Monthly Archives: July 2021

Protests continue throughout Colombia against police brutality as the statue of notorious colonist, Christopher Columbus, was toppled by protesters in the coastal city of Barranquilla. Since April 28th, protestors have been active on the streets of Colombia, initially rejecting a proposed tax reform that would have eliminated tax exemptions for employees and increased business taxes. Escalation of the protests was caused by a violent government crackdown on demonstrations, claiming COVID-19 concerns as justification for the police response. Protests amplified further as a result of the violent measures, causing injuries to over 2,300 civilians, security forces and the death of over 60 individuals.

Protesters come primarily from historically discriminated and disadvantaged communities, such as the indigenous groups in Colombia. In their report on June 7th, 2021, Amnesty International depicted the disturbing number of people they fear are missing due to the National Strike; the Working Group on Forced Disappearances had recorded 775 people feared disappeared, the whereabouts of 327 of whom remain unknown. Gloria Gmez, coordinator for the Association of Families of the Detained and Disappeared, has stated that some people, when they are arrested, shout out their name and ID, highlighting the desperation and difficulty in recovering detained individuals.

Protesters are demanding the riot police to be disbanded and that each security force member who committed unjust acts of violence be held accountable by an independent body, rather than by the military courts that currently handle each case. In response, the right-wing administration of President Ivn Duque has announced harsher prison sentences for vandalism, roadblocks, and attacks on police. Critics point out that with the increased prison sentences, the government is effectively criminalizing protests. Human Rights Watch has condemned the government response, calling out the Colombian National Police members for committing egregious abuses.

Policing methods in Colombia treat each peaceful protest as a violent demonstration, which villainizes the peaceful protestors and groups them together with violent demonstrators. Frequently, policing is done strictly to dismantle uprisings from MarxistLeninist ideology or other left-wing political groups that are deemed to threaten the Colombian government, rather than to ensure the safety of Colombian citizens. Colombian police are effectively reacting to each protest as a threat to national security. By deeming citizens as threats to the nation, the government is turning people away from supporting its ideals and breaking support for the police force in Colombia. In September of 2020, following the death of local attorney Javier Ordez at the hands of police, the unfavourability rating for police rose to a historical rate of 64 percent.

Violent policing further engulfs a nation that has struggled immensely with COVID-19. The police create new problems for a population that suffered an extraordinary rise in poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic, as 3.6 million people have been pushed into the poverty zone. With a violent police reaction to protests, rather than one that employs de-escalation tactics, there is little room for peaceful coexistence when individuals are targeted for voicing their ideals. According to a BBC News article, the Colombian Defence Minister claimed that left-wing rebel groups have infiltrated the protests. This approach is likely an attempt to diminish and undermine the reputation of protestors and showcases to Colombians that President Ivn Duque is solely looking out for the ideals of his political party and not the citizens he supposedly represents. With this response, his party unintentionally gives fuel to his political opponents, showcasing that the President and his administration will take any protest as a supposed attack against his party and use violence as a response.

President Ivn Duques administration has failed to de-escalate police violence within Colombia during times of unrest. The administration has consistently used the police force to maintain the status quo rather than to facilitate peaceful transitions within Colombia. Police reform alone will not solve Colombias problems; however, it is a necessary step in creating avenues toward further change in the region. President Duque is clearly fearful of an uprising from the National Liberation Army and a takeover of MarxistLeninist ideology within the Colombian government. His administrations poor treatment of protesters, who are primarily indigenous individuals, further divides his government from the support of the public. Therefore, progressive change cannot occur with the continued oppression and silencing of voices. The concerns people have over government policies, policing, the COVID-19 response and corruption needs to be openly discussed to ensure the public of Colombia have fair representation. President Duques administration is currently employing an adversarial mentality, which increases division and resentment toward his party and further casts individuals into opposing categories.

When international politics is at play, there is no question that the United States has a significant influence on Colombia and its government. Without any international pressure on the Colombian regime, there is little chance of reform. Since the Cold War period, the United States has supported the government of Colombia while countries such as the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Libya and more recently, Venezuela, have funded the National Liberation Army. It is evident that the United States has historically objected Marxist ideology, creating an American incentive for a robust Colombian government. However, allowing police brutality to occur at protests and harming civilians that already face horrendous conditions such as displacement, limited reproductive rights, extreme poverty, and indigenous isolation will cause the public to view their government as an enemy of the people. It would be in both the Colombians and the United States interests to condemn the violent policing at protests, so that the country can move toward a government that represents their interests and safety.

