Monthly Archives: August 2017

Unitarian Universalism and Pantheism World Pantheism

Posted: August 13, 2017 at 1:59 am

Pantheism and Unitarian Universalism: A harmonious match

Unitarian Universalism is based on the shared values of the Seven Principles, such as peace, democracy, tolerance and justice. However, it does not promote any particular answers to the ultimate questions about human existence is there a God or gods? Are our souls separate from our bodies? Do we have personal afterlives? Is the Universe a projection of a collective consciousness?

Most people need answers to ultimate questions, and most UUs add in these answers from some other source, such as Humanism, Buddhism, Paganism, Christianity and so on.

Scientific Pantheism is extremely compatible with the Seven Principles of UUism. If you love nature and are science-minded in your outlook, you may find that it provides a nice complement to UUism.

Many World Pantheist Movement members belong to Unitarian Universalist congregations and some are UU ministers. They tell us that perhaps a third or a half of Unitarian Universalists are probably strongly sympathetic to Pantheism.

The essence of Pantheism is a profound reverence for Nature and the wider Universe and awed recognition of their power, beauty and mystery. Some Pantheists use the word God to describe these feelings, but the majority prefer not to, so as to avoid ambiguity.

From this feeling flows the desire to make the most of our present life in our bodies on this earth, to care for nature, and to respect the rights of humans and animals in general. We choose to focus on the vibrant and urgent here and now, rather than on invisible realms, spirits, deities or afterlives.

We feel that Nature and the wider Universe are the most appropriate focus for our deepest reverence, rather than supernatural beings or afterlives. We believe that everything that exists is a part of Nature and tend to be skeptical of supernatural phenomena.

We believe that mind and body are an inseparable unity, and so we do not expect personal survival after death. Instead we look forward to a natural persistence of our time on earth, in the actions and creations we leave behind, memories people hold of us, and recycling of our elements in Nature.

Many people who have these feelings dont call it Pantheism they may call it atheism plus wonder and awe, they may call it religious humanism, spiritual humanism, religious naturalism or some other variant, or they may not have a name for it.

A related tendency often found in Unitarian Universalist congregations is Panentheism. Panentheists hold that God is present in and throughout nature and humans, but also transcends them and is much greater than them. By contrast Pantheists consider that God is identical with Nature and the wider Universe, and use the term (if at all) primarily to express their own feelings towards Nature.

Basically Panentheism is a form of belief in a creator God, while Pantheism is not. Panentheism is fully compatible with traditional Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but Pantheism is not.

The two organizations complement each other neatly. World Pantheism shares the values of the UU Seven Principles. We are strongly committed to religious freedom, separation of church and state, religious tolerance and the teaching of science free from religious interference. We filed afriend-of-court brief in the US Supreme Court case, opposing the under God wording in the Pledge.

We have collected more signatures for UNESCOs Manifesto for Peace and Non-Violence than any other US voluntary organization.

We are signatories of the Earth Charter. We endorse and greatly expand on the Unitarian Universalist seventh principle Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. Active care for the environment is a central part of our ethic, along with human and animal rights. We aresaving rainforest via EcologyFund faster than any other religious or environmental group.

Many Unitarian Universalists, including ministers, are members and friends of the World Pantheist Movement. WPM members who belong to UU churches in some cases run courses on pantheism or pantheist services or regular small group meetings of pantheists. The WPM offers manyresources for Unitarian Universalists interested in pantheist services or groups.

Unitarian Universalism is a context where you meet sensible sociable tolerant people with varying religious philosophies for shared spiritual exploration and social action. But Unitarian Universalist congregations are focused more on broad spiritual exploration and social justice, and UUism in itself does not offer answers to lifes ultimate questions. Many people need both a social context AND a belief context in order to feel comfortable with their place in the universe.

With its special focus on Nature and Naturalism, World Pantheism can be considered as one of the main flavors of Unitarian Universalism, such as UU Buddhism, Religious Humanism, Unitarian Universalist Paganism and so on. If you consider yourself an atheist or humanist with spiritual feelings and a deep love of nature or if you are a pagan who enjoys nature-oriented celebration but does not believe in the literal reality of gods, spirits and magick then World Pantheism may be the spiritual context you are looking for.

Here is the original post:
Unitarian Universalism and Pantheism World Pantheism

Posted in Pantheism | Comments Off on Unitarian Universalism and Pantheism World Pantheism

Atheism: the latest whipping boy for Malaysia’s pre-election politics? – South China Morning Post

Posted: at 1:59 am

Arrawdah comes from a middle-class Muslim-Malay family. Well-travelled and fluent in both English and Bahasa Malaysia, he seems the epitome of the moderate Islam supposedly practised in Malaysia.

