Free speech on campuses topic of Federation CRC meeting – Cleveland Jewish News

The issue of free speech on college campuses will be the focus of this years Sidney Z. Vincent Memorial Lecture on March 15.

The lecture, Free Speech on Campus: Are There Limits? will be presented during the Jewish Federation of Clevelands community relations committees 70th annual meeting.

The event will begin at 7 p.m. at The Temple-Tifereth Israel in Beachwood.

Bradley Schlang, chair of the community relations committee, said the topic was chosen because of its relevance to the local Jewish community.

We chose the topic because with the political environment and the BDS movement, its become a real issue, especially for our young adults in the Jewish community, Schlang said. Were finding that a number of students are feeling uncomfortable expressing their Jewishness or love of Israel because of the backlash that they face.

Panelists will include Mark Yudof, president emeritus of the University of California and professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley; Blake Morant, dean and the Robert Kramer research professor of law at The George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.; and Susan Kruth, program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit founded in 1999 that focuses on civil liberties in academia in the United States.

Kevin S. Adelstein, publisher and CEO of the Cleveland Jewish News and president of the Cleveland Jewish Publication Company, will serve as moderator.

Schlang said Kruth was selected as a panelist due to the work her organization does to protect free speech on campus, while Yudof and Morant were selected for their expertise.

They are experts in their fields, not only being directly on campus that they bring that direct relationship and they have seen first-hand what speech on campus is about today and the problems that were seeing, but also as specialists on free speech from the legal perspective on what free speech actually means, Schlang said.

In addition to learning more about the concerns surrounding free speech on college campuses, Schlang said he hopes attendees will walk away with some strategies for how to combat the issue.

The CRC annual meeting always provides thought-provoking topics but also always with action items, he said. How do you work with students on campus? How do we work with the Hillels in order to provide a comfortable environment for all viewpoints to be expressed in a safe environment?

We want to create an environment here where people can discuss these issues and hear whats happening on campuses so that they can work with the rest of the community and with their kids to understand what theyre facing on campus today.

Kristen Mott is a former staff reporter at the Cleveland Jewish News.

Follow this link:

Free speech on campuses topic of Federation CRC meeting - Cleveland Jewish News

Hate speech abuses free speech rights – The Daily Evergreen

Counter-protesters debate members of the College Republicans on Oct. 19at the Trump Wall on the Glenn Terrell Friendship Mall.

American liberties are founded on the crucial right to free speech. As a society, our members can thrive in the knowledge that we can freely express our opinions without government persecution.

Since all citizens enjoy the right to free speech, it is only fair that we respect each others views. You may not agree with what someone says or believes, but being respectful of their opinions is key to cordial conversation.

Just like our parents taught us treat others the way you would like to be treated.

Weve reached a time where political divisiveness has attained extreme levels. It is difficult to go an entire day without hearing or seeing anything about opposing political parties.

With conflict comes inflammatory rhetoric. This is where the fundamental right to freedom of speech is used as a shield for hate speech. There is a deeply ingrained line between expressing ones opinion and conveying vile judgments.

Hate speech is any speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits, according to the American Bar Association.

A political opinion can only be valid if it's allowed to be challenged, President of the WSU Young Democrats Gavin Pielow said in an email. Hate speech can be challenged, and its claimed merit can be disproved.

When ones political views align with politicians who condone, support and even spew hate speech, their views do not have to be respected; in fact, these views do not even have to be tolerated.

Why respect someone elses political opinion when their opinion disrespects a persons existence?

There is a common argument on the Republican side that hateful rhetoric must be respected on the basis of free speech and autonomy of ones political views.

On Oct. 19, a GoFundMe for a Trump wall built by the WSU College Republicans was set up. The club cited free speech as a defense to construct this symbolic wall on the Glenn Terrell Mall.

While construction of the wall was legal, the act in and of itself encourages hateful politics.

During a campaign speech in June 2015, Trump stated that Mexico is not sending their best people.

They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us, he said. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.

These comments target an entire ethnic group, and paint them in a negative light. Trump merely disguised his racist opinions with immigration policies.

It's unfortunate but evident that intolerant social views can play a role in a person's political views, Pielow wrote.

Respect for freedom of speech is paramount to American liberty. But political views that tout violence and intolerance do not deserve acknowledgment of merit, on the basis that these views contain elements of hate speech.

Geana Javier is a sophomore economics major from Seattle. She can be contacted at 335-2290 or byopinion@dailyevergreen.com. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of The Office of Student Media.

Go here to see the original:

Hate speech abuses free speech rights - The Daily Evergreen

Testimony: ‘Akin to omitting gravity,’ ‘Materialistic atheism,’ ‘What we risk’ – The Spokesman-Review (blog)

THURSDAY, FEB. 23, 2017, 3:15 P.M.

Among those testifying at this afternoons hearing on school standards:

Dave Greegor, a retired ecologist who long taught at the university level and worked with NASA on climate change, told the senators that omitting important facts is in effect lying. He said, This in my mind would be akin to addressing principles of physics and omitting gravity. He said, Fortunately the youth are way out in front. They arent going to be fooled by any omission of a few words. The earth is not a grand experiment. .. We dont get another shot at it.

Robert Compton of Midvale said he is opposed to the rule, and said schools have been unwilling to teach the evolution-creation controversy. Compton said, Idahos next-generation science standards are atheistic and based on materialism wherever they touch on the religious sphere. Thus promoting this bill does in fact favor the teaching of a religious position, materialistic atheism. .. Atheism has no valid source of moral values.

Of the first dozen people to testify this afternoon, Compton was the only one to take this position; all others urged approving the standards as-is, including sections on climate change.

John Segar, a recently retired fire director at the National Interagency Fire Center, said, I can tell you first-hand experience, I know what climate change is, I know what it looks like. He said, These university professors know a lot more about it than I do. . As a taxpayer, as a citizen, this stinks of censorship. He said schools Superintendent Sherri Ybarra did a good job of ensuring the new standards were well vetted. This is a good package, he said.

Austin Hopkins, a scientist from Boise, said, I hope that you vote to support these standards as-is, with all the references to climate change. He said his interest and curiosity about science were sparked by an ecology class he took in his junior year at Centennial High School in Boise; now he has graduate degrees in science. He said, I think this is what we risk by not including these five standards, is hindering that spark.

Here is the original post:

Testimony: 'Akin to omitting gravity,' 'Materialistic atheism,' 'What we risk' - The Spokesman-Review (blog)

PM Modi to unveil 112-foot Shiva statue at Maha Shivaratri event of Jaggi Vasudev’s Isha Foundation as protests grow – International Business Times,…

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to inaugurate a 112-foot-tall statue of Lord Shiva in Coimbatore at 6 pm on Friday, February 24. The unveiling is part of the Maha Shivaratri celebrations organised by the Isha Foundation, which has been founded by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. However, the event is facing protests from some quarters, who say the statue might cause ecological damage in the area.

Also read:Shiv Smarak in Mumbai: PM Modi lays foundation stone for Rs 3,600 crore Shivaji Memorial [VIDEO]

Statue of 'Adiyogi'

The Isha Foundation has been quoted as saying that the bust would be the largest of its kind in the world: "This iconic face symbolises liberation, representing the 112 ways in which one can attain the ultimate through the science of yoga, " a statement from Isha Foundation said.

"For the first time in the history of humanity, Adiyogi introduced the idea that the simple laws of nature are not permanent restrictions. If one is willing to strive, one can go beyond all limitations and attain liberation, moving humanity from assumed stagnation to conscious evolution," the statement added.