Ideally, many things ought to change along with police reforms. However, open dialogue and an honest discussion will renew lost faith in the Colombian government, ensuring that the peoples wishes are being heard and the government actively attempts to improve conditions. Actual change cannot occur unless those suffering have improvements in their lives. Censoring individuals based on their personal beliefs will create further resentment towards the Colombian government and strengthen outside groups like the National Liberation Army. In situations such as illegal roadblocks, every effort must be made diplomatically to improve equality and economic opportunities, rather than engaging in lethal force in an attempt to maintain order. Police must protect the rights of Colombian citizens, not just the protection of the current regime.

Excerpt from:

An Examination Of Policing In Colombia The Organization for World Peace - The Organization for World Peace

AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) The Means Report delves into some hot topics today in the world of politics with Augusta Universitys Dr. Craig Albert.

Brad Means: Craig, thanks for joining us today.

Dr. Craig Albert: Thanks for having me.

Brad Means: Listen, lets start with that voting lawsuit against the voting law in the state of Georgia filed by President Bidens Department of Justice, the attorney general leading the way there, does it stand a chance of overturning the law? Can you tell if Georgias law is unconstitutional? And I asked that, knowing that as we begin our taping here on the Thursday before our air date, the Supreme Court, it just came out, ruled in favor of an Arizona law dealing with voting, a controversial law dealing with voting in Arizona. The Supreme Court upholding that. And now we turn our attention to Georgia. Where do you think this lawsuit goes?

Dr. Craig Albert: I think it follow the same trajectory as Arizona. Of course the federal government has a right to sue a state if it thinks the state is being discriminatory or isnt being inclusive in its voting rights and regulations. So the DOJ has a right to do that. They would have to prove that the state of Georgia is willingly or intending to discriminate or to exclude certain groups or people from voting purposefully for their lawsuit to succeed, which would then force Georgia if it did succeed, it would force Georgia to then redo the law and remake the law to make it more inclusive and accepting to everybody. I dont think that the federal government case will prove that Georgia is intending to do anything legal or discriminatory. So I think itll follow the same path as Arizona and they might review it and tell Georgia to revise some aspects of it. But I dont think that would be the case.

Brad Means: And I think Governor Brian Kemp shares your belief that this wont go anywhere. The basic issues that were hearing about, the ones that are making the headlines are what some perceive as limits on access to absentee ballots. Reducing they say the number of days that you can apply for an absentee ballot. Weve all heard the part about whether or not you can give somebody something to drink while theyre waiting in line to vote. My question is, do you think, as it stands, this will keep people from voting. The governors big line on this is easier to vote, harder to cheat. Do you picture people next election cycle saying, boy, I wish I could vote, but this law makes it impossible?

Dr. Craig Albert: It depends, I mean, Georgia and the Deep South in general have a history of making laws where certain groups have limited access, or where the laws are constructed in such a way to make it more difficult for certain types of individuals to vote. So the idea here is Georgia doing that now. And we can look at both sides of it and say, well, according to the governor and to the state legislative branch, it appears that they are doing just that of trying to reduce cheating while still allowing increased access to vote for individuals regardless of the type of category a person identifies within that for voting. On the other side, if you have any restrictions, anything that might make it possible to be harder to vote, then it looks like its discriminatory on the face of it. So if you limit voting rights whatsoever, it can be looked at that youre purposely trying to discriminate against a certain class of people. And because Republicans lost in 2020 in the state of Georgia, it has the bad taste that it looks like theyre trying to do things to finesse the law to benefit Republicans and those people that vote for Republicans in the next election cycle. So you can look at both sides of it and both sides have valid arguments there. And so I cant predict anything here

Brad Means: Sure.

Dr. Craig Albert: But willing to come back and talk about the decision once they make a decision.

Brad Means: Yeah, and we definitely will hash it out once all the smoke is cleared, but when you talk about discrimination, am I accurate in picturing it as socioeconomic discrimination? That is to say, you have to have an ID to vote, or I cant afford a car, or I dont have a way to get to the place where they issue IDs. Does it come down to that kind of outlook and approach if youre trying to understand this?