But as a closeted atheist, Arrwadah faces family conflict on a regular basis when his parents ask why he does not attend Friday prayers, when he hides his alcohol consumption from his siblings, and when he eats in secret during the holy month of Ramadan.

But recently, he and a group of atheist friends from various religious backgrounds were outed by a photo going viral on social media, and have since become the target of hate from fundamentalist quarters as well as the subject of a government crackdown.

The non-profit group Atheist Republics Malaysian chapter, or Consulate, met in early August for dinner and drinks, and posted a photo with the caption: Atheists from all walks of life came to meet one another, some for the very first time each sharing their stories and forming new friendships that hopefully last a lifetime! We rock!

The photo, which depicted a group of young, casually dressed Malaysians from different ethnic backgrounds, quickly made the rounds online. Shortly thereafter, the government announced a crackdown to determine if any Muslims were involved in the gathering.

In multiracial and largely Muslim Malaysia, apostasy from Islam is a criminal offence in several states and under a proposal to introduce the strict Islamic penal code known as hudud, the penalty would be death.

Although this punishment is not yet enforceable due to restrictions by federal law, apostates can still be slapped with a hefty fine, sent for detention in Islamic rehabilitation centres, jailed and even whipped.

The Islamic Affairs Department is reported to have said that state religious departments can take action against any Muslims suspected of apostasy depending on where the crime takes place. A federal minister in the Prime Ministers Department, Shahidan Kassim, said during a press conference in parliament that atheists should be hunted down vehemently as the constitution of Malaysia did not allow for atheism. He claimed that the cause of atheism was a lack of religious education, and the youths were misled into a new school of thought.

Dr Maszlee Malik, a senior lecturer at the International Islamic University Malaysia, believes the crackdown is a political red herring meant to draw public attention away from real bread-and-butter issues.

These kinds of activities were well-planned to be sensationalised before the election. [The ruling coalition] Barisan Nasional [BN] will stir religious and racial sentiments, and its unfortunate these youths couldnt read the situation. BN just needs more controversial issues so they can prove to majority rural and conservative Malays that they are the real defenders of Islam.

Maszlee predicts the next big issues in the playbook will be LGBT rights, Christianity and then liberalism as long as these fringe groups are vocal or provocative all to sway people from the real issues such as the 1Malaysia Development Berhad [1MDB] corruption scandal, GST [goods and services tax], kleptocracy, the Chinasisation of the economy, corruption and so on.

This was echoed by Dr Ahmad Farouk Mousa, director of the think tank Islamic Renaissance Front, who said that this move, along with other fundamentalist gestures such as allowing unilateral child conversion, was merely to appease hardliners.

This group is a lifeline to the current ruling coalition in the face of massive corruption. As for the government the state really doesnt have any legitimacy to interfere because what these kids are doing is not curtailing any other citizens temporal rights.

Lutheran pastor Rev Dr Sivin Kit, who is also director of the Centre for Religion and Society, raises the same concerns.

The minister really overreacted calling for hunting down people is disproportionate to the event in question. We received more measured, thoughtful reactions from some state muftis, but the political leaders seemed far more invested than the religious ones. We should be more critical of their reaction as opposed to young people posting up pictures Im actually very cautious and guarded about why the political leaders are so excited about this.

For the youths in the photo, the threatened crackdown poses very real risks. Some have been outed to their families and others have gone digitally underground to avoid threatening messages.

For Arrawdah (not his real name), 26, being an atheist in Malaysia and coming from a conservative Muslim family is an exhausting ordeal.

Theocratic laws have done nothing good for us: arresting good people for doing nothing wrong, subjecting them to punishment that wouldnt be carried out to people of different faiths, separating children from their mothers because of a difference of religion, punishing people for their sexual identity or preferences, punishing people for sex. But I think hardest of all is having to live behind a mask every single day, having to lie to your peers, family, and friends day in, day out. Constantly pretending to be someone youre not in front of your loved ones and not letting them know who you really are. Its draining, he said.

The gathering, he said, was just a casual meeting of like-minded friends and the governments reaction was not commensurate with the crime.

Some choose to discuss topics pertaining to religion, and at times human rights issues dominate the conversations. But to be honest, most of us just want to talk about the latest Game of Thrones episode. The government is overreacting, but Im not surprised. Ideas that bring about social progress, that challenge antiquated religious dogma have always been seen as a threat. Ideas like womens suffrage, gender equality and LGBT rights.

Dr Azmi Sharom, an associate professor at University Malayas Law Faculty, said that the authorities mistrust of otherness wasnt restricted to atheism.

