President Michael Schill speaks about free speech and inclusivity – Oregon Daily Emerald

President Michael Schill spoke to a group of Jewish and Muslim students on Tuesday about the importance of free speech, tolerance and unification at the Oregon Hillel meeting.

Manzil Midrash is a project that Oregon Hillel, the Muslim Student Associationand theArab Student Union started three years ago. It was created to have deeper conversations about Israel and Palestine issues, and to bring people together. Schill spoke as a part of a series of events for the project, accordingto Andy Gitelson, the executive director of Oregon Hillel.

The president recounted a brief history of his life and described being the only Jewish kid at his elementary school in Schenectady, New York. Schill spoke about how this experience made him embrace his differences and he encouraged other students who are minorities to do the same.

Tonights talk is a really great opportunity for us to bring together students of different faiths and cultures, and obviously it is a very timely moment for this, Schill said. Our nation is at a crossroads where identity politics rages in a way that istroubling to me.

Gitelson appreciates the way that Schill uses Jewish values to make his decisions as president of UO.

He utilizes his own upbringing and the Jewish value system, Gitelson said.

Schill said the university will always remain insistent on protecting the values of free speech; however, he said that there is no clear-cut line of when free speech has gone too far, such as the recent law professor black face incident.

Drew Williams, a senior political science and religious studies major, agrees with Schills view on free speech.

You really have to understand that freedom of speech is something that is essential to being American; for every group from every variety of the spectrum to be able to speak and state their opinions, Williams said.

Darian Rosengard, a junior majoring in planning, public policy and management, appreciated Schill taking the time to talk about these issues in open conversation.

It was interesting hearing him showing sympathy to what minorities face all the time and taking a step back and saying, What questions do you have for me and what conversation can we have to be able to look at opposition and look at discomfort in a place of positivity? she said.

There are resources available to students on campus, such as the Dean of Students website which has university policies against discrimination and resources for students available.

Ive heard a lot of incidents which have been very troubling at this university as well as at other universities, but whats important is if there is intolerance, if there is racism, if there is xenophobia, the university wants to do what we can do to address it, Schill said.

Here is the original post:

President Michael Schill speaks about free speech and inclusivity - Oregon Daily Emerald

Pantheism – Norse Mythology for Smart People

Pantheism is the perception that spirit and divinity dwell within the world rather than apart from it. As the Roman historian Tacitus said of the Germanic tribes, Their holy places are the woods and groves, and they apply the names of deities to that hidden presence which is seen only by the eye of reverence.[1] The invisible, spiritual world is not somehow separate from the visible, tangible world, but instead exists in its heart, to borrow the words of the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty.[2] To put it another way: the visible world is the flesh of the invisible gods.

Nowadays, the Norse gods and goddesses are often described as being the god of this or that, but this easily leads to the misinterpretation that the gods exist outside of these things and merely control them from a distance. A more accurate way of speaking about them would be to say that, for example, Thor is not the god of thunder, but rather the god thunder. This is not merely symbolism, nor is it an attempt to explain natural phenomena in a pre-scientific idiom. Its an account of the direct experience of the storm as a personal and divine force.

This can probably be best understood through contrasting it with the dominant strains of Christian theology. In most varieties of Christianity, as we all know, God lives in a remote Heaven and teaches his followers to scorn earthly cares. The world is an artifact that he created rather than a part of his being. As 1 Kings 19 says,

And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

Here, God is totally incorporeal, and addresses the prophet Elijah only as a disembodied voice that speaks in a human language just like the words of the Bible itself. For a pantheist, by contrast, the whole world is a revelation, a scripture that anyone can read to understand the divine.

More than that: the whole miracle of Jesuss descent to earth, death, and resurrection is dependent on this absolute split between the material and the spiritual. A pantheist would find nothing miraculous or even out-of-the-ordinary in a god assuming bodily form, because all bodily forms are manifestations of divinity. From such a perspective, the idea of salvation is unnecessary and even ridiculous; we are already wholly divine and wholly immersed in divinity. Whereas Christians commune with Jesus in a particular ritual where specially consecrated bread and wine become his body, a pantheist communes with his or her gods all the time, with every breath, every piece of food, and every mosquito bite.

Looking for more great information on Norse mythology and religion? While this site provides the ultimate online introduction to the topic, my book The Viking Spirit provides the ultimate introduction to Norse mythology and religion period. Ive also written a popular list of The 10 Best Norse Mythology Books, which youll probably find helpful in your pursuit.

References:

[1] Tacitus, Cornelius. 1948. The Agricola and Germania. Translated by Harold Mattingly. p. 109.

[2] Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. Edited by John Wild, translated by Alphonso Lingis. p. 150.

The rest is here:

Pantheism - Norse Mythology for Smart People

Kenyan Atheists Demand National Holiday To Celebrate Non-Religious Belief – Face 2 Face (press release) (registration) (blog)

Atheists of Kenya. Photo credit: BBC

Atheists in Kenya(AIK) have called on the government to devote a national holiday for the celebration of non-religious belief.

AIK is an umbrella society for free thinkers and the non-religious in Kenya. The association was officially registered on February 17, 2016, after a long battle to get the authorities to recognize it. It is believed to be the first atheist society to be registered in all of Africa.

The societys president,Harrison Mumia, said although atheists and the non-religious only constitute a minority group within Kenya, they deserve a national holiday to celebrate their beliefs.

We will petition Parliament to legislate that public holiday; we have religious holidays. Why not us? We will move to court if they discriminate against us. Under Article 8 of the Constitution, the government cannot run the country based on any religion, Mumia said.

Consequently, according to Standard Media, atheists have asked that February 17th be declared Atheist Day, a public holiday to celebrate the freedom and responsibility that the non-religious have.

In a recent letter addressed to the Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph Nkaissery, the society also demanded equal treatment, equal protection, and benefits of the law as provided by the constitution.

Harrison Mumia. Photo credit: Nairobi News

On the 17th of February, we want to celebrate the fact that atheism frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be wasted in worship. We want to celebrate atheism, because it prevents one from being ripped off by religious charlatans, Mumia added.

We want to celebrate atheism because it provides great freedom and at the same time great responsibility, since we are not looking forward to the promise of heaven or the punishment of hell.

We want to celebrate atheism because we can now do things without worrying about metaphysical reward or punishment. We want to celebrate the fact that the results of our actions as atheists are our responsibility and we cant blame it on sin.