Dr. Craig Albert: Thats part of it and then the other side is race oriented as well. So typically in the state of Georgia, particular races have been clustered in with lower social economic status. And so it looks as though you are picking on a particular race when you are limiting voter access. And so with everything going on right now that looks particularly bad for the state, that it seems to be limiting access to particular racial groups. And you cant do that, right? Like thats against the law. And so the Supreme Court will have to see is the state of Georgia limiting certain groups access, or is it doing it on the face of it to everybody to make sure that they can guarantee some type of security protocol while giving you full rights and access to free and fair elections. This is a tough balance. So we have to realize that not only does everybody have the right to vote in the state of Georgia, in the United States, when you turn 18 and typical rules apply and typical laws apply, but theres also now security concerns as well. Theres online security, theres mailing ballot security and in-person drop box location security concerns. And so the state of Georgia has to balance free and fair and equal access to all eligible voters with those security concerns. And so for the DOJ to demonstrate that the state of Georgia is discriminatory, it has to prove that its limiting those rights of voting to one particular group over another. Does that make sense? So it has to show that the laws intended to benefit one group at the expense of another group.

Brad Means: Yeah, it does, and that I would think be a challenge to prove. Im not saying the justice department cant and please to our viewers dont think that, Im just saying that is a heavy burden of proof. Lets talk about real quickly, and I know were staying on this, but I wanna make sure that I understand everything and our viewers do as well about the challenges to the voting law and the voting law itself. Just talk in general, Dr. Albert, about the part where you need to show an ID to vote. The argument for that is you have to show an ID for just about everything else you do in the world, whats wrong with flashing one when you vote? What do you think about that part of it?

Dr. Craig Albert: Yeah, the idea is what you mentioned earlier that not everybody has access or can afford a drivers license or a photo ID. So what some are arguing for, and I cant remember off the top of my head, if this became part of the Georgia law, is that the state should provide for you a voter ID free of charge, but then there are other ideas as well. Well, many people that are in the lower socioeconomic classes dont have vehicles. They cant go and get a picture ID. And so it makes it harder for them to vote by needing that picture ID.

Brad Means: Were gonna answer this.

Dr. Craig Albert: So thats how

Brad Means: How do those folks get any other services in their lives, or do they live a photo ID free life?

Dr. Craig Albert: For the lower classes of society and the people that are worried about this, they live disenfranchised lives, right? Like they dont have the same quality of life that you or I have. And thats the idea is that they should be giving the right to vote even though that they lack so many of the basic necessities in life. And so its hard for majority of people to understand what people go without that dont have access to the basic necessities of life. And we do have those population classes here in Georgia, where theyre on the lower 1% of the poverty scale. And so for me its like will just get in the car and going, get your free photo ID

Brad Means: Sure.

Dr. Craig Albert: For somebody else that might be working 70, 80 hours a week, five, six, seven kids, could be a single parent, right? We dont know what kind of daily trauma that they have to go through. And so adding another layer which should be in their minds or in some peoples minds, unrestricted access to voting seems as though youre putting too much of a burden on those individuals.

Brad Means: Thats

Dr. Craig Albert: The other side, of course, is that you have to have something to demonstrate that youre voting legally, that youre who you say you are. And thats what the courts supposed to do is balance liberty and security, right? It has to put those two issues to rest and balance them, with liberty comes security guarantees, and you have to make sure that theyre properly aligned.

Brad Means: Well, thats extremely helpful. And I appreciate you staying with me on the voting rights issue for the time that we did spend on it. Well take a look at the bigger picture in the United States right now, and something that is in the news a lot lately, thats this bi-partisan infrastructure plan. The first question is the word bi-partisan makes me so skeptical. Can both parties work together to get something this big done this early in the Biden administration?

Dr. Craig Albert: Well, it really depends on really one or two Democrats to see if they can budge a little bit on their side. And then pretty much a few Republicans will have to come out of their small spending idea mindset. And thats where they are right now. The Republicans dont wanna spend a trillion dollars on something that they dont see that the United States has a way of getting that money and not going into more deficit. So youre talking about a country thats, this changes almost monthly, right? I think were at $23 trillion in the hole.