Jaggi Vasudev has said in the statement: "It is essential that the coming generations on this planet are seekers, not believers. As philosophies, ideology, belief systems that don't stand the test of logic and the scientific verification will naturally collapse in coming decades, you will see the longing for liberation will rise. When that longing rises, Adiyogi and the science of Yoga will become very important."

Protests over environmental impact

There have been several protests over irregularities connected with the project. For starters, local tribals have alleged that in many parts the construction took place without proper permissions. And even when permissions were given, they were not for the correct reasons.

According to a Scroll report, R Kalaiarasu who represents the tribals has claimed that although the Isha Foundation says it is a non-religious organisation, the permission given for the Adiyogi statue by the Coimbatore district collector was on religious grounds.

The rest is here:

PM Modi to unveil 112-foot Shiva statue at Maha Shivaratri event of Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation as protests grow - International Business Times,...

Why Europe is so confused by the Trump administration on NATO – Vox

During a panel at the Brookings Institution on Thursday morning, Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly assured his audience that the US remains committed to NATO.

The problem is that the Trump administration keeps suggesting otherwise and many allies arent sure what to believe.

During his remarks, Dunford said other NATO members needed to spend more on their militaries, but stressed that there was no ambiguity about Washingtons devotion to the alliance. And he reaffirmed that the US is bound by the duty enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO charter that an attack against one member is an attack against them all.

"I don't think there is any question about our commitment to NATO," Dunford said in a soothing tone.

But his words are unlikely to bring much comfort to Washingtons allies in Europe. They have questions many of them. President Donald Trump and his team have been offering conflicting signals on NATO for months, and its becoming exceedingly difficult to parse the exact meaning of the administrations rhetoric.

While the US has long chided fellow NATO members for failing to spend the required 2 percent of GDP on defense most fall below it Washington is for the first time threatening to act on its complaint by cutting US support for the alliance or possibly even withdrawing altogether.

On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence said in Brussels that the Trump administrations support for NATO is unwavering.

But alongside the carrot, Pence offered a stick: "The president expects real progress by the end of 2017, he said. The patience of the American people will not endure forever. Its unclear what an exhaustion of patience would actually mean for the USs commitment to NATO.

Last week, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis offered a vague blend of encouragement and warning to NATO allies during his debut trip to Brussels. He affirmed US backing of NATO, which he characterized as a fundamental bedrock for the US and all the transatlantic community.

But he also made it clear that the bond wouldn't necessarily last forever.

"America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense," he said.

Diplomats and analysts were left scratching their heads, wondering what Mattis actually meant. What would moderate mean? When exactly would that happen? And how can the USs commitment be so strong and so precarious at the same time?

Trump is at the heart of the uncertainty surrounding the future of NATO. On his path to the White House, he repeatedly slammed NATO as obsolete and criticized allies for not pulling their weight on defense spending. Then he reversed his position on NATO, based on the either misguided or deliberately false claim that NATO had changed their policy due to his criticism. Later on, he expressed ambivalence about it. Then right before taking office, he decided that the alliance was, in fact, obsolete. Now in office, his team is trying to thread the needle by saying the US loves NATO but its love is conditional.

There are other factors contributing to allies concerns about Trumps commitment to NATO as well. Diplomats the world over know that Trump likes to conduct diplomacy using Twitter without consulting experts or the rest of his administration; official statements from his press secretary or Cabinet members can easily be unraveled by a furious tweet in response to the latest report Trump watched on Fox News.

That impulsive unpredictability cuts both ways it might make Europe more anxious to try to appease him, and make leaders try to rally their countries to spend more on defense just in case Trump really means what he says. But it may also make it harder for leaders to convince their countries that his words are more than thoughtless stream of consciousness, forgotten shortly after theyre uttered.

Then there is Trumps sustained interest in warming ties with Russia. From effusive praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin to business ties with Russian investors to his personal lawyers recent meeting with pro-Russian advocates seeking a path to lift sanctions on Russia, Trumps fondness for Russia has NATO allies on edge.

The military alliance was originally formed after World War II to deter Soviet aggression, and today one of its functions is to discourage Russian expansionism in Europe. But Trumps bid to win over the Kremlin could lead him to be less concerned about that priority. European nations dont know how seriously Trump takes their security.

The only thing thats clear right now is that the US is losing the trust of its friends.

Original post:

Why Europe is so confused by the Trump administration on NATO - Vox

Exit by 80% of Polish Top Brass Guts Command on NATO Front Line … – Bloomberg

Polands conservative government has replaced almost all of its military leadership after hundreds of officers left, an exit that coincides with a call from Warsaws to its NATO allies for help boosting its defense.

With the government moving to rid institutions of officials appointed by the former ruling Civic Platform party, which it defeated in 2015 elections, 90 percent of the General Staff leadership and more than 80 percent of the armys top brass have gone, according to the Defense Ministry. They include Chief of Staff General Miroslaw Gocul, who stepped down last month and Army Commander General Miroslaw Rozanski.

The ruling Law & Justice Party has pledged to purge government of what its leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski has called the worst type of Poles -- people with ties to Civic Platform or the communists who ruled the country last century. It is also thinning out experienced soldiers who have served in wars alongside their allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which Poland joined with other former eastern bloc states in 1999.

Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz has conducted a widespread change at top positions in operating units, each time replacing officers selected by the Civic Platform with experienced officers trained in Iraq and Afghanistan and trained by NATO, the ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

Among the departures are 26 generals and more than 250 colonels, about a quarter and a sixth of the armys total, TVN24 television reported. While media say the numbers are higher than compared with previous years, the ministry says the total size of the army increased to 106,000 in 2017 from 96,000 in 2015.

Probably part of the departures are natural, but theres also part thats forced, for example by transfer orders sending officers into reserves, retired Brigadier General Stanislaw Koziej, who was head of the National Security Bureau under the Civic Platform government from 2010 to 2015, said by phone. The worrying element is that some departures are at the highest level where the military command links with political leadership. This is a bad signal.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

The government in Warsaw is also pushing to bring more U.S. troops to Poland as it warns against what it says is an increasing security threat from an expansionist Russia and the war in Ukraine.

A soldier has no other means of protest besides taking off the uniform, Koziej said.

Read the rest here:

Exit by 80% of Polish Top Brass Guts Command on NATO Front Line ... - Bloomberg

Le Pen blasts EU, NATO, praises Trump – Deutsche Welle

France's far-right presidential front runner Marine Le Pen sounded a full-throated rejection of global trade deals and multilateral governance, defending in soaring terms Thursday the importance ofcultural identity and national independence.

In a keynote foreign policy speech in Paris, Le Pen offered withering criticism of the European Union and NATO and decried what she essentially described as Western meddling in countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Russia and Turkey that she claimed have increased instability, broken bilateral promises and betrayed the wishes of the people.

"I don't want to promote a French or a Western system. I don't want to promote a universal system," Le Pen told a packed audience of reporters, diplomats and supporters in an elegant conference hall near the Champs Elysees. "To the contrary, I want to promote a respect of cultures and peoples."

Le Pen's lofty discourse offered a stark counterpoint to the Front National's more abrasive grassroots image as an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, populist party. She described France under her governance as a champion of "oppressed people, which speaks out for the voiceless and carries something powerful and great."

Le Pen has indicated she would seek a new deal with the EU, or "Frexit"

She also took no questions and continued calmly on after a bare-chested Femen protester sought to interrupt her remarks, before being carried, still shouting, out of the room.