The authorities tend to demonise Muslims who do not follow their school of thought. This includes Ahmadiyas and Shias. The insistence of there being only one school of Islamic thought in Malaysia has become part of the public landscape for many years now. So, no, apostates are not being unfairly demonised the Islamic authorities demonise all who disagree with them. They are equal opportunity demonisers.

Atheist Republic founder Armin Navabi said that the Malaysian government had to think long and hard before taking action against people for merely attending a meeting.

Does the Malaysian government really want their image to be put right next to countries like Saudi Arabia? To treat these people like criminals, people who havent harmed anybody? They must surely see how ridiculous that will look to the rest of the civilised world, he said.

Progress comes in small victories, said Arrawdah. The more exposed the public are to our existence, the more attainable that progress becomes.

See the original post here:
Atheism: the latest whipping boy for Malaysia's pre-election politics? - South China Morning Post

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheism: the latest whipping boy for Malaysia’s pre-election politics? – South China Morning Post

Film: The Tiny West Virginia Town Haunted by an NSA Secret – The Intercept

Posted: at 1:54 am

Sugar Grove, West Virginia was, by the accounts of its residents, a fine place to live until the Pentagon shuttered the sprawling naval base that sustained the town for decades leaving it with a state secret as its sole remaining attraction. A new documentary film by director Elaine McMillion Sheldon, a longtime chronicler of West Virginian life, visitsSugar Grove after the base was decommissioned and being auctionedoff, and traces the abiding shadow of a nearby National Security Agency facility still looming over the town.

The film is embedded above.

Antennae at the NSA listening post, codenamed TIMBERLINE, were built to capture Soviet satellite messages as they bounced off the moon, imbuing a pristine stretch of Appalachia with a sort of cosmic gravity. Residents lived with the knowledge that something was hidden away on a hilltop above the town, even if it was something they could never know. TIMBERLINEs mission has, to say the least, changed in the intervening years, as submarine-laid internet cables have become a greater priority for American spies than foreign satellite communication.

TIMBERLINE remains operational, but the facility, known to locals as the off-limits Upper Base, was never what kept Sugar Grove alive. The towns heart was the sprawling Lower naval base that served as a robust employer and de facto community center until the Sept. 11 attacks, when residents say even the Navy gym and recreational areas theyd always enjoyed were sealed up, like forbidding TIMBERLINE. Sheldons film reveals a parcel of the country thats dealing not just with a faltering economy and collapsed job base hardly unique to Sugar Grove but also with a legacy thats literally unspeakable. One of the only moments the film captures of anyone talking about the NSAs presence in Sugar Grove comes from a General Services Administration auctioneer Kristine Carson in a vacant naval gymnasium. Asked about the Upper Base, Carson notes, with a small smile, Its underground, I understand. Of course I cant speak to that.

Top video: The film is directed and produced by Elaine McMillion Sheldon/Field of Vision.

See original here:
Film: The Tiny West Virginia Town Haunted by an NSA Secret - The Intercept

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Film: The Tiny West Virginia Town Haunted by an NSA Secret – The Intercept

Russia’s ‘Fancy Bear’ Hackers Used Leaked NSA Tool to Target Hotel Guests – WIRED

Posted: at 1:54 am

Julio Lopez Saguar/Getty Images

Appropriately paranoid travelers have always been wary of hotel Wi-Fi. Now they have a fresh justification of their worst wireless networking fears: A Russian espionage campaign has used those Wi-Fi networks to spy on high-value hotel guests, and recently started using a leaked NSA hacking tool to upgrade their attacks.

Since as early as last fall, the Russian hacker group known as APT28, or Fancy Bear, has targeted victims via their connections to hacked hotel Wi-Fi networks, according to a new report from security firm FireEye, which has closely tracked the groups intrusions, including its breach of the Democratic National Committee ahead of last years election. Last month, FireEye says those hackers, believed to be associated with the Russian military intelligence service GRU, have begun to use EternalBlue, the leaked NSA hacking tool, as one technique to broaden their control of hotel networks after gaining an initial foothold via phishing or other techniques. Disturbingly, once those hackers take control of hotels' Wi-Fi, theyre using that access to harvest victim computers usernames and passwords silently, with a trick that doesnt even require users to actively type them when signed onto the hotel network.

Its definitely a new technique" for the prolific Fancy Bear hacker group, says Ben Read, who leads FireEyes espionage research team. Its a much more passive way to collect on people. You can just sit there and intercept stuff from the Wi-Fi traffic.