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: So if youre adding another trillion to that over 10 to 15 years, Republicans wanna make sure that youre gonna be able to pay that back off. And president Biden and assures that within 15 years it will be paid back off, but were $23 trillion in the hole already. So is it really possible to fail? Can you demonstrate that you can balance the budget in a proper way to not add to that $23 trillion? And what that means for the viewers $23 trillion, its such a big number that it doesnt mean anything, right? Like, so how can we be that far in the hole and eventually what are we going to do to get out of that? Because you cant keep going forever down the hole. And thats why some Republicans wanna pass a balanced budget amendment for instance, but they really try to stick to their guns when it comes to limited spending, because were so far in the hole already.

Brad Means: Craig, if it was just an infrastructure bill, it might be easier to garner support from us constituents out there. I was driving home from the upstate of South Carolina a few minutes before this broadcast and some of the roads were very bumpy and very bad. And I thought, wow, I hope that infrastructure package passes, so this will be a smoother commute. But its more than better roads and bridges. You have umpteen, you talk about a number that you cant grasp anymore, trillions. Its got trillions of other programs built into it, right? Its not really an infrastructure bill or package.

Dr. Craig Albert: Thats just the nature of the beast of legislation though.

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Like every giant budget bill that the United States tries to pass is gonna have pork. Pork is just what you call extra stuff thats not related period to the bill in question, but in order to get all the senators to vote for that, you have to give some money their way for different pet projects, for instance, that benefits the state of Georgia, so they can sign on and say, this is what I brought to the state of Georgia, for instance, for this bill. So vote for me next time cause I always have your interest in mind, right? All bills now work like that. Youre never gonna get something passed that doesnt have these types of earmarks or pork in it. And thats just unfortunately the way the bureaucracy has happened, how its evolved in todays day and age. Thats why were at $23 trillion in debt because this is the natural order of the budget process.

Brad Means: Youre right, those pork projects are everywhere. When we come back, were gonna continue our conversation with Dr. Craig Albert talking about more goings on in our nations Capitol and here at home. Well have to move to our lightning round, I suspect, because we have a lot of topics left with Greg, youll walk away better informed. Stay with us.

Part 2

Brad Means: Welcome back to The Means Report. We appreciate you staying with us as we cover some hot political issues in our country and here at home with Augusta University political science expert, Dr. Craig Albert. Dr. Albert, recently in the headlines, we saw the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, move to get a committee going to investigate the incidents of this past January 6th at our nations Capitol. Republican leadership, pushing back on Republican participation in such an investigation, such a committee. If we do end up forming a committee, will it get anywhere or tell us anything we dont already know from that day?

Dr. Craig Albert: Oh, I think so, an ad hoc select committee, which is exactly the type of committee that the United States had for the Maghazi attacks in 2011, I think 2013, one of those two years. Im so sorry, I missed up the date on that. But the ad hoc select committee goes after and looks for the evidence to intelligence and tries to process, tries to put together a fact-based report and analysis on what exactly happened, who participated, how did they participate. And more importantly in my opinion is how to prevent something like that from happening in the future. So you need a select committee report in order to reorganize government apparatus to make sure that something like that cant happen again. We had a formalized the one after 9/11, a more ad hoc after Maghazi And this just makes sense for at least political scientists purposes or security purposes to investigate as full and give all your energy and resources as you can. And you cant really do that without having a select committee. Thats what allows the full resources of the United States government to look into that. I think both sides, the Republicans and Democrats are obviously politicizing this, but I do think it behooves the Republican Party to stand behind this because without standing behind creating this committee, it looks as though theyre trying to hide something. Im not saying that they are doing that, Im saying it looks like that. And of course the Democrats can message that even more in the next election cycle that look, the Republicans are trying to hide something thats why they dont wanna participate in the select committee on January 6. And so I dont think its very smart for Republicans to not call for open select committee investigation into this.

Brad Means: A few days ago, we saw the US House voting to remove a statue of former Georgia governor, Alexander Hamilton Stephens from Statuary Hall up in DC as well as a move to get rid of other stone monuments to those who fought for the Confederacy. My question is, is there a point or a number of monuments that we must reach for people to say, okay, thats enough. We have gotten rid of enough monuments, everything is where it should be now. Do you see an end to this? And what do you think about the necessity of it?