Scandal over EU funds

A pair of polls out Thursday confirmed Le Pen remains the favored candidate in a presidential race that has been full of surprises, despite being mired in an ongoing scandal over the alleged misuse of European Union fundsto pay for several Front National staff. Still, almost every survey to date shows her winning the first round of presidential elections in April, but failing to prevail in a May runoff.

For 48-year-old Le Pen, Thursday's speech was the second chance in a week to burnish her foreign policy credentials. European leaders have snubbed her, but she had better luck earlier this week in Lebanon, where she met with the country's president and prime minister. She also stirred controversy by cancelling a meeting with the Lebanese grand mufti after refusing to wear a headscarf.

"Going to Lebanon showed she could look presidential," says Philippe Moreau Defarges, senior fellow at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris. Noting the country was both a former French colony and held an important Christian community - a key them for the National Front - he added, "it allowed Mrs. Le Pen to look like both a patriot and a Christian."

Old and new themes

Le Pen's address touched on some familiar themes, as she railed against the European Union, NATO and free trade. But she also waded into new territory - or at least offered new nuances - as she described forging a new relationship with Africa based on "frankness, respect and mutual cooperation."

Like UKIP's Nigel Farage, Le Pen has warm words for US President Donald Trump

Yet much of her discourse was thin on specifics. Le Pen called for environmental security without defining it, and did not address key issues like whether France would stick to the Iran nuclear agreement under her leadership or a two-state solution in the Middle East.

"If you don't pay attention to the details and just listen to the rhetoric, it sounds very French, very classical legalism," Manuel Lafont Rapnouil, Paris office head of the European Council of Foreign relations think-tank, describing Le Pens traditional discourse.

"If you pay a bit more attention, it's a clear departure from the kind of mainstream foreign policy followed by France since the cold war."

Hike in defense spending

On defense, Le Pen reiterated her distaste for NATO, instead calling for a policy based on French national interests and vowing to hike French defense spending to two percent of its GDP - increased to 3 percent by the end of her five-year term.

On the Middle East, she criticised western efforts to strike deals with Syria's moderate opposition - which ultimately "helped arm the Islamic State." She said cutting off relations with Damascus had been "more than an error" that made France, which has sustained three major terrorist attacks in two years, more vulnerable at home.

"How many attacks on French soil could relations with Syrian services have avoided?" Le Pen asked.

'Change of software'

She also renewed calls for forging better relations with Moscow, saying Russia had been 'badly treated' by both the EU and the United States. France's 2014 cancelation of a sale of Mistral warships to Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine, she said, was a case in point.

Not surprisingly, Le Pen had warm words for Donald Trump; she was among the first foreign politicians to hail his November victory, even before it was formally announced. Criticizing his predecessor Barack Obama for a failed foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, Le Pen predicted the current Trump administration would represent "almost a change of software that will not only be positive for the world, but positive for the United States."

Germany's Merkel targeted

But Le Pen spent a significant chunk of her discourse railing against the European Union with German Chancellor Angela Merkel as its biggest mascot.

"The conception of a failed Europe is carried by Mrs Merkel that defies understanding," she said of the German leader.

Le Pen said French policies on Syria had put France at greater risk of terrorism

If elected, Le Pen vows to renegotiate a new deal with the EU - and failing that, hold a "Frexit" referendum on leaving the bloc. Coupled with the Brexit referendum in the UK, the EU is feeling the brunt of the nationalist surge. In nearby Netherlands, far-right politician Geert Wilders also leads the polls ahead of March elections.

"The question for Germany is do you make this a kind of casus belli or deal with the cards you have?" asked analyst Lafont Rapnouil. "Just as Brexit was not what all EU members wanted, you have to get the best out of it for both sides, and not some kind of sterile tit-for-tat."

"It will be a very difficult and cold relationship," Moreau Defarges of IFRI says of diplomatic ties between mainstream European leaders and Le Pen. "Of course, Mrs. Merkel or Teresa May will receive Mrs Le Pen as head of state. But it will be a big European crisis - an earthquake - if she's elected."

New relationship with Africa

Le Pen also said she would overhaul relations with Africa, breaking from France's "moralizing discourse" towards its former colonies and instead focus on "non-interference, which doesn't mean indifference."

She called for development assistance, particularly focusing on agriculture, and for maintaining French military presence in countries like Mali, Chad and Cameroon which are all fighting militant Islam.

Yet that stance raises contradictions, Lafont-Rapnouil points out. France's African operations were realized in cooperation with the United Nations and with EU support - the very multilateral institutions that Le Pen rejects.

"How would that work," he asks, "if you have a National Front foreign policy which is not in favor of EU integration on defense - and which is not interested in the UN?"

Original post:

Le Pen blasts EU, NATO, praises Trump - Deutsche Welle

Can NATO survive Turkey? – American Enterprise Institute

It has become a staple of diplomatic rhetoric that, whatever problems the United States has with the current government in Turkey, diplomats must ameliorate President Recep Tayyip Erdogan because Turkey is too important to NATO and also a staging ground in any operations against the Islamic State.

A Turkish flag (R) flies among others flags of NATO members during the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, July 28, 2015. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir.

Certainly, that is the position of the new administration. Vice President Mike Pence has said he foresees a new day in U.S.-Turkey relations. Trump himself stressed the close U.S.-Turkey relationship during his first phone call with the Turkish leader. Ted Malloch, a businessman and Trump ally who is a leading candidate to become US ambassador to the European Union, argued that the United States should bite the bullet and give into Erdogans political demands in order to reset U.S.-Turkish relations.

Alas, what the Trump team appears not to realize is that Erdogans problem with the United States and the West more generally is ideological and not based on grievance. In particular, Erdogan hates NATO. That may sound counterintuitive given that Turkey contributes the second-largest troop component to NATO and participates with NATO countries in Afghanistan. But Erdogans upbringing was against the backdrop of Cold War diplomacy blessing Turkish dictatorships. So why doesnt Erdogan just pull Turkey out of NATO? Here, the sad truth is that Erdogan can do far more damage from inside NATO because the defensive alliance is governed by consensus. By remaining inside NATO, Erdogan can paralyze the organization with a de facto veto.

But, Erdogans game is deeper. His party is now demonizing NATO as a terror organization. Here is what AKP Gaziantep parliamentarian amil Tayyar had to say:

Turkey has been subjected to coups since it joined NATO. NATO has always been in charge of the dirty and bloody deeds in the country. The 1960 military coup was staged by the British, the 1971 coup was staged by the CIA, and the 1980 coup was staged by NATO. In NATOs new plan, a Turkey with [President Recep Tayyip] Erdoan should not exist NATO has become a threat and is spreading terror organizations across the region. You can designate NATO along with DEASH [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ISIL], the PKK [Kurdistan Workers Party] and FET [Fethullahist Terror Organization].

In a country where saying or thinking the wrong thing can lead years in prisoneven for members of parliamentaryit simply isnt possible that Tayyar was speaking absent Erdogans approval.

Turkish state media, meanwhile, has sent reporters to Ramstein Air Base in Germany to broadcast programs accusing NATO of involvement in terrorism.

So what is Erdogans game here? He believes he is engaged in a win-win strategy. If the United States and European officials refuse his demands, his incitement will transform NATO into an enemy in the eyes of most Turks. Such actions would also feed Russian propaganda and anti-American forces worldwide. It will also allow him to play the nationalist card against the NATO bogey in the run-up to the April 2017 referendum on a new constitution which would formalize Erdogans dictatorial powers.