FireEye says it first saw evidence that Fancy Bear might be targeting hotels in the fall of last year, when the company analyzed an intrusion that had started on one corporate employee's computer. The company traced that infection to the victim's use of a hotel Wi-Fi network while traveling; 12 hours after the person had connected to that network, someone connected to the same Wi-Fi network had used the victim's own credentials to log into their computer, install malware on their machine, and access their Outlook data. That implies, FireEye says, that a hacker had been sitting on the same hotel's network, possibly sniffing its data to intercept the victim's credentials.

Then, just last month, FireEye learned of a series of similar Wi-Fi attacks at hotels across seven European capitals and one Middle Eastern capital. In each case, hackers had first breached the target hotel's networkFireEye believes via the common tactic of phishing emails carrying infected attachments that included malicious Microsoft Word macros. They then used that access to launch the NSA hacking tool EternalBlue, leaked earlier this year in a collection of NSA internal data by hackers known as the ShadowBrokers, which allowed them to quickly spread their control through the hotels' networks via a vulnerability in Microsoft's so-called "server message block" protocol, until they reached the servers managing the corporate and guest Wi-Fi networks.

From there, the attackers used a network-hacking tool called Responder, which allowed them not only to monitor traffic on the hijacked networks, but also to trick computers connecting to them to cough up users' credentials without giving victims any sign of the theft. When the victim computer reaches out to known services like printers or shared folders, Responder can impersonate those friendly entities with a fake authentication process, fooling the victim machine into transmitting its network username and password. And while the password is sent in a cryptographically hashed form, that hashing can sometimes be cracked. (FireEye believes, for instance, that hackers used Responder to steal the hotel guest's password in the 2016 case; the 12-hour delay may have been the time it took to crack the hash.)

In each case, FireEye says that the hacked networks were those of moderately high-end hotels, the kind that attract presumably valuable targets. "These were not super expensive places, but also not the Holiday Inn," FireEye's Read says. "They're the type of hotel a distinguished visitor would stay in when theyre on corporate travel or diplomatic business."

But FireEye says it doesn't know whether the hackers had specific visitors in mind, or were simply casting a wide net for potential victims. "Maybe this was designed just to establish a foothold and see who shows up, or maybe they were just testing something out," says Read. Other than victim whose case they analyzed last year, the company's analysts couldn't confirm any individual victims whose credentials were stolen from the target hotels.

FireEye says it has "moderate confidence" in its conclusion that Fancy Bear conducted both the 2016 hotel attack and the more recent spate. It bases that assessment on the use of two pieces of Fancy Bear-associated malware, known as GameFish and XTunnel, planted on hotel and victim computers. The company also points to clues in the command and control infrastructure of that malware and information about the victims, which it's not making public.

If Fancy Bear is in fact behind the hotel espionage spree, FireEye notes that the group's use of EternalBlue would represent the first publicly confirmed time that Russian hackers have used one of the NSA hacking techniques leaked in the ShadowBrokers' scandal. But the Ukrainian government has already blamed Russia for the creation of the NotPetya malware, which used EternalBlue to spread within victims' networks as it crippled thousands of companies earlier this summer. (The security firms ESET has also linked NotPetya with a hacking group called TeleBots or Sandworm , which FireEye has tied to Russia.) EternalBlue has also helped enable other hacking epidemics from the WannaCry ransomware to cryptocurrency-mining malware. That proliferation of a powerful and silent NSA hacking tool has caused controversy for the agency and scrutiny of its suspected stockpile of secret computer intrusion techniques, despite the fact that the NSA helped Microsoft to distribute a patch for the flaw EternalBlue exploited months before it was used in the WannaCry campaign.

The Fancy Bear hotel-hacking campaign would also represent a new evolution of the group's intrusion techniques, which have been used in everything from stealthy spying campaigns to noisy, disruptive operations, like the data-destroying attack on the French television station TV5Monde, or the leaks from the DNC and Clinton campaigns last year.

But more broadly, sophisticated hackers infiltrating hotels to spy on their guests has happened before. A similar campaign known as DarkHotel, believed to be the work of North Korea cyberspies, came to light in 2014 . The Duqu 2.0 malware , widely believed to be the work of Israeli hackers, was found in the networks of European hotels hosting Iranian nuclear negotiations the following year.

All of which should serve as a reminder that hotel networks are not safe havens for travelers with sensitive information. FireEye's Read warns that even using a VPN may not prevent the leakage of private credentials that Responder exploits, though he notes that vulnerability likely depends on which proxy software someone is using. But the safest approach, for any traveler with truly valuable secrets to keep, is to bring your own wireless hotspotand then stay off the hotel's Wi-Fi altogether.