Dr. Craig Albert: Brad, this might be the toughest question youve asked me

Brad Means: Well, I know

Dr. Craig Albert: Few years of doing this.

Brad Means: And we should say this isnt your opinion as a human being, its your opinion as a political scientist. Its just like me asking the question. I see the removal of monuments in my high school in Jacksonville, Florida, Robert E. Lee Senior High School, where I went, where my dad went, my uncle. Its not called Robert Lee Senior High School anymore. Thats fine, they changed the name. And then we see this removal of another monument from DC. I understand the reasons behind name changes and monument removals. The question is just, can you put a number on it? Is there a finite number of monument removals that we can expect?

Im just not sure how to answer that

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Its you have to balance one group of peoples heritage and pride in that, right? Against another groups where they see oppression and hate for that. And so its the question, slavery is still the dominant legacy of the United States, or at least let me rephrase that, its the dominant scar on the United States, right? And so you still have to deal with millions of people who when they see a Confederate statue or Confederate named building in public, that reminds them of the heritage of slavery, which their family and ancestors experienced. And I cant even relate to what that must feel like and to still see a symbol or a statue and be reminded of what your heritage has gone through. So thats a harrowing, horrorful feeling I would imagine for those individuals. And so theres a

Brad Means: Its interesting, I was gonna say, I had this conversation with my children recently and the tone of it was very similar to the tone that youre taking with your answer right now. And so its just interesting to hear that how I just tried to not let them have their own opinions, but to kind of present the argument or the conversation much as you are. Let me just say as a political scientist and someone who knows a bit about the history of politics in this nation to say the least, have we ever seen something like this? Have we ever seen a phase in the history of the United States where people say, okay, thats enough emblems that evoke memories of hatred and oppression, lets change that to make all feel welcome and at ease, has it ever happened before?

Dr. Craig Albert: Not to this extent, this is the largest to the extent that weve seen as a country, but at the same time were in like this great awakening if I can call it that of the racial question, the injustice of slavery is really being for, for so often in the United States, so many people have just not want to look at it and deal with it, they just wanna say that was back then

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Without realizing that theres still some effects that that has on people in todays society. And so now the question is so large because theres a racial awakening and time to do justice in this regard. What I will say, one of my areas of expertise is identity and memory and warfare. And you dont wanna erase the atrocities of what happened. Before the viewers freak out on what Im saying is you wanna take those statues, those names and stuff, and you wanna put them in museums, you wanna preserve them, and you still need to teach these things, just like we teach everything horrific that happened in World War II, right? Like, youd have to teach these things. You have to demonstrate what happened and illustrate it. And I think statues and emblems and symbols do great justice for teaching history. The idea is it should those things be in the public domain where everybodys reminded of it all the time, or should they be relegated to a museum, or a civil war museum or something like that, where youre not exposing descendants of slaves to see these symbols of slavery without them wanting to, right? So when something, youre talking about it, Im sorry, its hard for me to compose my thoughts here, cause its such a sensitive topic, Brad, but I dont know what it feels like to be in that situation where youre reminded of slavery, but the idea is like, wow, if you can throw yourself in that situation as best you can and try to be empathetic to it, it shouldnt be in the public square, right?

Brad Means: Right.

Dr. Craig Albert: Maybe it should be in the museum. And therefore you satisfy one thing. See, we satisfy both sides where the heritage, the history, what happened is still preserved, youre not taking that out of textbooks. Youre teaching it. Youre still showing what happened and how it happened and how the United States is rebounding from that. But at the same time, its not in Capitol Hill, where people go every day to see that the nations greatness and they dont wanna feel oppressed by looking at a statue of a Confederate leader

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Or somebody in that heritage.

Brad Means: Now I think you

Dr. Craig Albert: So this is a tough issue, but we cant push it aside. We have to deal with it, no matter how hard it is to deal with. And I think its good that the United States is finally trying to deal with this in a very respectable and hopefully discoursed manner where were talking about these issues like we are here. And I know Im being sensitive enough to all the issues there and I apologize if Im not.

Brad Means: No, you are, and I think that the answer to the original question, was there a number of monuments, is there X number we have to get to for all people to be at peace and comfortable and happy? No, theres not a number, but I think

Dr. Craig Albert: Theres not.