On the other hand, if Trump caves into Erdogans demands, he will justify his purge of officers and civil servants whose only crime was having been posted to NATO offices and legitimize his broader crackdown. This, too, would play into Erdogans hands ahead of the April referendum.

So what is NATO to do? Turkey poses a problem the defensive alliance hasnt experienced in its nearly seven decade existence: What to do when the enemy is internal rather than external. Appeasing Erdogan only kicks the can down the road, but it is not a sustainable strategy. It is time for NATO to get serious about the Trojan horse which Turkey has become.

Read more here:

Can NATO survive Turkey? - American Enterprise Institute

Deporting Glen would undercut NATO – American Enterprise Institute

Islamic preacher Fethullah Glen is pictured at his residence in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania, in 2013. REUTERS.

Ted Malloch, President Trumps presumptive pick to be ambassador to the European Union, has reportedly said that he expects the Trump administration to extradite US-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Glen. Here, for example, is a report from Sabah, a paper which Erdogan confiscated, transferred to his son-in-law, and transformed into the Turkish equivalent of the old Soviet Pravda:

US President Donald Trumps potential pick for EU ambassadorship Ted Malloch said that he believes the new US administration will likely extradite Glenist Terror Group (FET) leader Fetullah Glen, saying the new administration will have better relations with Turkey. Speaking in a live, televised interview on Turkish broadcaster NTV on Monday, Malloch said that he believes, [Trump] will get along really well with President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoan. Malloch went on to say that Turkey is a member of NATO and our strategic partner, while emphasizing the importance of Glens extradition and acknowledging that he was behind the July 15 failed coup attempt. He continued by saying that President Trump and his Turkish counterpart have held very constructive meetings over the phone and may meet in person in the coming months.

It is possible that Malloch is just speculating, projecting his own opinion onto Trump, and/or seeking to ingratiate himself with the Turkish press. If he speaks the truth, however, Trump is on the verge of a huge mistake.

Erdogans obsession with and hatred of Glen has many reasons. The basic fact remains, however: While there is much to criticize with regard to the Glen movements past actions, the Turks have yet to offer any proof that Glen himself was involved in the coup. Some soldiers involved were his followers, but others were not, and some may even have been Erdogan supporters. Many of the deaths on the evening of the coup appear to have been caused by snipers or members of SADAT, an Islamist militia run by the man subsequently appointed Erdogans military counselor.

Sacrificing Glen, however, will not bring Turkey in from the cold. The purge in which Erdogan has engaged has been immense. While the pretext might have been rooting out Glens followers, the reality is that Erdogan has used the purge to target secularists, liberals, and those officers whose training and experience in NATO he believes make them prone to oppose his vision and goals for Turkey.

Heres the problem: To appease Erdogan by extraditing Glen might seem like an easy solution to bilateral strains but, in reality, Erdogan would use his return to affirm to the public the wisdom of his purge and justify the arrests after the fact. In effect, Trump would be handing a death sentence not only to Glen but also to hundreds of officers whose only crime was service in NATO.

Excerpt from:

Deporting Glen would undercut NATO - American Enterprise Institute

Why the fake rape story against German NATO forces fell flat in … – Deutsche Welle

A year ago, before the term "fake news" became ubiquitous, Germany was reeling from the "Lisa case," a fable fanned by social media in which immigrants reportedly raped a Russian-born teenager. The story was propagated by multiple sources all the way up to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and taken up by street protesters, before it was completely discounted. The falsified incident - widely believed to have been created by the Kremlin - demonstrated perfectly the toxicity of internet-driven disinformation.

Earlier this month, outside influences, again widely believed to be Russian, tried to replicate the success of the "Lisa" faux-scandal in Lithuania. They instigated the affair by planting a report via an email to the speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament claiming German soldiers, who are leading NATO's new battle group there, had raped a teenager.

This time, however, the targets weren't such easy prey and the rumor never really got off the ground. Czech General Petr Pavel, head of NATO's military committee, got out ahead of Lithuanian investigators in blaming the incident on Moscow and saying he expects there will be more. Lithuanian police are thus far just confirming the attack came from "outside the EU."

But whether or not this particular attempt is ultimately traceable to Kremlin-funded propagandists, Vilnius was expecting such provocations. With reinforcements of NATO troops moving in to guard against a ground or air assault, Lithuanian officials presumed that sooner or later, an information attack of this sort would be launched against the "Enhanced Forward Presence" (EFP). Lithuania's Defense Ministry Spokeswoman Vita Ramanauskaite explains her country's fatalistic anticipation in two words: "history lessons."

"Lithuania has a sad history of being occupied twice without a single shot," she said, "in 1795 by the Russian Empire and in 1940 by Soviet Russia." While central and Eastern Europe may be just starting to comprehend what a threat these faceless adversaries are, Ramanauskaite says such hostilities were detected in Lithuania already a dozen years ago and counter-propaganda measures were put in place. She credits this early awareness with the successful snuffing out of the rumor. The "fake rape" claim was quickly red-flagged in communication channels throughout the armed forces, police and government institutions and within NATO. In addition, she notes, the general public has been sensitized to the dangers of propaganda and information attacks, with 68 percent agreeing in a recent survey that they pose a threat to national security.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself rapidly got word of the case, crediting Lithuanian media with not spreading the "fake news."

"One of the important lessons we shall learn from this kind of incident is that it is extremely important to check facts," he said following NATO's defense ministerial meeting on February 16. "That has always been the case but it's perhaps even more important now because we have seen several attempts of disinformation and the spread of stories which are not true."

Weapon of mass distraction

In an exclusive interview with DW, NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, Ambassador Sorin Ducaru, was still extremely concerned about the incident, despite its failure to escalate.

"This is a clear example of information manipulation with a sense of weaponization," Ducaru said, "because it really was supposed to affect the perception about the presence of German troops as the [EFP] framework nation in Lithuania. It was supposed to affect morale; it was supposed to affect everything - the operational functioning."

And despite the failure of this particular attempt, says Dr. Stefan Meister with the German Council on Foreign Relations, Russia has seen clearly that disinformation is its most successful weapon to weaken and divide the West.

"It fits much more in line with their goals and it's much cheaper than any military buildup or any modernization of the army," Meister explained. "And in the end it works. We are so insecure about our media system, our politicians and growing populism and so on."

Russia is still winning the propaganda war against NATO and EU countries, Meister believes, and that's their own fault. He says the age-old resistance to sharing data, especially regarding security threats, comes into play here. EU governments are choosing to tackle it by themselves rather than funding and equipping the bloc as a center point of counter-propaganda.

"It's a lack of strategy," Meister says, "and even the lack of will to have a strategy. I think that's a big mistake."

Echoing Lithuania's Ramanauskaite, Meister says the Baltic states, Finland and Sweden have been dealing with the reality of the threat much longer than countries to their South and would have a lot to share with, for example, France and Germany, which are late to the game.

Meister believes Germany will increasingly be a target due to both its role in NATO's deterrence measures in the East and its coming elections, but also because its society is so divided about those issues.

Meanwhile, Russia says it's setting up a new counter-disinformation unit of its own, similar to the EU's, so that it can identify Western mainstream media articles as "fake news."

Here is the original post:

Why the fake rape story against German NATO forces fell flat in ... - Deutsche Welle

Cyberattacks threaten democracy itself, warns NATO – ZDNet

Many fear electronic voting machines can be hacked and tampered with.