The society also wants authorities to scrap the teaching of religion in all Kenyan public schools and believes the study of the three major religions (Islam, Christianity and Hinduism) amounts to discrimination of all other religions.

Last October, the society also demanded that the word God be removed from the Kenyan national anthem, arguing that it was inherently unfair as not all Kenyans believed in a God. They emphasized that Kenya was a secular state and the concept of God was alien to the constitution.

As non-believers, we feel that the National Anthem is not representative of us and goes against the spirit of the Kenyan Constitution. Removing God from the National Anthem will make it inclusive, the society said in a statement.

The rest is here:

Kenyan Atheists Demand National Holiday To Celebrate Non-Religious Belief - Face 2 Face (press release) (registration) (blog)

Ricky Gervais challenged on his atheism – Premier

The out-spoken atheist was asked on the CBS programme The Late Show with Stephen Colbert whether he believed in the existence of a creator God.

The British comedian and actor, who received audience applause when he said he didn't believe in God, answered: "Outside of science and nature, I don't believe so."

He branded himself as an "agnostic atheist" during the conversation, which stemmed from a Twitter post which told Gervais he was going to hell.

Host, Stephen Colbert asked him: "Do you ever have a feeling of great gratitude for existence?"

Gervais answered: "Of course, I know the chances are billions to one that I am on this planet as me and never will be again."

Colbert replied: "I know I can't convince you that there is a God, nor do I really want to convince you there is a God, but I can only explain my experience which is that I have a strong desire to direct that gratitude to something or someone and that thing is God".

Gervais suggested he found it easier to believe in the Big Bang theory, saying science is "constantly proved all the time".

More:

Ricky Gervais challenged on his atheism - Premier

Trump commits to NATO summit

Trump, who was outspoken on the campaign trail about the role -- and upkeep -- of the security pact, spoke with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Sunday night.

During the call, the two leaders "reconfirmed the importance of the Alliance in troubled times," according to a statement from NATO.

Trump and Stoltenberg specifically discussed NATO allies meeting their defense spending commitments, the role of the organization in defeating terror, and the potential for a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian conflict.

"The Secretary General recalled NATO's consistent policy of strong defense and dialogue with Russia," the statement reads. "The Secretary General and President Trump looked forward to the upcoming NATO summit in Brussels in late May to discuss these issues."

The White House confirmed that Trump would attend the summit.

Last month, in a joint interview with the Times of London and the German publication Bild, Trump accused the organization, which was founded in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism, of being "obsolete."

In the interview, which took place prior to his inauguration, Trump restated his campaign-trail doubts about the transatlantic alliance.

"I said a long time ago that NATO had problems," he said.

"Number one, it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago.

"Number two, the countries weren't paying what they're supposed to be paying," adding that this was unfair to the United States.

Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the US, Greece, Poland, Estonia and the UK -- meet the alliance's target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defense.

At a press briefing following the calls, White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the disconnect between Mattis' comments and his boss'.

"The President is very clear that as it's structured now, in terms of the output of NATO, he doesn't feel as though it's doing what its mission was set up to do or that it's being particularly effective," Spicer said at the time.

Sunday's call came after EU leaders met in Malta last week, where they denounced the incoming President's recent attacks on Europe as they met for a summit to debate the future of the union.

EU leaders have been rattled by Trump's comments on Europe and the NATO transatlantic alliance. Along with calling the alliance "obselete," he has voiced his support for Britain's departure from the EU and criticized European refugee policies.

French President Francois Hollande hit out at Trump as Hollande arrived at the informal summit on the future of the EU in Malta.

"There are threats, there are challenges," he said. "What is at stake is the very future of the European Union."

See more here:

Trump commits to NATO summit

Encouraging NATO Burden Sharing: What Works? – Cato Institute (blog)

President Donald Trump has repeatedly complained that the United States carries too much of the economic and military burden in NATO. He has even gone so far as to call the European alliance obsolete and to suggest that his administrationmight not fulfill the treatys Article 5 obligationthat commits NATO countries to come to the defense of any member that is attacked (Note: administration officials have repeatedly sought to reassure NATO allies that we remain committed to the collective defense of Europe, and Trump has contradicted himself on this score).

Many think this provocative rhetoric is just a ploy to get our NATO allies, who habitually underspend on defense and free-ride on Americas security guarantees, to pay more of their fair share of the burden. At the Washington Posts Monkey Cage blog, Andrea Gilli argues this approach is unlikely to jolt NATO allies into spending more on defense, though. Among other reasons, most NATO allies face financial and political constraints to increasing military expenditure in part becauseU.S. security assuranceshave freed up state funds in Europe for other priorities, including a robust system of social services. And since cutting welfare benefits is typically a political non-starter, we shouldnt necessarily expect NATO countries to boost defense spending due to Trumps abrasive rhetoric.

But the historical record seems to contradict Gillis argument. According to the RAND Corporation, Europe has historically spent between 43 percent and 78 percent of U.S. spending on defense. The ratio reached its peak in 1980, and then again in 2000 - years that were at the tail end of periods of defense budget cuts. And according to the RAND report, one of the the most successful techniques in getting NATO allies to share more of the burden was threats by Congress to withdraw its troops from Europe.

The only period of signficant real growth in European defense spending was during the 1970s; otherwise European defense expenditure has been remarkably flat in real terms

Historically, efforts to create incentives or to manage the burden-sharing problem have taken four different approaches. The first approach (1966 to the mid-1980s) was based on the threat of U.S. troop withdrawals. With a series of resolutions and amendments from1966 to 1975, Senator Mike Mansfield sought to use the threat of U.S. troop withdrawals to force Europe to contribute more and to lessen U.S. costs. As noted, that effortplus other factors relating to economic growth and the Soviet threatmay have had a positive effect: European defense spending grew by 44 percent between 1970 and 1984.

Certainly other factors contributed to this period of growth in NATO burden sharing - higher rates of economic growth, increased perceptions of the Soviet threat, defense budget cuts as we withdrew from Vietnam, etc. But U.S. threats to pare back its commitment to the region seem to have had a significant impact.

That said, European defense spending may never reach the levels that the Trump administration, or for that matter the Washington foreign policy community generally, would prefer. And while U.S. security guarantees are surely one reason for this, it also may be the case that European countries arent boosting defense spending levels because they dont face any major threats. Increasing defense spending to 2 percent of GDP or higher wont do much about the terrorism problem European countries face. And the supposed geopolitical threat from Russia, meddling in Georgia and Ukraine aside, is consistently exaggerated.