Brad Means: Maybe.

Dr. Craig Albert: Sorry was such a long .

Brad Means: No, no, it was a thoughtful and helpful answer, but I suspect, at least its my hope that when we reach that number, whatever it is, well all know it, well all feel it. And maybe itll be, as you said, textbook learning or museum learning, but not walk through the public domain learning. And so well have to see what becomes of that issue, but I certainly appreciate you spending so much time on it. And I have like 15 seconds, are you excited about normal college in a few weeks?

Dr. Craig Albert: Oh, Im so excited. I just confirmed my participation in regular classes in the fall. So my students will be in-person for better or worse.

Brad Means: Wow.

Dr. Craig Albert: Whether they like it or not, we will be in-person, at least for my classes. Some professors still have the right depending on their susceptibility to things from COVID to teach online.

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: But I cant wait to see my students. One of the areas I teach is political philosophy, and thats so hard to get students even care about it in the first place and doing it purely online is a challenge for the students as well as myself. So being able to engage in-person

Brad Means: Its gonna be

Dr. Craig Albert: I talk about Plato and Aristotle and Tocqueville and the Founding Fathers

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Its gonna be awesome. I cant wait for the first week of classes.

Brad Means: It is gonna be awesome. Well race out of this segment. Well see you very soon on The Means Report, Craig Albert, thank you for everything.

See the original post:

Behind the political headlines - WJBF-TV

Multiple Perspectives on the ERA and its Impact on Womens RightsIn Name Only: The Inequality of the Equal Rights Amendment

By Cathi Herrod

The Equal Rights Amendment made more sense in 1923. Women had just won the right to vote three years prior, and the first woman to serve in Congress was elected just three years before that. Amending the Constitution to affirm those achievements would have radically changed womens standing in society.

But even without the ERA, women had made great strides by the time the effort resurfaced in 1972. Women had held a presidential cabinet position, sat on a federal court bench, headed a political party, and more.When the ERA hit the second deadline without reaching the 38 state ratification requirement in 1982, it had lost much of its urgency. Sandra Day OConnor had become the first female U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Just two years later, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a major party presidential ticket. It has only progressed from there.

To clamor for the ERA, breathlessly painting women as victims who need their own Constitutional Amendment, while Vice President Kamala Harris stands one breath away from becoming President of the United States, is laughable. Heres why:

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled for decades that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects women from unequal treatment under the law.In 1971 one year before the first resurgence of the ERA Reed v. Reed set precedent when the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to unanimously strike down a law that discriminated against women.

Twenty-five years later, in the United States v. Virginia, the Court affirmed Reed, writing, Since Reed, the Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with equal protection when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature-equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.

The American Civil Liberties Union boasted a 40-year precedent of equality for women. The ACLUs Womens Rights Project Director, Lenora Lapidus, was adamant back in 2011, saying, Since the 1971 case,Reed v. Reed, it has been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex. In decision after decision, many authored by conservative Supreme Court justices, this principle has been reaffirmed.

Neither does the wage gap claim stand up to scrutiny. Women usually do not do the same job, working the same hours, with the same background as men. Women typically work fewer hours than men; they choose different education and training; they choose different career paths; and they take time out of the workforce or choose to work from home over higher wages.When the work is comparable and women are denied equal pay, the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other laws ensure equal pay under the threat of penalty. For example, the University of Arizona recently paid $100,000 to settle a gender disparity lawsuit.

So, why in 2021 do we see such an effort to convince women they are not equal under the law, and will not be until a nearly one-hundred-year-old idea is carved into our Constitution?Because a well-funded, politically active industry stands to benefit in a major way. Dont take my word for it, listen to what those in the abortion lobby acknowledge.

The same ACLU that cited Reed in its understanding of womens rights ten years ago now ignores the landmark case and 40 years of precedent, demanding the ERAs passage. The ACLU argues that the ERA would pave the way to reproductive freedom meaning near-unrestricted abortion. The National Organization for Women writes, [the] ERA properly interpreted could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception. NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraised on the link between the ERA and abortion, claiming it would enshrine abortion in the U.S. Constitution, writing, The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to an abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate the constitutional right to privacy and sexual equality.