The hacking campaign around the US presidential election, cyberattacks against Ukrain's power grid, and even the internet crippling Mirai botnet DDoS attack all demonstrate how cyberattacks have grown to threaten the very fabric of society itself, NATO has warned.

Citing the impact of high profile incidents like these, Jamie Shea, deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security challenges at NATO, suggests that hackers aren't just a threat to individuals and organisations, but to the fundamental nature of democracy as a whole.

No smoking gun for Russian DNC hacks

The Russian government may have hacked Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to support Donald Trump's campaign, but there's no hard technical proof.

"Cyber is facilitating more advanced and more effective psychological warfare, information operations, coercion and intimidation attacks. We used to worry about [hackers targeting] banks or credit cards or inconvenience to customers, now we worry about the future of democracy, the stability and health of our institutions," he said, speaking at the European Information Security Summit in London.

Russian-backed interference in the US Presidential election has already caused some other countries to rethink the use of electronic ballot boxes. The Netherlands, for instance, is reverting back to traditional vote tallying by hand due to fears that electronic votes could be manipulated or tampered with.

"It's quite remarkable that the Netherlands is going to have an election and they've decided not to bother with electronic counting. After what happened in the US, the credibility is too risky," said Shea. "We are essentially, with democracy, somewhat losing the faith in the very instruments we've created to spur our economy and spur globalisation."

The attacks against the Democratic National Committee aren't an isolated incident. Shea detailed cases in France and Germany where politicians have been warned of hacking campaigns looking to "destabilise organisations, publicly undermine their reputation, undermine public confidence in the democratic systems and meddle in elections".

German intelligence services have reported attempts to hack into the systems of the Bundestag and the German political parties, while Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French Defence Minister, called all of the French parties together ahead of the Presidential campaign in order provide information about hacks against French political parties.

"Only two sites needed to be hacked in order for Russian intelligence services to acquire compromising data, which they used at judicious points during the campaign to inflict maximum damage," said Shea.

"The threat was not to a bank or an institution or an individual, the threat was to society itself, its ability to function and the trust that we have in the credibility and integrity in our democratic model."

In an effort to combat the threats posed by cyberattacks and hackers, NATO has declared cyber a domain of operation alongside land, air, sea and space. It has also recognised the role it will play in the security of all of those areas, as military equipment and infrastructure will need to be continually updated in order to fight off cyber threats

"All of our current weapons programmes -- whether it be missile defence, joint information reconnaissance, drones, and so on -- have to now retrofit cybersecurity in a way that possibly wasn't planned in the outset," said Shea.

It might be a difficult task to carry out, but NATO must undertake it, to ensure that it has the ability to fight cyber attackers and remain on top.

"There's no doubt that cyber is going to have an impact on our military strategy and if we don't dominate it, then sooner or later an adversary is going to come up with a method to ensure it dominates us," Shea said.

See original here:

Cyberattacks threaten democracy itself, warns NATO - ZDNet

Pentagon mulling split of NSA, Cyber Command – The Hill

The Pentagon is beginning to assess whether its time to split up the leadership of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command.

Right now, the two organizations share a leader Adm. Mike Rogers, who is director of the NSA and also the commander of the cyber unit.

But lawmakers have debated ending that dual-hat arrangement as the United States moves into a new era of expanded cyber warfare.

Separating the leadership of the NSA and Cyber Command would create a new vacancy for President Trump to fill.

Were looking at the issue, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis told The Hillon Wednesday, pointing to a newmemoissued by Defense Secretary James Mattis asking for an initial plan to better support information management and cyber operations.

Congress in December passed a bill that elevated Cyber Command to a unified combatant command. That change made Cyber Command its own war fighting unit, spinning it out from under Strategic Command.

But that legislation also pumped the breaks on splitting the NSA from Cyber Command, requiring the Pentagon to conduct a full assessment first.

Experts and former security officials regard it as inevitable that the NSA and Cyber Command will someday be separated but fear that split could be damaging if done too quickly.

Thats because Cyber Command wasnt established at NSA headquarters until 2009 and remains dependent on the agency to function.

If you split them off and give them separate bosses, you run the risk of potential personality conflicts between those two that might then cause a lessoning of the sharing and cooperation as it is occurring now, said Steve Bucci, a former Army Special Forces officer and Pentagon official who is now a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Thats probably the biggest danger that I see.

Tensions already exist between NSA and Cybercom over professional overlap, and if duties and boundaries arent very clearly delineated in any split, these matters will worsen as they both fight for mission and resources, said John Schindler, a former NSA analyst and counterintelligence officer.

Alexandra Sander, a research associate at the Center for a New American Security, feared that the split could produce stove piping of intelligence information a term used to describe information that gets bottled up in agencies rather than shared in the government.

Elevating Cyber Command to its own unified command, and then if you had a split with the NSA on top of that, especially in a domain like cyber which should be integrated across the board with other functional and geographic commands and military operations if you had increased stove piping, I think that would have a negative effect on our capabilities, Sander said.

Under the law passed by Congress last year, Mattis and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford have to conduct a joint assessment into what would happen if the NSA and Cyber Command were separated.

They must ensure that the termination of the dual-hat arrangement will not pose risks to the military effectiveness of the United States Cyber Command that are unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States, the law states.

The military leaders are required to evaluate the dependence of Cyber Command on the NSA and how well the organizations could carry out their duties independently.

The legislation also prevents the split from happening until Cyber Command has achieved full operational capability, which isntexpectedto happen until the end of fiscal 2018.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office is also studying the dual-hat leadership of the two organizations; the office expects to complete that review in June, according to a spokesman.

Sen. John McCainJohn McCainWhy the GOP cannot sweep its Milo scandal under the rug New York Knicks owner gave 0K to pro-Trump group Hannity apologizes for sharing 'inaccurate' story about McCain MORE (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has staunchly opposed a premature separation of the two organizations. Other lawmakers have been less vocal, adopting a wait-and-see approach pending assessments by the Pentagon and GAO.

We want to make the right decision. Im undecided, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who chairs the newly formed Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity.

When you separate that out, you have to make sure that you have really good lines of communication, coordination and so forth. There are positives to either way, and we know right know that we have something we think is working; the question is at what point does it become so big that it needs to be changed? Rounds said.

President Obamaspokein favor of ending the dual-hat nature of the role late last year after he was reportedlypressedto do so by his Defense secretary and director of national intelligence.

Read more:

Pentagon mulling split of NSA, Cyber Command - The Hill

Posted in NSA

NSA Head: Russian Interference in US Election, ‘Hey, This Happened’ – USNI News

Adm. Michael S. Rogers, commander, U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and head of the National Security Agency. US Navy Photo

SAN DIEGO, Calif. The head of the National Security Agency reiterated that Russia engaged in cyber actions to influence the result of the U.S. presidential election and said the Moscow-directed interference is changing the way the NSA thinks about U.S. critical infrastructure.

We have been very public particularly if I put on my NSA hat in categorizing the behaviors we saw, from a cyber perspective, the Russians engaged in terms of our election process. We were very confident that, hey, this happened. What does that mean? said Adm. Rogers, who also heads U.S. Cyber Command, said on Thursday at the West 2017 conference.

It highlights to us that we need to rethink what critical infrastructure means in the digital age. We tended to view historically critical infrastructure as something associated with an output. Hey, air traffic. Hey, pipelines. The financial world. Power distribution. Generally, we thought a very industrial set of processes that generated some sort of output.

What the Russians did to influence the U.S. election adds a new dimension to what the U.S. should work to protect from influence from a cyber action or attack, he said.