More here:

Encouraging NATO Burden Sharing: What Works? - Cato Institute (blog)

Let’s bring NATO to Washington – DefenseNews.com

Few outside of the NATO community realize that one of the alliance's two strategic commands is located not in Europe, but in Norfolk, Virginia. Stood up as NATO began to reorient itself in response to the threats and challenges of the 21st century, Allied Command Transformation, or ACT, is now nearing its 15th anniversary in Norfolk. Today, ACT is charged to look to the future and help the alliance develop new capabilities, forces and doctrine for emerging challenges. But now is the time to consider ACTs future in light of new political realities in America and the worsening security situation in Europe.

For starters, ACT should move to Washington to be closer to American decision-makers and to be able to more effectively draw on the discussions and the decisions being made at the Pentagon. In addition, it is more crucial than ever that American leaders are reminded of NATO's importance on a near-daily basis. What better way than to have a strategic NATO command right next door to the White House, Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon?

All of this matters because of the role of ACT inside NATO. The two major commands in NATOs relatively light organization deal with two different sides of NATOcurrent operations and preparing for the future. Located in Mons, Belgium, NATO Allied Command Operations handles the coordination of the numerous ongoing international operations under a NATO flag. NATO countries also provide forces for other operations such as Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria. ACT, on the other hand, is tasked with the business development side of the alliance. ACT is a somewhat overlooked node in a powerful network for the United States and the allianceand, because of the way the alliance works, also for U.S. national interests.

The organization behind NATO is relatively smallonly a few thousand people. NATO as an organization does not have significant military assets. The member states have control with their own armed forces and can choose to use them under a NATO hat or in an ad hoc coalition of the willing.

Through NATO, allied nations learn how to modernize their armed forces and invest for future capabilities and through training and regular standardization they develop common ways for operating together. The resulting interoperability means that NATO militaries are prepared to deploy and contribute to military operations also outside of NATO, such as in Operation Inherent Resolve. ACT plays a crucial role in this effort.

A move to Washington should not mean that NATO departs the Norfolk area. Instead, NATO should leave behind a planning cell that could provide the beginnings of a structure that could support U.S. reinforcements across the Atlantic in times of crisis. A linkage could be made with U.S. Fleet Forces Command, which is responsible for providing U.S. naval forces to the various geographical combatant commands.

Its time to bring NATO to Washington, both as a constant reminder of the alliance's importance to U.S. decision-makers and to energize ACTs purpose for being: transforming NATO toward tackling the many security challenges of the 21st century. And President Donald J. Trump should welcome having a strategic NATO command as a next-door neighbor.

Magnus Nordenman is the director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council. Henrik Breitenbauch is the director of the University of Copenhagens Centre for Military Studies and is a nonresident senior fellow with the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council.

Go here to see the original:

Let's bring NATO to Washington - DefenseNews.com

NATO – Opinion: Joint press point with NATO Deputy Secretary … – NATO HQ (press release)

Thank you very much.

President Dodon, welcome to NATOs Headquarters. And thank you for the very intensive and positive discussion that we had today. The Secretary General regrets very much that he could not greet you today in person, but he is not feeling well today.

Nevertheless, he looks forward to future opportunities and also asked me to convey that NATOs message here with regard to your country, to Moldova, is very clear. NATO respects the sovereignty of all nations. We firmly believe that every nation has the right to set its own course. To choose its own alliances. Or to choose not to align with anyone.

NATO fully respects Moldovas constitutional neutrality. Our Individual Partnership Action Plan recognises that Moldova is constitutionally neutral and does not wish to join the NATO Alliance. This document is on the website of the Moldovan Foreign Ministry so our cooperation is transparent to all.

But neutrality is not the same as isolation. And NATO works closely with other neutral countries such as Switzerland and Austria.

Moldova is a close partner to NATO. And I appreciate Moldovas contribution to our KFOR mission in Kosovo. This supports peace in the Western Balkans, it gives Moldovan troops valuable practical experience, and it shows that Moldova is a responsible contributor to international security.

Neutrality is built upon a foundation of strong institutions and good governance. NATO is helping Moldova in both areas.

We provide Moldovan civilian and military personnel with training and education to help fight corruption in the defence sector.

We helped Moldova to build a strong professional military education system, with Bachelors and Masters degrees, and other professional courses.

So far, 350 Moldovans have graduated from these courses, and 275 Moldovans are currently enrolled in studies.

NATO is committed to improving the lives of ordinary Moldovan people. NATO has spent 4.5 million euros on destroying dangerous pesticides, anti-personnel mines, surplus munitions and dangerously stored rocket fuel.

Almost 1,300 Moldovans have attended NATO courses on topics including logistics, border security and emergency planning. And last year, NATO paid for a new cyber defence laboratory at the Technical University of Moldova, to provide training in cyber defence.

Many of these programmes are civilian and not military in nature. All of them help to make Moldova safer and more secure. And everything that NATO does has been requested by the government of Moldova.

This year, a new NATO Liaison Office will open in Chisinau. This is not a military base, but a small diplomatic mission staffed only by civilians. There will be no NATO troops in Moldova.

NATO has long had liaison offices of this kind in other partner countries, such as Russia, Ukraine and Georgia.

As requested by the Moldovan government, the Office will facilitate our support for Moldovas ongoing reforms. It will also increase transparency about what NATO is and what it does with Moldova, which we think will be very interesting and we hope also beneficial to the Moldovan public.

Mr President, NATO fully supports a stable, secure and neutral Moldova. It is important that Moldova continues its democratic reforms notably on fighting corruption and strengthening the judiciary.

And it is important that Moldova remains committed to the values shared by all European democracies.

So thank you again sir for coming here today. Its a great honour to welcome you once again to the NATO Headquarters.

Moldova can count on the friendship of NATO. And now we look forward to hearing your remarks.

Thank you.