The rest is here:
Russia's 'Fancy Bear' Hackers Used Leaked NSA Tool to Target Hotel Guests - WIRED

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Russia’s ‘Fancy Bear’ Hackers Used Leaked NSA Tool to Target Hotel Guests – WIRED

EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows … – EFF

Posted: at 1:54 am

WASHINGTON, D.C.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn an unprecedented ruling allowing the government to intercept, collect, and storewithout a warrantmillions of Americans electronic communications, including emails, texts, phone calls, and online chats.

This warrantless surveillance is conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law is exceedingly broadSection 702 allows the government to conduct surveillance of any foreigner abroadand the law fails to protect the constitutional rights of Americans whose texts or emails are incidentally collected when communicating with those people.

This warrantless surveillance of Americans is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ruling in U.S. v. Mohamud, decided that the Fourth Amendment doesnt apply to Americans whose communications were intercepted incidentally and searched without a warrant. The case centered on Mohammed Mohamud, an American citizen who in 2012 was charged with plotting to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. After he had already been convicted, Mohamud was told for the first time that information used in his prosecution was obtained using Section 702. Further disclosures clarified that the government used the surveillance program known as PRISM, which gives U.S. intelligence agencies access to communications in the possession of Internet service providers such as Google, Yahoo, or Facebook, to obtain the emails at issue in the case. Mohamud sought to suppress evidence gathered through the warrantless spying, arguing that Section 702 was unconstitutional.

In a dangerous and unprecedented ruling, the Ninth Circuit upheld the warrantless search and seizure of Mohamuds emails. EFF, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and New Americas Open Technology Institute filed a petition today asking the Supreme Court to review that decision.

The ruling provides an end-run around the Fourth Amendment, converting sweeping warrantless surveillance directed at foreigners into a tool for spying on Americans, said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. Section 702 is unlike any surveillance law in our countrys history, it is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court should take this case to put a stop to this surveillance.

Section 702, which is set to expire in December unless Congress reauthorizes it, provides the government with broad authority to collect, retain, and search Americans international communications, even if they dont contain any foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime.

We urge the Supreme Court to review this case and Section 702, which subjects Americans to warrantless surveillance on an unknown scale, said EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker. We have long advocated for reining in NSA mass surveillance, and the incidental collection of Americans private communications under Section 702 should be held unconstitutional once and for all.

For the petition: https://www.eff.org/document/mohamud-eff-cert-petition

For more on Section 702: https://www.eff.org/document/702-one-pager-adv

For more on NSA spying:https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

Read the original here:
EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows ... - EFF

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows … – EFF

Does Mueller’s grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? – PolitiFact

Posted: at 1:53 am

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has opened a grand jury in Washington, D.C., for his investigation into Russian election meddling and possible coordination by Trump campaign associates, according to multiple news reports. We decided to review the significance of this move, so we asked legal experts for their views on several questions related to grand juries.

What is a grand jury and what is its job?

The grand jury traces its roots to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That provision says that "(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

When a court impanels a federal grand jury, jurors are tasked with figuring out whether enough evidence exists to formally accuse someone of a felony. Unlike a trial jury, a grand jury does not play a role in determining guilt or punishment. Rather, this panel of 16 to 23 citizens serves a gatekeeping function for issuing indictments.

In modern practice, the grand jury is a potent investigative tool for prosecutors, said Andrew D. Leipold, a law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law.

"People dont generally have a duty to cooperate with law enforcement," Leipold said. "So if the police or FBI questions someone, typically that person is not required to answer. And generally unless the police have a warrant, they cant make a person produce documents."

"But a grand jury can do that," he said.

In Muellers case, he could not conduct an effective investigation without a grand jury, said Ric Simmons, a law professor at Ohio State University.

"The prosecutor does not have subpoena power on his or her own," he said. "He or she needs the grand jury to issue subpoenas for documents and to compel testimony."

To issue an indictment, a grand jury needs to believe a federal crime was probably committed. This threshold, known as the "probable cause" standard, is a far easier hurdle to clear than the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict. Grand juries are also one-sided ordeals, where neither defendants nor their lawyers have the right to appear before jurors to refute incriminating evidence.

For these reasons, lawyers have a saying that any halfway decent prosecutor should be able to indict a ham sandwich. But its important to emphasize that someone who is indicted has not yet been found guilty, and may never be.

How has Special Counsel Robert Mueller used grand juries so far?

Muellers appointment in May as special counsel granted him fairly broad jurisdiction.