Pro-abortion activists have used state ERAs to roll back commonsense abortion restrictions and force taxpayers to fund abortions. They have done it in New Mexico and Connecticut, and are trying it in other states.

Legal counsel for the National Womens Law Center, Emily Martin, confirmed the pro-abortion agenda, with the Associated Press reporting, Martin affirmed that abortion access is a key issue for many ERA supporters; she said adding the amendment to the constitution would enable courts to rule that restrictions on abortion perpetuate gender inequality.

Another recent article quoted the then-acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood on the subject, stating, There are no equal rights for women without access to abortion, plain and simple.

The equal rights amendments modern purpose extends beyond expanding abortion, as well. Although the phrase discrimination on the basis of sex referred to women in 1923 and 1972, that is no longer the case. Courts have recently interpreted the word sex more broadly to include sexual identity, which means the ERA would protect biological men identifying as women. This redefinition not only negates the intent of the original ERA but also necessitates the violation of womens rights.

Under the 2021 ERA, women are expected to forfeit to biological men their privacy and safety in locker rooms, showers, domestic violence shelters, even elementary school restrooms. They must also surrender their Title IX protections, relinquishing their athletic dreams and the scholarships and other benefits that come with excelling in sports. Women and girls must acquiesce to the new male dominant female sports.

The LGBTQ website Advocate recognizes this opportunity, writing, This burgeoning case law suggests trans+ people are protected under the current interpretation of discrimination on the basis of sex it stands to reason that trans+ people may also fall under the umbrella of the ERAs protections.

With these new opportunities for special interest groups to swiftly and permanently obtain their goals under the guise of womens rights, one can begin to see why the Equal Rights Amendment is a top priority in 2021 and why they disregard obvious obstacles.

For example, a federal judge recently ruled the post-deadline ratification votes of three states came too late. Also, three other states rescinded their ratification votes, casting additional doubt on the optimistic viewpoint that the ERA is a Senate vote away from reality. The U.S. House voted in March to simply and retroactively dissolve the congressionally imposed and long passed deadline.They even ignore womens rights champion, the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who cautioned against ignoring the deadline by suggesting proponents start over.

Yes, start over if you must. Mount a campaign for a new Equal Rights Amendment if you think it necessary. But, do not leave out the word women and claim women are the beneficiaries when in reality, they will pay the highest price.

By Kim Forde-Mazrui

Dear ERA supporter,

I strongly support the goals of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Womens equality is a legal and moral imperative that has not been achieved. Unfortunately, the current ERA would likely endanger womens equality. It would fail to advance womens equality over current law and, worse, it would likely prohibit efforts to advance womens equality.

Let me put my perspective and beliefs up front. Women should be equal to men in all respects, including legally, politically, economically, and socially. In addition, neither sex should be expected to serve particular social roles. Womens health and reproductive rights, including access to abortion, should be protected by law. The substantial inequality that persists today does not result from inherent differences between the sexes but rather from past and present discrimination, by law and custom, against women and girls that has limited and continues to limit their opportunities. Some laws have also aided womens equality over the past fifty years but much more needs to be done.

The ERAs main provision reads, Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex. The ERA thus purports to ban laws and other government actions that discriminate on the basis of sex.

The equal rights amendment would make unconstitutional virtually any state or federal policies that intentionally discriminate against women. Examples include discrimination by government agencies and employers, public schools and colleges, the criminal justice system, and the military, and it would prohibit gender-motivated harassment and violence against women by government officials.

The ERAs good is largely redundant, however, because the Supreme Courts (Court) interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) already prohibits virtually all sex discrimination by the government against women. The ERA would thus make unconstitutional what is already unconstitutional.

The ERA fails to address principal sources of womens inequality that rightly concern ERA supporters. The ERA would only prohibit sex discrimination by the government. Most occupations in which women receive unequal pay and suffer harassment are private, and most violence against women is committed by men as private individuals. The ERA would also likely apply only to intentional discrimination, not to laws or policies that have a discriminatory impact on women not proven to be intentional. Nor would the ERA likely protect reproductive rights as the Court (counterintuitively) does not view such rights as sex-based, but rather as privacy-based; nothing in the ERA specifies that pregnancy or abortion should be viewed as sex-based.