Q: Mr. President. I have a question to you. In 1991, 1992 you were 15 years old, when the Russian Federation having an army on your country took the international engagement to withdraw this army and 25 years after that the army was never withdrew and you are now the President of this country and you are now the Supreme Commander of the country and you are now speaking about neutrality of the country. What would you do to have a real neutral country? What would you do to make Russia to take out this army and to keep international commitments? The second part of my question is we have an other Russian army coming every day to each house of Moldovan citizens through tens of Russian TV stations, much more than needed and much more that any other country brings TV station and information to us and you and your party are part of this process, controlling and broadcasting a Russian TV station to Moldova. What as a president would you do for the informational security of your country? And third part of my question is you now are the president of the smallest, the poorest, the most vulnerable and very corrupt country in Europe and you and our country we are neighbours with the biggest, the most transparent military bloc in the world. How would you benefit from this neighbourship to make your country stronger, more transparent, less corrupt and richer? Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

IGOR DODON (President of the Republic of Moldova): [Interpreted]. You can clap again, Ill wait. Lets start with the first or the third point, lets start with the third point. Nobody will not makeorder in our country, will not fight corruption if we are not doing it. Representatives of so called independent mass media that you represent, you brought to the government corrupt politicians who are now in prison. You are the ones who gave that good reputation to all those democratic governments in the past that have stolen from the citizens of the Republic of Moldova, so that is why as citizens of this country will make war in our country.

Regarding the first point. I will do everything possible that the Republic of Moldova is a neutral state, should not, should not have troops from other states, doesnt matter from which countries. That is why for this it is necessary to find a political solution to the Trandniestrian issue. I am firmly convinced that now we have a window of opportunity. It is not such a big window, two, two and a half years, three years to find a political settlement, but believe me as soon as we find a political solution the issue of Russian army in Moldovan territory will be solved.

And regarding the Russian TV stations broadcasting in Moldova. Im not sure where you are staying here in Brussels but here in Brussels on TV I saw that they have Russian TV channels. That here in the centre of Europe, in the capital of the European Union are broadcasted freely, we do not have to impose to the citizens what to watch. It is not the issue of the propaganda that you so call it, the issue is within the country amongst the corrupt politicians. We should not hide after certain frustrations, behind certain frustrations that certain people have. That is why rest assured all the things will be resolved and we will fight for it. Thank you if you have other questions.

Q: [Interpreted]. Opening, so do I understand correctly the opening of the NATO Liaison Office will not take place? And the second question is whom will it bother from the external forces for this office not to be opened in Moldova?

IGOR DODON: [Interpreted]. I think that the opening of the NATO Liaison office in Chisinau is not beneficial to the majority of Russian, of Moldovans in my country. I do not care what others are saying from outside, I only care about neutrality and safety of the citizens of the Republic of Moldova. In my opinion opening this liaison office in Moldova will not ensure security of Moldovan citizens. This is my personal opinion and I express this issue. It is a provocation who, which was done by the governing coalition that did it before I became president regarding opening or not opening the liaison office, this is, this is of concern to NATO and the Government of the Republic of Moldova but in the eventual, if this NATO office will be opened in Moldova we will come back to this issue in the future and well only take into consideration the opinion of Moldovan population.

Q: [Interpreted]. First of all I would like to know also the position of the NATO official, NATO representative regarding the opening or not opening of the liaison office in Chisinau. Also I have a question for Mr. President Dodon. Mr. President before coming here to Brussels you made a very good statement in Chisinau, you said that Moldova has to cooperate absolutely with everybody in the interest of the Republic of Moldova. In relation to this statement that you made, if a strong well trained army including with NATO expertise is or isnt in the interest of the Republic of Moldova? And one addition, I wanted to ask you whether its true or not that you blocked this days the participants, participation of Moldovan army men at international military exercises organized within the framework of partnership for peace?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER (NATO Deputy Security General): I will just reemphasise the points that I made in my opening remarks and that is that this year a new NATO Liaison Office will open in Chisinau. I want to underscore this is not a military base but a small diplomatic mission that will be staffed only by civilians, including by the way by Moldovan nationals. There will be no NATO troops in Moldova. NATO has long had liaison offices of this kind in several capitals including in Moscow, including in Kiev, including in Tbilisi. So this is from our perspective something that will be good for Moldova. For one thing we see it as an opportunity to really present a clear and a solid picture to the Moldovan public who may have some questions about the NATO alliance, may not understand exactly what NATO is all about. We see it as a good platform to provide good information to your public about what NATO is and what it is not. It is a defensive alliance and we are working with Moldova according to the priorities that your government extends and says you need help with, for example in the area of military education and training. And so thats been a very, very successful area of our joint cooperation and we hope it will continue in an even more reemphasised and reinvigorated way going forward.

IGOR DODON: [Interpreted]. Regarding the two questions that you addressed. Yes I do consider that the Republic of Moldova should cooperate with everybody, absolutely, inclusive with NATO, including NATO and I mentioned this today that there have been certain programs that have beneficial for Republic of Moldova. For example the elimination of the pesticides et cetera but this does not mean that the presence of foreign soldiers on the territory of Republic of Moldova or participation of our youth, our soldiers in places where there are shootings and the war risks will be accepted by me. Yes these days I did not sign the detachment of a unit to participate in such an international exercise. First of all we need to appoint a Minister of Defence, a professional Minister of Defence and then see what we do next. There is such a request on my desk, Ive asked additional arguments and tomorrow when I come back I will see what are the arguments to participate in certain exercises in Romania, probably you are referring to this one yes? I did not sign right now, after I get back to Chisinau I will determine whether I will sign the detachment of the military unit to this exercise or not.

Regarding cooperation I am not against cooperation with the west and with the east in the interest, as long as it is in the interest of the citizens of the Republic of Moldova.

See original here:

NATO - Opinion: Joint press point with NATO Deputy Secretary ... - NATO HQ (press release)

NATO troops deploy in Lithuania, underscoring commitment to defense – Reuters

By Andrius Sytas and Andrea Shalal | RUKLA, Lithuania

RUKLA, Lithuania Germany and NATO on Tuesday underscored their commitment to beefing up the defense of eastern Europe's border with Russia as the first of four new batallions under the North Atlantic alliance's banner arrived in Lithuania.

In moves agreed last year under former U.S. President Barack Obama, NATO is expanding its presence in the region to levels unprecedented since the Cold War, prompted by Russia's annexation of Crimea and accusations - denied by Moscow - that it is supporting a separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine.

The German-led battle group of 1,000 troops in Lithuania will be joined this year by a U.S-led deployment in Poland, British-led troops in Estonia and Canadian-led troops in Latvia. They will add to smaller rotating contingents of U.S troops.

Doubts about the U.S. commitment to NATO have surfaced since the election of President Donald Trump, who has described NATO allies as "very unfair" for not contributing more financially to the alliance.

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said Europe realized it needed to strengthen defense cooperation and was doing more to solve its own problems.