What about information, data and fundamental processes like the ability to ensure high confidence that in a Western democracy the electoral outcome is actually reflective of the majority of our citizens, which is at the heart of the democratic system? he said. We have to think of it in a different way, and data increasingly has a value all of its own.

Rogers cited the attacks on the Office of Personnel Management in which the personal data of more than 21. 5 million people who had undergone the U.S. security clearance process was breached and the Russias hack of Democratic National Committee emails and subsequent distribution on Wikileaks as new types of threats.

You saw that in OPM, you saw that with the Russians the way they penetrated systems, moved data and then provided that in very public, unaltered format, he said. So we have to work through that. We need to work with a broader set of nations to clearly signal that this is unacceptable, and we need to drive the calculus in a different way.

Separately during the conference event, Rogers said the Trump administration has made cyber security a priority and predicted administration-level action soon.

The discussions moderator, retired Adm. James Stavridis, former NATO supreme commander and U.S. Naval Institute chairman, said that a Trump executive order on cyber was in the works and asked Rogers on the status.

Theres an ongoing dialogue that the administration I dont want to speak for them but if you take their statements, theyve been very upfront about the desire to make this a priority and a focus area in the early stages of the administration, Rogers said. I expect it to play out sometime in the immediate near term. The process always takes longer than you would like, but I think this would play out. The biggest input Ive tried to provide and Im just one voice take this opportunity to step back and look at this with a new set of eyes and say, if you were creating this from the ground up, how would you do this?

Continued here:

NSA Head: Russian Interference in US Election, 'Hey, This Happened' - USNI News

Posted in NSA

Self-Storage REIT: National Storage Announces 8th ‘PRO’ Prior To Earnings – Seeking Alpha

The growth needle is once again shifting into high gear at National Storage Affiliates (NYSE: NSA).

Source: image - 123RF

The newest publicly traded self-storage REIT continues to demonstrate that its unique business model resonates with large private self-storage operators.

This is especially true when it comes to family-run businesses, where management is looking to stay active and continue building upon a life's work.

After the bell, on Feb. 23, 2017, NSA announced the latest PRO to join its ranks, Personal Mini Storage of Orlando, a brand the Shader family has used to grow its self-storage business in Central Florida for several decades. NSA typically targets top industry operators with 20 or more properties located in larger US markets.

The Shader Brothers Corp. owned and operated portfolio contains 36 properties in a high-growth region of Florida. In the case of Personal Mini Storage, the Shader family has been an industry leader in Central Florida since the early 1980s. This acquisition will bring a portfolio of 36 well-seasoned self-storage properties to the table for NSA.

While the terms of the deal were not announced, (NSA reports Q4/FY'16 results on February 28th), NSA has the flexibility to issue OP/SP units in addition to cash for acquisitions. The OP units eventually convert 1:1 to NSA common shares. However, the SP units incentivize the new PRO with a formula that rewards strong performance, and protects existing shareholders in the event operating results are below par.

This optionality can give NSA a leg up versus its larger and better-known peer group, which includes: REIT blue-chip Public Storage (NYSE: PSA), Extra Space Storage (NYSE: EXR), CubeSmart (NYSE: CUBE) and Life Storage (NYSE: LSI).

The chart shows that National Storage delivered solid results compared with its peer group and the broader equity REIT sector.

Read more: Why Self-Storage REIT NSA's $630 Million iStorage JV Is A Big Deal

If you are not familiar with NSA, the article above provides background and links to previous articles.

Self-Storage - Bigger Picture

The recent self-storage sector underperformance is an anomaly. However, self-storage REITs had become a victim of their own success over the past few years. After piling up a couple of years of record high occupancy and blistering same-store NOI growth each quarter, same period result comparisons get tougher.

After the Great Recession, there were about five or so years of muted new supply, which contributed to the strong industry fundamentals and record performance. Notably, during the past few quarters, some local markets have seen notable increases in new supply. This can create a headwind for both street rates and occupancy. Since new self-storage properties open 100% vacant, operators typically use incentives to attract customers until occupancy becomes stabilized.

By late January, the pendulum of pessimism appeared to have swung too far, which I pointed out last month for SA readers in Self-Storage REITs In Full Retreat - Time To Buy?

Mr. Market's relentless selloff created an opportunity for investors to once again initiate positions in the desirable self-storage REIT sector.

During the past month, the sector has slowly begun to come out of its funk. Recent results by CubeSmart seemed to trigger a bit of optimism and helped bring buyers back. Extra Space Storage also has led the February upswing.

Adding PROs Pays Dividends

CEO Arlen Nordhagen has assured analysts and investors that NSA will only bring a new PRO aboard if it makes sense strategically, culturally, and adds to the bottom line. This discipline may have slowed the growth a bit, but it has resulted in a steadily rising dividend since the NSA IPO in 2015.

It is in both the NSA shareholders' and OP unit holders' (NSA PROs) interest that any major acquisition is immediately accretive to earnings. Management incentives are clearly aligned with shareholders.

Source: NSA irwebsite - Feb. 23, 2017

Once a new PRO joins National Storage, implementing a revenue management program, the national call center, and an advertising program, can help drive better operating results. It is also a given that NSA as a publicly traded REIT has a much lower cost of capital.

New PROs are a source of local market knowledge, and they can sharpshoot one-off "bolt-on" acquisitions for NSA. PROs can also be instrumental in convincing other privately owned self-storage operators to take a long look at the NSA value proposition. The industry profile of Marc Smith of Personal Mini Storage, is a perfect example:

"Marc M. Smith, President of Personal Mini, is currently completing a six-year term on the national Self Storage Association ("SSA") board, where he has served in various executive roles, including Board Chairman for the 2016 term. Marc has also served as past President and National Board Member of the Southeast Region of the SSA. He is a licensed Florida real estate broker and a licensed Florida building contractor. Marc has a B.S. in real estate and finance from The University of Texas, a M.S. in building construction from The University of Florida and is a graduate of the Owner President Management Program at Harvard Business School."

NSA will be able to leverage the relationships of a veteran self-storage industry team, Marc Smith and his wife Laurie Shader Smith, who grew up with the business in Orlando. On a personal note, I was privileged to get to know Laurie and her family back in the mid-1980s, and they are top-notch folks.

FAST Graph - Valuation Analysis

It's time to use the F.A.S.T. Graphs tool to check under the hood. The black line is price. It is a visual comparison relative to the blue line, which is "normal" P/FFO for the selected number of years. The red line corresponds to the dividend yield on the far right of the chart.

The NSA double-digit FFO growth potential can support the current valuation. In fact, the lack of consensus 2019 estimates for this relatively young REIT actually understates the growth. Meanwhile, investors are being paid an attractive 4% yield, backed by a solid history of dividend increases since the National Storage IPO.

Investor Takeaway

National Storage has been one of my top picks since the end of 2015. Last year, NSA shares returned over 30% to shareholders.

Read more: My REIT Small-Cap Gems 2016 Performance Update: 30%-Plus Returns

Notably, NSA shares are trading near their all-time high. However, that is not unusual for this top performer.

During the past 52 weeks, NSA shares have traded in a range of $17.10-$24.32 per share.

The challenge with most REITs which are fully valued is to find a catalyst to send the shares on the next leg up. However, the unique NSA business model has accretive portfolio acquisitions baked into the cake. Self-storage operators can cash in on high current valuations for their stabilized storage properties and remain active running the business. It is a way for them to diversify and obtain liquidity, to essentially have their cake and eat it too.

