophe losses, where applicable, include the impact of accelerated earned catastrophe premiums and earned reinstatement premiums. B Net incurred losses attributable to prior years is defined as incurred losses attributable to prior years (including prior year losses related to natural catastrophes and prior year catastrophe reinstatement premium) including both earned premium attributable to prior years and amortization of retroactive reinsurance gains.

Financial Condition as of March 31, 2013

Consolidated Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2013 and 2012:

Three Months Ended March 31,

$793

Read the original:

Liberty Mutual Insurance Reports First Quarter 2013 Results

After Boston, Division in the Libertarian Ranks: My Response to Jim Harper

Posted on by

My recent observations on Hoovers Defining Ideas about the relationship of civil liberties to national security have drawn a stern response from Catos own Jim Harper, whose central claim is that I have sounded needless anti-privacy notes in my attack on the privacy protective policies that have been championed by Massachusetts Republican State Senator Robert Hedlund, whom I criticized for being too squeamish on aggressive and targeted government action to counter the threats that became all too visible on April 15, 2013.

Harpers initial parry is to stress a proposition that no one should care to deny, namely, that the Fourth Amendment imposes a bar against unreasonable searches and seizures, which in turn requires an examination of the purported relationship between the restriction that government seeks to impose and the evil that it seeks to defend against. But in his choice of example and articulation of principle, Harper is guilty of grievous non sequiturs that add needless confusion to a problem that is already difficult enough to handle.

To examine the relationship between privacy and security, it is always a mistake to start with an example that the author describes as an illustration ad absurdum, which is just what Harper does when he bravely denounces a rule that allows for 100% crotch checks at street corners in major cities. The simple response is that this kind of action is under current law regarded as per se illegal even in connection with the so-called Terry stopswhich allow a police officer to stop and frisk individual on the public street if he or she has reasonable suspicion to think that the targeted person has engaged in illegal activity.

That example has absolutely nothing to do with the design of a workable surveillance system. It also falsely calibrates the relevant choices by dismissing the current cries for increased surveillance as a closer question, when the two situations are worlds apart. The Fourth Amendment treatment of unreasonable searches and seizures rests on a critical distinction between investigation of particular suspects and the stopping of dangers from unknown quarters. There is a lot more information in the first case, so that a dragnet search makes no sense, which is why particularized evidence is required. But general surveillance at unknown targets has to spread its net far wider. It is both less intrusive and more comprehensive, and it can and does work. It was painfully clear from the pattern of events in Boston that the private surveillance cameras that were trained on the Boston Marathon provided indispensable information toward identifying and apprehending the Tsarnaev brothers. What makes their use unreasonable, when there is not the slightest evidence that the information so acquired was used for improper purposes unrelated to the search?

It may be worth discussing, as Harper suggests, whether the use of surveillance will help deter some crimes and stop others. But, if so, the only useful discussion is one that asks the means-ends question of how, in light of cost and privacy concerns, one can construct the best cost-effective surveillance system available, which can then be coordinated with the activities of police officers and volunteers on the ground, especially at any public event that presents a soft target.

But to dismiss these efforts on the unsupported speculation that the possibility of apprehension seems not have occurred to the Tsarnaev brothers can only be described as blinding error, especially in light of their frantic efforts to escape capture so they could strike again. Nor does it make the slightest sense to tie general surveillance policy to some dubious account of the psychological make-up of two individuals. It is far wiser to develop policies that improve the ability to track and identify dangerous suspects. Of course it is possible to construct a surveillance architecture that so dense as to be useless. But once again, the sensible case for beefing up Bostons public surveillance does not require that system designers leap from one indispensable extreme to another. The real question is how to identify the comprehensive policies that do make sense.

Harper is equally off target about the potential gains from racial or ethnic profiling. No one accepts the extreme proposition that all terrorists come from the same ethnic stock or practice the same religion. But that observation offers absolutely no reason to ignore valuable information that could help tweak the design of surveillance systems of searches. The question here is not whether sensible protocols and profiles can narrow the search down to one-fifth the worlds population, most of which does not live in Boston anyhow. It is the question of whether one can winnow the list of potential suspects from 100 to 20 people, which, if done reliably, gives law enforcement a huge leg up in conducting its investigations.

In sum, Harper would have a stronger case if he had tried to comment constructively on serious proposals that are put forward. But to take an ill-advised a priori position that does nothing to advance either the protection of human life and human property, both private and public, is inconsistent with any sound libertarian position. Remember that libertarians like myself, and I hope Harper, regard the protection of both as the primary function of the state. Harpers careless and imprecise invocation of the Fourth Amendment cannot conceal this fundamental truth.

Read more here:

After Boston, Division in the Libertarian Ranks: My Response to Jim Harper