She also said U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis reassured her about Washington's commitment to NATO in a recent telephone call.

"After what we discussed, I have no doubt about his deep conviction in the importance of NATO and the commitment of the Americans within NATO to what we have agreed," she said at a welcoming ceremony at Lithuania's Rukla military base, 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the Russian border.Von der Leyen is due to hold her first meeting with Mattis in Washington on Friday.

In a phone call on Sunday with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump agreed to meet alliance leaders in Europe in May.

Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite said the German battalion was arriving "(at) the right place and at the right time," adding she hoped the troops' stay would be peaceful.

A NATO official said the NATO forces would participate in a major exercise in eastern Europe in June. A second official said it would include a simulated nuclear attack.

There are no end dates for stay of the new contingents, which will rotate every six months partly to comply with NATO's 1997 promise to Russia to avoid "permanent stationing of substantial combat forces" in Central and Eastern Europe.

German officials said the battalion in Lithuania, which includes over 200 tanks and other ground vehicles, will be fully formed by June 2017, including troops from Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Luxembourg.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal and Andrius Sytas; editing by John Stonestreet)

CAIRO/WASHINGTON Friendly phone calls, an invite to the White House, a focus on Islamic militancy and what Donald Trump called "chemistry" have set the tone for a new era of warmer U.S.-Egyptian ties that could herald more military and political support for Cairo.

COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh More than 1,000 Rohingya Muslims may have been killed in a Myanmar army crackdown, according to two senior United Nations officials dealing with refugees fleeing the violence, suggesting the death toll has been a far greater than previously reported.

LONDON British foreign minister Boris Johnson has given up his U.S. citizenship, a U.S. Treasury Department list showed on Wednesday, a move the New York-born politician had said he would make.

Continue reading here:

NATO troops deploy in Lithuania, underscoring commitment to defense - Reuters

Trump talks NATO, terrorism with Turkey – Washington Examiner

President Trump spoke with Turkey's president Tayyip Erdogan about their countries' shared commitment to the fight against terrorism abroad and NATO during a phone conversation Tuesday.

The two leaders discussed the "close, long-standing relationship between the United States and Turkey and their shared commitment to combatting terrorism in all its forms," the White House said in a statement. Turkey has been a critical ally on the front-lines in the fight against ISIS, contributing ground troops on the battlefield in Syria.

Trump also reiterated the U.S.'s support of Turkey as a "strategic partner and NATO ally, and welcomed Turkey's contributions to the counter-ISIS campaign," the White House added.

The Trump administration's tune on NATO has differed than that of Trump's rhetoric during much of the presidential campaign, when he questioned the country's role in NATO, saying that the U.S. was contributing an unfair amount of money compared to other member nations.

Subscribe today to get intelligence and analysis on defense and national security issues in your Inbox each weekday morning from veteran journalists Jamie McIntyre and Jacqueline Klimas.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for the Daily on Defense newsletter. You should receive your first issue soon!

As president, the Trump White House has said Trump has repeatedly assured NATO allies of U.S. support for the alliance. He has done this while at the same time encouraging allies to meet their treaty obligation on defense spending minimums pegged at at least 2 percent of any country's GDP.

Top Story

Nordstrom dropped Ivanka Trump's fashion line following pressure from a left-leaning campaign.

02/08/17 2:23 PM

Read the rest here:

Trump talks NATO, terrorism with Turkey - Washington Examiner

Is NATO obsolete? – Arab News

What does US President Donald Trump think about NATO? Twice during his election campaign he rubbished it publically, saying it was obsolete. Yet this month, when he met UK Prime Minister Therese May, he told her he supported NATO 100 percent.

A few influential people have argued that it is indeed obsolete. One of them was William Pfaff, the late, much-esteemed columnist for the International Herald Tribune. Another is Paul Hockenos, who set out his views in a seminal article in World Policy Journal. Their words fell on deaf ears. Former US President George H.W. Bush saw it differently, and wanted to see the Soviet Union more involved in NATOs day-to-day work.

His successor Bill Clinton had another agenda, one that turned out to be dangerous, triggering Moscows current hostility toward the West: To expand NATO, incorporating one by one Russias former East European allies. His successors continued that approach, with Barack Obama raising a red rag to a bull by calling for the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia.

NATOs job, as British Secretary-General Lord Ismay said in 1967, was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. It certainly succeeded with the latter two.

To some extent, it did find a role after the Berlin Wall came down. It led humanitarian interventions in Bosnia in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999. In 2003 it deployed troops into Afghanistan. At one time the NATO-led force rose to 40,000 for 40 countries, including all 27 NATO allies.

Nevertheless, some of us do not see these as great successes. Most historians who have examined the evidence are convinced that the late Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had no intention of invading Western Europe. World War II was won, the Soviet Union had a ring of friends around its borders, and Germany was divided. The allies had been an invaluable help, and the Soviets did not feel threatened by their former comrades in arms.

So often overlooked is that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of defeating Germany, and lost by far the most fighting men and civilians. Thorough searches by Western historians through Soviet archives, opened under President Boris Yeltsin, have revealed that Moscow had no plans to invade Europe.

Yes, it is. The EU should take over most of NATOs role: Doing more of what it has done in Georgia and stabilizing the Balkans, making use of its massive soft power, and thus undergirding world security.

Jonathan Power

Today, despite its deployments in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, NATO is not a truly multilateral institution of equals. The Europeans do not initiate military action (with the exception of Libya, which led to the overthrow and killing of President Muammar Qaddafi). It is the Americans who do that, and the Europeans follow, whatever their reservations.

Moreover, obeying the US rather than following their own convictions in the former Yugoslavia, they did not seek UN Security Council permission, and then are angry that Russia followed suit with its grabbing of Crimea.

NATO has no relevance to the problems that truly occupy Europe today. Its hands are tied in Ukraine; it has nothing to contribute to the massive refugee crisis; it cannot help deal with the fact, as an EU study concluded, that there will be an increase in tensions over declining water supplies in the Middle East that will affect Europes security and economic interests; nor can it do anything to contribute to the fight against global warming, in the long run the most severe threat that confronts humanity.

Regarding the war on terrorism, there is little NATO can do as a combined action force. At home, each government deals with the issue itself. In the fight against Al-Qaeda and Daesh in Syria and Iraq, the Americans, Brits, French and Russians battle them in their own way.