I fully expect management to raise FY 2017 guidance metrics to reflect the latest PRO acquisition. Additionally, NSA has been rolling out its revenue management program across the portfolio and this should bode well for same-store NOI results.

These "PROs," or preferred regional operators, can diversify and achieve some liquidity while still being able to participate in the upside of their life's work. NSA gives shareholders the opportunity to invest side by side with entrepreneurs who have a vested interest in the continued success of their legacy businesses.

If NSA does a secondary share offering in conjunction with the acquisition of the Central Florida portfolio, it could provide an opportunity for investors to initiate a position. I previously have suggested ~$20.00 as an acquisition target price. I think bumping that up closer to $22.00 per share would now be reasonable for new investors looking for an entry point.

I am contemplating whether to launch a Seeking Alpha Marketplace Premium subscription service. I would appreciate any feedback from readers who may be interested. Feel free to share them in the comment thread below, or send me an Inbox message.

I relentlessly hunt for diamonds in the rough and rising stars, in addition to closely following data centers, covering REIT blue-chips, and breaking news. Please consider following me as a Seeking Alpha author if you would like to be notified when my future articles are published.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in NSA, EXR, CUBE, LSI, PSA over the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: Members of my household are long NSA.

See the rest here:

Self-Storage REIT: National Storage Announces 8th 'PRO' Prior To Earnings - Seeking Alpha

Posted in NSA

Our View: McMaster a good NSA choice – NUjournal

Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, named by President Donald Trump to be his new national security adviser, has been described as a prominent military strategist known as a creative thinker. That is precisely what the nation needs.

McMaster replaces Gen. Mike Flynn, who lost his job because he was not candid with Vice President Mike Pence regarding a discussion with a Russian diplomat. There is no reason to believe McMaster will make the same mistake.

One indication Trump made the right choice was the reaction on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers of both parties expressed pleasure with the decision.

McMaster is an excellent pick for several reasons. One is that Trumps foes have made much of his inexperience in both foreign and military affairs. Pointing to his outspokenness, they also warn darkly he may get the United States into military trouble. McMaster in the national security post does much to dispel such concerns.

On a practical basis, it would have been difficult to do better. McMaster can offer balanced, informed, calm guidance on threats to U.S. security.

Perhaps even more important, forward-looking intellect is just what the defense establishment needs. The Pentagon often is accused of preparing to fight the last war at a time when threats, weapons, tactics and strategies are changing dramatically. McMasters can help advise Trump in a manner calculated to have the United States prepared to fight the next war.

Sadly, both history and human nature make it clear that, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, there will be a next war.

The Minnesota House took a historic vote, according to House Speaker Kurt Daudt. "This historic vote brings ...

Twelve years ago federal law created the enhanced state ID card known as Real ID. The idea was developed after the ...

Pro-abortion activists want women to think the 1973 Supreme Court ruling known as Roe v. Wade is, without question, ...

President Donald Trump gave a 77-minute press conference on Thursday that still has people talking. He derided ...

Several presidents have treated their vice presidents notoriously and sometimes irresponsibly badly. The late ...

Help for German Park is welcome THUMBS UP: State Sen. Gary Dahms has introduced legislation to add the German Park ...

Read more:

Our View: McMaster a good NSA choice - NUjournal

Posted in NSA

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decides the Second Amendment is … – Canada Free Press

Liberal politicians who run states and cities have certain habits they come back to again and again. One is the passage of gun bans they know perfectly well are clear violations of the Second Amendment. Why do the do this? Partly because ideologically they cant help themselves. But also: They hope to create test cases in the courts that, they hope, will produce favorable rulings and thus establish case law that renders the entire Second Amendment null and void.

Toward that end, the State of Maryland scored a very big victory today, as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an assault weapons ban that cant possibly be defended as constitutional. So why did it survive? Because there are many in the federal judiciary who share the goal of repealing the Second Amendment, and hope to be the judges assigned to these test cases. The Fourth Circuit really outdid itself with this one.

How bad was the ruling? Take it away, David French:

How can it reach such a conclusion? Remember the formula: contempt, willful ignorance, and fear.

First, lets look at the courts breathtaking contempt for individual rights. Rather than read the Supreme Courts controlling opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller according to its plain language, it deliberately distorts Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion. In Heller, Scalia clearly stated that the sorts of weapons the Second Amendment protects are those that are in common use at the time, with exceptions that apply to those weapons that are dangerous and unusual.

Why the addition of and unusual? Because every single working gun ever made is dangerous. To illustrate his point, Scalia then provides examples of specific types of dangerous and unusual guns M-16 rifles and the like. Heres a news flash: The M-16 isnt the same as a civilian assault weapon like the AR-15. The M-16 variants in use in the United States military are capable of being fired in both semi-automatic and fully automatic (three-round burst) modes. If you think that the M-16 and AR-15 are alike, then walk to your local gun store and try to buy an M-16.

Go ahead. Ill wait.

Are you back yet? Do you have an M-16? No? Thats because its an entirely different category of weapon, governed by different federal statutes. The Fourth Circuit, however, deliberately conflated semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons. And it went to absurd lengths to do so.

There is much more to Frenchs excellent analysis than I can fairly excerpt here, so please click through and read the whole thing.

Its very instructive to see that the Fourth Circuit so badly mangled Scalias argument in Heller to reach the conclusion it did. It speaks to a group of judges looking for a legal rationale for a ruling they were already bound and determined to issue, rather than following the law wherever it leads you, which is what judges are supposed to do.

Heres whats ironic, though, about the dreck that is this ruling and Frenchs solid analysis of what makes it so bad. Having lost the presidency, Congress, and the vast majority of governorships and state legislatures, the only thing the left still has to thwart conservative policy initiatives is the prospect of help from liberal judges. In this case, they upheld an unconstitutional law passed by a Democrat governor and legislature in a blue state. But elsewhere, as in Texas today, judges are striking down duly passed laws that by any reasonable standard pass constitutional muster.

The Supreme Court may yet save the Second Amendment, and maybe a judge that understands the separation of powers will restore the right of Texas lawmakers to decide who gets taxpayer money. But the reason this is so ironic is that David French was one of the leading voices arguing during the presidential campaign that the Supreme Court was not sufficient reason to support Donald Trump in the general election over Hillary Clinton.

I think French is a terrific writer and thinker on all kinds of issues, but he was #NeverTrump to the core and believed a Trump presidency would be so injurious to the conservative movement that even the prospect of a liberal court majority for the next generation wasnt enough reason to back Trump.

I wonder how happy French is today that Trump was elected, and that Neil Gorsuch stands a very good chance of being the deciding vote in a ruling that overturns the Fourth Circuit and restores the Second Amendment. The federal judiciary is out of control, and that is a much bigger problem that Donald Trumps communication style or anything else you dont like about him.

Read more here:

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decides the Second Amendment is ... - Canada Free Press

Second Amendment | NorthCountryNow – North Country Now

Second Amendment

Thursday, February 23, 2017 - 12:27 pm

I am writing this to all sportsman. We have what I believe to be a once in a lifetime opportunity in our country to protect our Second Amendment right to bear arms and to clarify our Second Amendment to own and carry a handgun legally in all states. Any citizen in possession of a license to carry firearms should be able to enjoy that right in all 50 states as they do in the state of issuance. We need every sportsman, man, woman and child to write your congressman, senators and the president to encourage them to support this bill. I would ask all hunting club presidents to encourage all members to write, all law enforcement officers to encourage all colleagues to write, all sportsman to tell your friends and relatives to write. We have a president that is on our side, along with a congress and Supreme Court. Do not let this opportunity pass us by.