The Justice Department authorized him to lead an investigation into Russias interference in the 2016 election, as well as any links or coordination between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates, plus "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Grand juries are supposed to operate in secrecy, but because they issue subpoenas and compel testimony, their work sometimes becomes public. Our best understanding of how Mueller has used grand juries is based primarily on anonymously sourced news reports.

In June, Reuters reported that Mueller was taking over a grand jury investigation in Virginia that had been looking into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The investigation got fresh attention when the Wall Street Journal reported in August that a new grand jury had convened weeks earlier in Washington, D.C., to focus on his investigation.

That same day, Reuters reported the new grand jury had issued subpoenas related to a controversial June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer, and several others (CNN also reported on the subpoenas). The meeting was predicated on the promise that a "Russian government attorney" would deliver damaging information to Trump Jr. about his fathers Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Why would Mueller open up a new grand jury?

While Muellers precise rationale for seeking more than one grand jury is not publicly known, legal experts told us its a fairly unsurprising move for a special prosecutor because it carries several advantages.

Grand juries typically divide their attention among multiple cases. So its possible Mueller believes he can operate more smoothly with a panel of jurors focused exclusively on whats potentially a large volume of information.

"In special investigations, rather than ordinary criminal cases, it is not uncommon to impanel a special grand jury," said Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Ohio State University. "This way, the jurors will become increasingly knowledgeable about the matters at issue, and they can focus on just one matter."

Theres a number of other theories for Muellers move.

Some believe his grand jury was meant to make it easier to broaden the scope of his investigation beyond Flynn.Others say a Washington-based jury would be more sympathetic. Still others say Mueller simply wanted a grand jury closer to his teams Washington office.

"Since the proceedings are secret, it is very hard to know which (if any) of these are correct," said Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School.

Does the new grand jury mean an indictment is near?

Legal experts we spoke to fell into two camps on whether the existence of Muellers grand jury tells us anything about the likelihood of any future indictments.

Some experts think a grand jury by itself tells us nothing. Others said it increases the chances of indictments issuing at some future point, though none believed they were imminent.

Simmons said while a grand jury is a prerequisite for a future indictment, its also a required step in the early stages of an investigation.

"It simply means that Mueller did not believe the case was frivolous and decided a real investigation was appropriate," he said. "Thats something we all pretty much assumed already."

Leipold called the grand jurys impaneling "important but unremarkable" in the grand scheme of the investigation.

"I dont find any clues in its presence as to whether or not there will be an indictment or whether or not its imminent," he said. "I can imagine a world in which Mueller says, Im not inclined to seek an indictment, or, one in which he seeks lots of indictments."

Others viewed the new grand jury as a more meaningful development, but cautioned against jumping to any premature conclusions about its ultimate significance.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that because of the relatively low probable cause standard -- recall the quip about indicting a ham sandwich -- she believes its more likely than not that at least one criminal indictment will issue.

"But none of this is a done deal," she added.

So what to make of the frenzied speculation in the Twitterverse about an indictment being issued any day now?

"I think people have overreacted to this news by thinking an indictment is imminent," Shugerman said.

Perhaps the only clue the grand jury gives as to Muellers timeline is that were in for a lengthy investigation, said Mark Godsey, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati and author of Blind Injustice, about the inner-workings of federal prosecutors' offices.

"I dont think it says much about timing, other than it suggests there is a lot of work to do, and that can impact how long the investigation lasts," he said.

Share the Facts

2017-08-10 15:47:15 UTC

-1

-1

-1

Correct about grand juries

"You cant read that (the impaneling of a grand jury necessarily) means that indictments are going to follow."

Adam Schiff

U.S. Rep, D-Calif.

CNN

Sunday, August 6, 2017

2017-08-06

Continue reading here:
Does Mueller's grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? - PolitiFact

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Does Mueller’s grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? – PolitiFact

Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted: at 1:52 am

By David Codrea

USA -(Ammoland.com)-Skyhorse Publishing is about to release my next book, which is devoted to great and fatal government-caused disasters. The title is . Im From the Government, and Im Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence, attorney and author David T. Hardy informed AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Thursday. Texas City, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, the VA hospital scandal time after time, government employees kill Americans by negligence, stupidity, or agency corruption, and time after time they escape all legal accountability.

Hardys should be a familiar name to longtime readers of this columnists work. His contributions to advancing the right to keep and bear arms have been chronicled extensively on The War On Guns blog, which has over the years featured numerous posts on his numerous books, his groundbreaking In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, his observations on the Of Arms & the Law blog, and his legal work, including cases and law review articles.

By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.