In Afghanistan, NATO troops are losing territory to the Taliban year by year, and the poppy crop provides ever-more heroin to subvert Europe and Asia. It is difficult to believe that otherwise sensible men and women in NATO countries believe they should have stayed on in Afghanistan after their original target Al-Qaeda, the source of the Sept. 11 attacks was driven out of Afghanistan and dealt a severe body blow.

This was not in their UN mandate, and it has led to Americas longest war with no end in sight. It is a fruitless cause, and the defeat of the Taliban by these means should never have been attempted. NATO countries should have limited themselves to building schools, hospitals, clinics, water supplies, sanitation systems and roads.

The EU should take over most of NATOs role: Doing more of what it has done in Georgia and stabilizing the Balkans, making use of its massive soft power, and thus undergirding world security. Yes, NATO is obsolete.

Jonathan Power is a British journalist, filmmaker and writer. He was a foreign affairs columnist for the International Herald Tribune for 17 years.

More:

Is NATO obsolete? - Arab News

Vladimir Putin orders Russian Air Force to be prepared to launch attacks at ANY MINUTE as fears over World War III … – The Sun

Russian troops were placed on 'combat alert' amid massive NATO exercises currently underway in eastern Europe

VLADIMIR Putin has ordered his army and air force to prepare for a time of war during a check of the countrys armed forces.

Russias defence ministry confirmed the measures during a snap check that included its massive S-300 and S-400 missile defence systems.

Getty Images

Reuters

Reuters

AP:Associated Press

EPA

Minister Sergey Shoigu said: "As part of a snap combat readiness check of the Aerospace Force, units of the Aerospace Forces antiaircraft missile and radio-technical troops have arrived at the designated areas," TASS reported.

"Upon their arrival at the new positions, the crews of radar stations, S-300 and S-400 antiaircraft missile systems carried out maintenance work on their military hardware and went on combat alert.

"As the combat crews of radar stations and antiaircraft missile systems detect unidentified aerial targets, air defense patrol fighter jets will be scrambled to classify them or notionally destroy them."

The warning is a likely a response to the massive NATO operations currently underway in eastern Europe.

Germany and NATO this week underscored their commitment to beefing up the defence of eastern Europe's border with Russia as the first of four new batallions under the North Atlantic alliance's banner arrived in Lithuania.

In moves agreed last year under former President Barack Obama, NATO is expanding its presence in the region to levels unprecedented since the Cold War, prompted by Russia's annexation of Crimea and accusations that it is supporting a separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine.

The German-led battle group of 1,000 troops in Lithuania will be joined this year by a U.S-led deployment in Poland, British-led troops in Estonia and Canadian-led troops in Latvia.

EPA

AP:Associated Press

AP:Associated Press

Reuters

They will add to smaller rotating contingents of U.S troops.

Doubts about the US commitment to NATO have surfaced since the election of President Donald Trump, who has described NATO allies as "very unfair" for not contributing more financially to the alliance.

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said Europe realised it needed to strengthen defence cooperation and was doing more to solve its own problems.

She also said U.S. Secretary of Defence James Mattis reassured her about Washington's commitment to NATO in a recent telephone call.

"After what we discussed, I have no doubt about his deep conviction in the importance of NATO and the commitment of the Americans within NATO to what we have agreed," she said at a welcoming ceremony at Lithuania's Rukla military base, 62 miles from the Russian border.

Reuters

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us attips@the-sun.co.ukor call 0207 782 4368.

Go here to read the rest:

Vladimir Putin orders Russian Air Force to be prepared to launch attacks at ANY MINUTE as fears over World War III ... - The Sun

A Simple, Unthreatening Way to Shore Up NATO – ArmsControlWonk.com

Secretary of Defense James Mattis travelled to Asia to calm nerves in Tokyo and Seoul. Americas Asian allies have been unnerved by President Donald Trumps dismissive rhetoric about alliances based on cost/benefit grounds, and his decision to dump the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Americas European allies are also deeply unsettled by Trumps bad-mouthing of NATO and his inclination to view alliances as business transactions. Part of SecretaryMattiss and Secretary of State Rex Tillersons job descriptions areto help a President who shoots from the lip and whose understanding of geopolitics is skin deep.

SecretaryMattiss domestic audience is no less important than his interactions with foreign leaders. Much of the American public could use a refresher course on the value of alliances. Alliances are one important way in which the United States separates itself from other major powers. Russia has Belarus. China has North Korea and Pakistan. The United States has alliance partners that span the globe. These partners benefit from U.S. defense ties, while Washington benefits from their geography, bases, expeditionary forces, and military capabilities. Forward-deployed U.S. forces provide visible bonds of common purpose. It would be senseless to loosen these bonds when Russia and China are flexing their muscles and uncertainties abound about Americas direction. Backtracking would invite risk-taking, and risk-taking could invite crises and clashes, whoseoutcomes could alter power balances in Asia and Europe.

The Pentagon is already taking steps to reaffirm and strengthen the NATO alliance. It is rotating the presence of U.S. air, ground, and sea-based forces in Europe. It is conducting bilateral and multilateral training exercises with allied forces. Military equipment is being prepositioned in the Baltics and elsewhere. Infrastructure is being improved. These and other measures are being carried out under the aegis of the Pentagons European Reassurance Initiative. The Obama Administration requested $3.4 billion in fiscal 2017 for these initiatives quadrupling funding fromthe previous fiscal year. One clear indicator of the Trump Administrations thinking and Congressional intentions toward NATO will be whether this $3.4 billion investment in collective security is slashed or increased. Follow the money as well as Trumps rhetoric.

Another step the Trump Administration and the Congress can take to strengthen NATO is to recommit to the Open Skies Treaty first envisioned by President Eisenhower and negotiated during the George H.W. Bush Administration. President Bush challenged Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to prove that he truly supported openness, or glasnost, by agreeing to accept cooperative overflights with planes carrying approved, commercially available sensors. These arent spy missions, since everyone knows the flight plans and the sensors use unclassified technology. Gorbachev agreed, as did the rest of the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The Treaty permitting cooperative aerial overflights from Vancouver east to Vladivostok was signed in 1992. It took a decade to revise implementing procedures to reflect the dissolution of the Soviet Union and to secure the necessary ratifications. Since 2002, more than 1,000 cooperative missions have been flown an extraordinary testament to the foresight of Presidents Bush and Eisenhower.