Read more from the original source:

Second Amendment | NorthCountryNow - North Country Now

Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students’ First Amendment rights on campus – Richmond Register

The following might be offensive to some.

But that's okay, according to Rep. Wesley Morgan, R-Richmond. It's free speech and protected by the First Amendment of our nation's constitution.

A right, he said, that is being infringed upon on many of Kentucky's college campuses.

Morgan is trying to change that with Kentucky House Bill 127, or the Campus Free Expression (CAFE) Act, which will prohibit publicly-funded universities and colleges from restricting a student's right to free expression.

"I filed the bill because I believe in it, whole-heartedly," Morgan said. "You need to have the freedom of speech on college campuses. Students shouldn't be restricted to a circle 50 feet from the sidewalk."

Morgan said many state universities have policies that restrict student's First Amendment rights by forcing them into so-called "free speech zones."

The representative said these zones are often small areas hidden away from public view.

The CAFE Act will prohibit schools from imposing those types of zones, and defines any "outdoor areas of an institution's campus" as "traditional public forums."

"Students should have the right to express themselves in an open space and have the opportunity to have people listen to what they have to say," Morgan said. "It's a matter of fairness. Students have a right and it should be protected. There are public institutions of higher education that are not allowing students the right to have an open dialogue. You don't want that to continue in the state."

Kentucky House Bill 127 states clearly colleges "shall not restrict the right to free expression." In line with the Constitution, colleges can only place "reasonable" restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" of student expression. Even still, these restrictions must be "narrowly tailored... based on published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria... [and must] provide for ample alternative means of expression."

Inspired by Morgan's efforts to protect students' rights, Eastern Kentucky University's student government association (SGA) passed a bill endorsing HB 127 and encouraging other student governments across the state to do the same.

Sebastian Torres, EKU SGA executive vice president, said the bill passed unanimously and the organization has been working closely with Morgan and others to educate universities about the bill.

"It is a real issue on Kentucky campuses that needs to be addressed," Torres said of the fight to keep free speech. "It's not just Kentucky that has these policies that restrict students' First Amendment rights. At a university in Indiana, a group of students were arrested for passing out copies of the Constitution. This is real and it's happening."

In fact, on a recent trip to Murray State University, Torres said he and other SGA members had difficulty locating the campus' free-speech zone. After a search of the grounds, the students were directed to a small cement circle tucked away out of sight. Torres added students have to apply for a chance to speak in the zone and applications can be denied.

The EKU student said limiting an open exchange of ideas to a certain area on a college campus was "ridiculous" and goes against not only a right protected by the Constitution, but also the nature of higher education.

"Students come here to learn and grow and expand their ideas. We are trying to educate a workforce at this university and create productive citizens, but college is also a chance to have your ideas challenged and see if they stand up against facts," Torres said. "If it doesn't happen on a college campus, where do we expect it to happen."

Torres said you don't have to agree with everything said and you don't have to listen if you don't want to. He added free speech can be uncomfortable for some, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.

Torres said EKU's student government felt it was especially important to support Morgan's bill, due to the fact that EKU is the first "green light" school in the state.

The university earned that distinction from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which awards institutions of higher learning with a green, yellow or red categorization based on the constitutionality of speech policies.

In 2012, the university worked with FIRE attorneys to bring the campus into compliance with the Constitution and make the campus more First Amendment friendly.

Some of the important steps taken by the university included modifying vague wording in the student handbook and policies.

One example was the phrase in the student handbook that stated students should not "engage in a course of conduct intended to harass, seriously annoy and alarm another person." FIRE suggested the university amend the phrase "seriously annoy," as it goes against the First Amendment to regulate student speech in that manner.

Another part of the handbook read: "No one should either offend the wider community or infringe upon the rights and privileges of others."

"Sometimes people might find what you say offensive," Torres said. "However, I think what is becoming prevalent in today's society is the idea that if they find it offensive or uncomfortable then it should be stopped. That's infringing on free speech.

"Why should certain kind of speakers be banned from campus. That shouldn't be allowed, especially if a student group is sponsoring that speaker. Those that don't agree with the speaker don't have to listen to the lecture or they can bring in their own speaker who has a different viewpoint."

Another reason Torres said the SGA is promoting the bill is the fact that while the CAFE act protects students it also will protect universities. He said with budget crunches, it is not a good time for universities to get sued because it didn't have the forethought to not infringe on a student's right to free speech.

Torres said he hopes that other universities step-up and make their campus' more First Amendment friendly, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening.

"I wish that universities and colleges would do it on their own, but that is why it is so important for the state house to step in and go ahead and do it for them," he said. "Our SGA feels that this is an important issue for students and we feel compelled to let our legislators know that we are invested in our First Amendment right. I'm very proud of the SGA for endorsing this and we encourage every other student government to jump on the bandwagon."

Both Morgan and Torres said the new bill does not do away with university protections against hate speech, harassment or incitement of violence.

The CAFE Act provides universities with the ability to enforce certain restrictions on acts of free speech in an outdoor area of campus regarding reasonable time, place and manner. The bill makes it very clear these restrictions must have a clear, defendable basis, Torres said.

Torres said in no way does the bill encourage or enable hate speech and harassment by promoting the right of free speech for students.

"You are protected from any kind of violence or mistreatment," he said. "That doesn't mean you are protected against different ideas, views, cultures or opinions that you might not like."

Reach Ricki Barker at 624-6611 or follow her on Twitter @RickiBReports.

Read the original:

Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students' First Amendment rights on campus - Richmond Register

Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight – Forbes


Forbes
Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight
Forbes
Amazon is sticking to its guns in the fight to protect customer data. The tech titan has filed a motion to quash the search warrant for recordings from an Amazon Echo in the trial of James Andrew Bates, accused of murdering friend Victor Collins in ...
Amazon Argues Free Speech in Alexa Murder CaseFortune
Amazon says Alexa's speech is protected by the First AmendmentThe Verge
Amazon argues that Alexa is protected by the First Amendment in a murder trialQuartz
BuzzFeed News -Investopedia -TechCrunch -Forbes
all 81 news articles »

More:

Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight - Forbes

CPAC: Betsy DeVos Thinks First Amendment Rights of College Students Are Under Attack – Reason (blog)

Olivier DoulierySpeaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos promised to back school choice policies while fighting for the free speech rights of college students.

DeVos focused on education reform during her brief remarks, stressing that the Obama administration's spending on school improvements did not yield encouraging results.

"Today we know the system is failing too many kids," she said. "Our nation's test scores have flatlined."

DeVos then turned to free speech issues on college campuses.

"They say if you voted for Donald Trump, you are a threat to the community," said DeVos, referring to the climate on campus. "But the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree."

Unfortunately, DeVos avoided specifics. She did not discuss the Education Department's role in fostering a climate of censorship via guidance from the Office for Civil Rights, which has stepped up anti-harassment measures over the last five years. Civil libertarians hope DeVos will reform the agency.

She also dodged a question about her alleged dispute with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the decision to rescind the Obama administration's protections for transgender students. DeVos had opposed taking this step, but caved due to pressure from President Donald Trump.

It was not a very revealing interview, all told. If DeVos has big plans to fix schools and colleges, she certainly isn't showing her hand.

Continue reading here:

CPAC: Betsy DeVos Thinks First Amendment Rights of College Students Are Under Attack - Reason (blog)