Ill offer one other stipulation, just to make sure all cards are on the table so that any recommendations I make can be viewed with the appropriate skepticism the words of everyone with an agenda (admitted or otherwise) should be: I havent read the book.

Thats because it hasnt been released yet.

The publisher informs me that the book may be released 1-2 weeks before the official Amazon release date of October 10, Hardy advises. Amazon will begin shipping as soon as they receive the books, and October 10 only reflects the publishers guarantee that Amazon will have them by that date come hell or high water. The publisher tries to beat that date by a week or two.

So why make noise about it now?

Because you can pre-order it. And because with some authors, I have confidence and faith based on past experience. So Id like to start the buzz on this immediately, to prime gun owner rights advocates to be ready for the release by learning about the book now. As such, here are some resources you are invited to check out (and to share with those you think would be interested):

Note the website includes links to pre-order form Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Also see:

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Go here to see the original:
Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers’ 2nd Amendment rights – Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

Posted: at 1:52 am

In response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial, I do believe in States rights, the need for local control and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Governor Cuomo forced into law.

Governor Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the Governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

U.S. Rep. Chris CollinsNY-27th Congressional DistrictClarence

Link:
Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers' 2nd Amendment rights - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers’ 2nd Amendment rights – Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 1:52 am

Two Chinese tourists were arrested last Sunday after taking photos of each other giving the Nazi salute in front of the Reichstag building in Berlin. Unlike in the United States, certain types of speech are illegal in Germany, including almost any Nazi symbolism.

Supposed comedian Chelsea Handler, weighed in on the story, suggesting the U.S. be more like Germany, which would require eliminating the First Amendment.

Most people in a civilized society agree that Nazi salutes are offensive, even if given in jest. Labeling speech that we all agree to be wrong as "hate speech" and then banning it by law might seem like a simple solution to the problem of occasionally hearing things that decent people don't like. However, passing laws to weaken our own rights in response to somebody else's poor behavior is not the solution.

If we want to be aware of what can transpire on the fringe of society, everyone should be free to express all of their opinions, even the ones that offend us. The Constitution treats us as grown-ups, depending on us to have the sense to reject opinions that are genuinely evil.

Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example, a group consisting mostly of family members. They scream obscenities and anti-gay slurs as they picket events such as papal visits and the funerals of service members killed overseas. They offend virtually everyone on earth. America, with its population of over 300 million people, seems to have collectively ostracized the 70-member group despite our government never making it a law to do so. No one is terribly worried that their annoying behavior is causing a trend.

Making any type of speech illegal would in itself destroy the First Amendment, which contrary to the claims of some washed up politicians, contains no exception for hate speech. Nor should it. The definition of hate speech is subject to continuous change. There are words no decent person will say, but the banning of even one word would eliminate the right to freedom of speech, replacing it with a subjective list of prohibited terms to which the government could and would add to over time.

It is strange that those who depend on free speech to make their living are often its most vocal opponents. Handler, for example, wants to ban offensive speech, but she engages in it quite often, as when she made fun of the first lady's accent, claiming Melania Trump barely speaks English. It's her right to tell that joke, of course. But it might not be if she had her own way.

Today's "safe space" culture has created the concept that words -- not threats, mind you, just unkind words -- are equivalent to physical harm. It just isn't so. And the First Amendment is a treasure, even if it does subject us all to Kathy Griffin posing in ISIS-inspired photoshoots, Johnny Depp expressing his envy of John Wilkes Booth, and Snoop Dogg shooting a clown dressed as Trump in a music video. As always, the proper answer to offsensive speech is more speech, not violence or government coercion.

At a moment when leftists can't seem to get enough of speaking out against the current administration, their sudden turn against the First Amendment is a puzzling and troubling development. Their short-sighted talk of giving our government unacceptable authority to regulate our personal lives should be rejected like all the other bad ideas that people are free to express.

Alana Mastrangelo is a political activist and writer.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.

Here is the original post:
Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment – Washington Examiner

First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block … – WJLA

Posted: at 1:52 am

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing individuals in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland who argue that the governors in those states have violated the First Amendment by deleting comments and blocking users on the governors' Facebook and Twitter pages.

The plaintiffs in each case argue that they were shut out of a public political forum because they had been critical of the governors' policies or expressed views were at odds with their state's chief executive. By blocking comments and users, the plaintiffs say their governor has violated their right to free speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One of the issues at stake is whether public figures can use their social media accounts to sanction other users based private preferences. More fundamentally the cases could determine whether political speech is protected in the social media age.

"In this new world of social media, government officials and constituents are using these platforms as a powerful tool to connect with each other," said Meagan Sway, Justice Fellow with the Maine ACLU chapter. "But when that happens, the First Amendment applies."