What began as a symbol of openness has now become an effective means of reassuring allies and states around the periphery of Russia. The most useful aspect of the Open Skies Treaty is the ability of states to ride-share. This allows the United States Air Force to operate with friends and allies on board while overflying Russia. The United States is allowed 21 cooperative over-flights of Russia under the terms of the Treaty. The Air Force has partnered with Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy and others. This list might usefully be expanded to signify solidarity in these troubled times.

Whats not to like? Some critics simply dont like treaties, and they are working diligently to dismantle them. One reason in this case is that opponents object to the Treatys openness the very reason for its negotiation because itcould facilitate Russian spying. But the United States can exercise a veto over any new, unclassified sensors carried on cooperative over-flights. Another reason is that Russia isnt entirely cooperative about Open Skies flights especially over parts of Ukraine, Georgia, and Kaliningrad the heavily armed Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. The answer here is to keep pressing for full compliance, not to forfeit the benefits of the Treaty.

The biggest impediment to reaping the Treatys benefits lies with the U.S. Air Force. Open Skies isnt its priority. The two U.S. monitoring planes are old and prone to mechanical difficulties in sharp contrast to new Russian planes. A new Boeing 737 costs around $50 million; the Air Forces requirements could double this number, so two new Open Skies planes would cost around $200 million. By adding these funds to the European Reassurance Initiative, SecretaryMattis and Members of Congress can clearly demonstrate Americas commitment to European friends and allies.

Note to readers: An earlier version of this piecewas published atBreaking Defense on 2/7/17.

Continued here:

A Simple, Unthreatening Way to Shore Up NATO - ArmsControlWonk.com

Will Your Old Emails Finally Get Fourth Amendment Protections? – Reason (blog)

Balefire9 | Dreamstime.comOnce again, legislation that would give American citizens better privacy protections for their emails has passed the House of Representatives, but we're going to have to see what happens in the Senate.

The Email Privacy Act aims to correct a flaw in federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Passed in the relatively early days of home computer use, it established a policy that private electronic communications held by third parties that were more than 180 days old could be accessed by law enforcement and government investigators without the need for a warrant. A subpoena delivered to the communication provider was enough. A law this old obviously preceded the arrival and dominance of private email communications, and tech privacy activists and tech companies have been pushing for reform. The way the system stands now can result in people having their old private communications searched and read by authorities without the citizen's knowledge.

The Email Privacy Act fixes some of these problems, though it doesn't fully resolve the controversy Under the act, officials will need to get actual warrants to access emails and online communications, which provides at least a little more judicial oversight. But the warrants are to the providers, not to the actual people who wrote and sent the communications. It will be up to companies to decide whether to pass along the news of the warrant to customers. Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says that this is a flaw with the legislation. The original version of the bill required that government provide notice. Without that rule, the third-party provider can resist the warrant if they choose to, but the actual customer probably might not even know.

"If you don't have notice, you really can't effectively [challenge the warrant]," Singh Guliani said. The bill does permit third-party providers to let customers know about the administration of warrants, but also allows for the government to delay this information for 180 days under a handful of exceptionsif the target is a flight risk or may destroy evidence or otherwise compromise the investigation. And while some major tech and communication companies have fought back against orders to pass along data or to keep searches secret, Singh Guliani says we shouldn't have to be "reliant on the business practices of providers that can change over time to make sure people get the full protection of the Fourth Amendment."

Still, the compromise bill is better than the current rules. No representative voted against it last session of Congress, and it passed again yesterday by a voice vote. But while the bill enjoys popular bipartisan support in the House, the last attempt to get it passed hit disaster in the Senate. Senators attempted to meddle with the wording of the bill to weaken it or add other unrelated regulations. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) attempted to add an amendment to expand the surveillance reach of secretive National Security Letters. Sponsoring senators ended up yanking the legislation from consideration.

The Senate sponsors last session were Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). A representative from Sen. Lee's office said that he intends to co-sponsor the Senate version of the bill again this year, but it has not yet been introduced. This could be the first legislative test of whether increased privacy protections can make its way to and through a presidential administration openly hostile to limits on any sort of investigative or law enforcement authority (as we saw earlier today). President Donald Trump is hardly alone and he's not responsible for its previous problems, but it's nevertheless legislation that should not be struggling at all.

And a little bit of self-promotion: I'll be leading a panel discussion on the Fourth Amendment, tech privacy, and Congressional lawmaking in this March's South by Southwest (SXSW) conference. Singh Guliani will be one of our panelists. Check out the details here if you find yourself in Austin on March 10. Efforts like the Email Privacy Act will be part of the discussion.

View original post here:

Will Your Old Emails Finally Get Fourth Amendment Protections? - Reason (blog)

Connecticut: Anti-Gun Bill which Violates Fourth Amendment Heads to Committee – NRA ILA

Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., the Joint Committee on the Judiciary will hold a meeting to decide whether the committee isgoingto hearHouse Bill 6200.Introduced by state Representatives Caroline Simmons (D-144), William Tong (D-147), and Daniel J. Fox (D-148), HB 6200 would require a person openly carrying a firearm to display their permit immediately upon demand by law enforcement. Please contact the members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary and urge them not to hear this bill!Please click the Take Action button below to contact the committee members!

It is legal to openly carry a handgun in Connecticut so long as the person has a valid Permit to Carry. Connecticut State Police Training Bulletin 2013-01 states that personnel shouldNOTarrest a properly permitted individual merely for publicly carrying a hand gun or firearm in plain view absent exigent circumstances. Examples of these exigent circumstances are a Breach of Peace situation or the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor/drugs.

Under the Fourth Amendment, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio nearly half a century ago, police officers can stop and briefly detain a person to investigate only if they have a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts that criminal activity is occurring. This is why Connecticut law should require that officers must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed before they can request proof of a permit.

This proposed bill is the equivalent of allowing the police to stop a motorist to demand their drivers license solely because they are driving. Law-abiding people carry firearms for self-defense. They shouldn't be treated as being engaged in criminal activity simply because they are choosing to openly exercise their constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

See the article here:

Connecticut: Anti-Gun Bill which Violates Fourth Amendment Heads to Committee - NRA ILA

Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

Florida state law 790.33 articulates, in short, that only the Florida State Legislature can and will regulate statewide laws encompassing anything firearms and ammunition related. This law is in place to ensure the state of Florida in its entirety remains consistent withgoverning gun laws. This safeguardslaw-abiding citizens from beingprosecuted for crossing a county or municipality line and accidentally violatinga local firearm law. Add to that the fact that misinformation or accidental ignorance can become an issue, when these laws can become extraneous and too numerous for the well-intended citizen to keep track of.