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has been accused of using his Facebook account in an official government capacity to conduct official government business. He has also taken advantage of the platform's features to block certain constituents. According to the ACLU, "that's unconstitutional censorship."

The arguments are similar in Kentucky and Maryland, where numerous constituents have come forward to challenge the 21st century version of being banished from the public commons. In Utah, the ACLU has put the state's federal congressional delegation on notice after similar complaints from constituents.

Already, experts anticipate the cases in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland will shape the environment for the high-profile case involving President Donald Trump blocking Twitter users.

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit against the president in June arguing it is unconstitutional for an elected public official using a "designated public forum," like Twitter, to block speech just because it is critical or disagreeable.

"It's a new area of law," Sway said in an interview with WGME News. "We think courts will agree with us ... that this is an open platform, that the government cannot kick people off just because [they] dont agree with them."

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the pending social media cases beg for a "firm declaration" from the courts that blocking political speech on social media a violation of the First Amendment.

"If you're a government official, your social media is an extension of your office and you cant block people for innocuous reasons, or for political reasons" he emphasized. "If you're a government official, especially a governor, I don't think you can bifurcate your personal speech from your official speech."

In Maine, LePage has worked to do just that and distance his official position from his official social media accounts.

A few weeks ago, the governor's "about" page on Facebook was updated. It now states that the page is "official-but not managed by gov't officials," was a fan page but is now home to LePage supporters. However, the page was verified on behalf of the governor and LePage even opted into Facebook's "Town Hall" feature, which helps connect constituents and their government representatives.

Shortly after taking office in 2015, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland set up Facebook and Twitter accounts and by January 2017, Hogan had reportedly blocked 450 people.

"He didnt like [the posts], but thats not enough," Legal Director for ACLU Maryland Deborah Jeon told WBFF earlier this month. "People have a First-Amendment right to their own opinions. And when the governor establishes a forum for speech between constituents and the government, then he has to listen to what they have to say, whether or not he likes it."

The governor never responded to the ACLU's letter asking him to reinstate the seven individuals banned.

Hogan reacted to the lawsuit saying it was "frivolous" and motivated by partisan politics.

"Its silly, its ridiculous," Hogan told reporters last week. "We have about a million people a week on our Facebook page. Four of them were blocked for violating our Facebook policy and now the Maryland Democratic party got them to file suit with the ACLU."

The governor has defended blocking constituents on the basis of his office's "social media policy," which ACLU claims violates the state's social media policy. Under Hogan's personal policy, comments and users can be blocked if they are deemed irrelevant to the governor's announcements or initiatives, and if the users engage in a "Coordinated Effort" to petition the office. The office claims the right to block users and comments "at any time without prior notice or without providing justification."

"I don't buy that argument," he noted, adding that such arguments get into "untested" legal areas. "This is public business. This is clearly a first amendment issue with political speech implications and the right to petition government."

In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin has argued that the only comments or users being blocked are "abusive trolls" and others who are posting obscene or inappropriate content.

"Gov. Bevin is a strong advocate of constructive dialogue," his communications directed said responding to the ACLU suit. "Blocking individuals from engaging in ... inappropriate conduct on social media in no way violates their free speech right under the U.S. or Kentucky constitutions, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinion in an open forum."

According to the plaintiffs, there are "hundreds" of users who have been permanently blocked by Bevin, including "Kentuckians Against Matt Bevin," a public Facebook group with over 1,900 followers.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Mary Hargis, noted that while she has been critical of the governor on certain issues she was "shocked" to discover he had blocked her. "I may not have voted for Governor Bevin, but I'm one of his constituents," she said. "He shouldn't be permanently dismissing my views and concerns with a click."

As these suits are litigated and President Trump squares off against his blocked Twitter followers, it is unclear how the courts will rule, though U.S. courts tend to rule firmly in favor of protecting political speech.

"If these cases keep getting litigated and appealed ... I can actually see the Supreme Court weighing in on this a year or two down the road," Gutterman suggested. "I think it would be a soft ball."

Just recently the Court handed down its first major decision on a social media case in June, ruling unanimously that the First Amendment protected an individual from being refused access to social media. The question before the court was whether a convicted sex offender could be blocked from Facebook , Twitter and other popular social media sites.

The Supreme Court ruling is likely to provide a strong argument for the plaintiffs as the Facebook blocking cases move forward.

"Political speech ... has always been the highest level of First Amendment activity," Gutterman stated. "There's clear First Amendment action here. You've got government activity, government action and citizen expression."

Read more from the original source:
First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block ... - WJLA

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block … – WJLA