While Florida state law renders alllocal firearms laws moot, unfortunately, somelocal laws are still alive in certain municipalities and have remained in place because of an effort to exert some level of local autonomy. These municipalities are aware that these ordinances are illegal in the big picture, but refuse to erase them from their books.

The Florida state legislature further regulatespenalties on anyone who chooses to obstruct the state laws by imposing their illegal ordinances.

Tallahassee Mayor, Andrew Gillum, found himself named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought against him by Florida Carry and the Second Amendment Foundation with support of the NRA. The Mayor defends his position, and refuses to remove a law still on the books. This law states that no guns shall be fired in parks located within the city limits of Tallahassee.

The judge in this case recently ruled in favor of the Mayor and all city officials named, finding there has been no wrong-doing on their part. The ruling is currently under appeal, based upon the constitutionality of this law.

Gillum feels he is within his right, as an elected official to enforce and uphold laws that are in his constituents best interests. He feels the state oversight is in direct opposition to what he was elected to do.The flip side to that is that picking and choosing what to uphold is counter-intuitive, andone of the fundamental elements tothis appeal.

What the Mayor is seemingly overlooking with State Law 790.33 is the bigger picture and how it affects all law-abiding gun owners and concealed carriers who reside within his governance and are some of the individuals who elected him into office.

With the appeal of the decision of the district court, its going to be up to Court of Appeals to consider the final outcome.

All law-abiding gun ownersof Florida should pay close attention the outcome of this case could have huge implications for them moving forward.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

More here:

Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to Second Amendment Rights - Bearing Arms

Second Amendment rights activists rally in Annapolis – ABC2News … – ABC2 News

Winter Storm Warningissued February 8 at 2:50PM EST expiring February 9 at 10:00AM EST in effect for: Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, Schuylkill, York

Winter Weather Advisoryissued February 8 at 10:39AM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick

Winter Weather Advisoryissued February 8 at 11:52AM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Baltimore, Baltimore City

Winter Weather Advisoryissued February 8 at 9:48AM EST expiring February 9 at 2:00PM EST in effect for: Kent, Queen Annes

Winter Storm Warningissued February 8 at 9:48AM EST expiring February 9 at 4:00PM EST in effect for: Cecil

Winter Storm Watchissued February 8 at 4:51AM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Allegany, Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick, Washington

Winter Storm Warningissued February 8 at 4:13AM EST expiring February 9 at 10:00AM EST in effect for: Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, Schuylkill, York

Winter Storm Watchissued February 7 at 9:28PM EST expiring February 9 at 6:00PM EST in effect for: Cecil

Winter Storm Watchissued February 7 at 4:02PM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Adams, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Mifflin, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Schuylkill, Snyder, Union, York

Continue reading here:

Second Amendment rights activists rally in Annapolis - ABC2News ... - ABC2 News

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays’ Rebellion – Sleepy Eye Herald Dispatch

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Continued here:

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Sleepy Eye Herald Dispatch

13 attorneys general seek Second Amendment protections – Ottawaherald.com

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has asked congressional leaders to take action to protect Second Amendment rights of Social Security beneficiaries, according to a news release.

A group of 13 state attorneys general, including Schmidt, Wednesday urged congressional leaders to repeal an overreaching federal regulation that they said denies certain Social Security beneficiaries the right to keep and bear arms, according to the release.

In late December 2016, the Social Security Administration under then-President Obamas direction published a final rule that broadened a previously narrow prohibition for those adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution to include numerous individuals that Congress never intended to cover with this exclusion, such as program beneficiaries with representatives or alternate payees, according to the release.

This new rule allows the Social Security Administration to designate an individual a mental defective by its own discretion and relies heavily on overly broad definitions included in previous guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the release.

Read the original here:

13 attorneys general seek Second Amendment protections - Ottawaherald.com

Commentary: New senator wants to shred First Amendment protection – Elko Daily Free Press

Nevadas newly elected U.S. senator, Catherine Cortez Masto, has already taken up the cudgel against the First Amendment previously wielded by her predecessor, Harry Reid.

She put out a press release recently announcing that she has joined with other congressional Democrats to reintroduce a constitutional amendment that would overturn Supreme Court rulings that have held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to restrict the amount of money corporations, nonprofits, unions and other groups may spend on political campaigns and when they may spend it.

In its current incarnation it is being called the Democracy for All Amendment. In previous years it bore the unwieldy acronym DISCLOSE Act Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. Reid frequently took to the floor of the Senate to pound the table for the amendment and disparage the Koch brothers political spending as the embodiment of evil.

The U.S. Constitution puts democratic power in the hands of the American people not corporations or private companies, the press release quotes Cortez Masto as saying. Since the Citizens United decision, big corporations have gained unprecedented influence over elections and our countrys political process. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation; its critical that we end unlimited corporate contributions if we are going to have a democratic process and government that will truly work for all Americans.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibited organizations such as Citizens United, a political action committee, from expending funds for electioneering immediately prior to an election. In this case the Federal Election Commission blocked the 2008 broadcast of Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clintons presidential bid.

During the arguments in the case, the Justice Department attorney defending the law admitted the law also would censor books critical of candidates, though newspapers and other media, most owned by large corporations, were exempted from the law and may criticize, editorialize and endorse or oppose candidates freely. Some corporations are more equal than others.

Cortez Mastos statement concluded, The Democracy for All Amendment returns the right to regulate elections to the people by clarifying that Congress and the states can set reasonable regulations on campaign finance and distinguish between individuals and corporations in the law.

The problem is that free speech is not free if the incumbent government satrapy can curtail its dissemination.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained this in his majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: As a restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign, that statute necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. (Government could repress speech by attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas, for effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others).

The fact the expenditure is coming from a group instead of an individual does not negate the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely, because it also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

An assembly is not just a crowd of people on the street, it is also an organization.

Reid in one of this many diatribes on the subject said: But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced. Lets keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons. It is time that we revive our constituents faith in the electoral system, and let them know that their voices are being heard.

This implies the voters are too stupid to hear an open and free-wheeling debate and not be influenced by the volume or frequency of the message.

Lest we forget, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was outspent by Hillary Clinton by two-to-one $600 million to $1.2 billion.

Censorship is unAmerican and unnecessary. Cortez Masto should abandon this assault on free speech.

See more here:

Commentary: New senator wants to shred First Amendment protection - Elko Daily Free Press