My strongest concern with the equal rights amendment is that the Court would likely interpret the ERA to prohibit affirmative efforts through law and government policy to advance womens equality. The Court would likely apply the ERA to sex discrimination similar to how the Court applies the EPC to race discrimination. As scholars of racial equality know, the Court applies the EPC in an increasingly color-blind manner, prohibiting virtually all race-conscious government actions, including laws and policies designed to enhance opportunities for Black people and other historically disadvantaged racial groups. By expressly banning discrimination on account of sex, the ERA would likely cause the Court to require the government to be sex blind.

For example, public schools of higher education would no longer be able to recruit for fields such as STEM, business, and medicine which have an underrepresentation of women, because the Court would likely hold that such policies discriminate against men. Similarly, federal, state, and local governments could no longer preferentially award even a small percentage of government contracts to women-owned businesses because such practices take account of sex. Similarly, legislatures and government institutions would no longer be able to seek to increase the representation of women in mid- and high-level management and corporate boards. For example, Californias recent law requiring at least one woman on corporate boards would be invalidated. Government employers that provide maternity leave, or laws that require such leave in the private sector, would be legally vulnerable. The foregoing policies all take account of sex by seeking to support women.

The ERAs prohibitive effect would, moreover, likely extend to policies that rely on sex-neutral criteria if motivated at all by a desire to help women. As my scholarship on race equality explains, the Court views laws and policies that have a race-based purpose as discriminatory even if they use race-neutral means. Under the ERA, the Court would likely view laws and government policies that have a sex-based purpose as discriminatory even if they use sex-neutral means.

For example, laws designed to support women workers by requiring or merely encouraging paid parental or family leave (not just maternal leave) could be challenged under the ERA as discrimination against men. Or laws designed to promote equal pay for women by prohibiting employers from basing salary on an applicants prior salary could be invalidated under the ERA, because such laws would be motivated by a concern for women: i.e., on account of sex.

My prescription is twofold. First, we should let the current equal rights amendment go. It is worse than the status quo for womens equality. Second, we should promote an alternative ERA. For example, feminist legal scholars Catharine MacKinnon and Kimberl Crenshaw have proposed an Equality Amendment that would require affirmative efforts to advance sex equality, including for LGBTQ people. Also, several European countries have sex equality provisions in their constitutions, something ERA supporters point out. What such supporters seem not to recognize, however, is that, unlike the ERA, such constitutions expressly authorize policies to benefit women, and some even require a minimum representation of women leaders in corporations and legislatures. We can learn from the foregoing alternatives to draft and promote a more promising ERA.

I conclude with what I have observed elsewhere:

The failure of the ERA to address the sex inequalities of today is not the fault of those who proposed the ERA or of those who have fought for its ratification over the ensuing decades. When proposed in 1923, few, if any, Americans imagined that constitutional provisions that guarantee race and sex equality would be interpreted by courts to invalidate efforts to achieve race and sex equality. Intentional discrimination against Blacks and women, by government and private actors, was pervasive. Race and sex equality advocates sought to enlist the courts in prohibiting discrimination against Black people and women. But no one thought that constitutionalizing race or sex equality would prohibit the very political institutions that were oppressing Blacks and women from trying to rectify that oppression. Nonetheless, that is the state of the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on race, one that requires color-blindness even at the expense of racial equality and one that will likely be reinforced by the recent rightward shift of the Court. Similarly, the ERA would likely mandate sex blindness at the expense of womens equality.

This article is part of Divided We Falls Constitutional Questions series, covering a range of political topics fundamental to the U.S. Constitution and democratic institutions. Through this series, we ask constitutional scholars, journalists, elected officials, and activists to discuss how these ideals are and are not implemented today. If you want to read more pieces like this, clickhere.

Cathi Herrod

Cathi Herrod is serving her sixteenth year as president of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). A champion of the pro-family movement, and an award-winning public policy leader, Arizona newspapers have recognized her as one of the ten most influential leaders of the 2000-2009 decade. She is the recipient of the Family Champion Award from Focus on the Family and the William Wilberforce award from Students for Life of America. One-hundred-seventy-four (174) CAP-supported bills have been passed into law since CAP made its first appearance at the state Capitol in 1995.

Kim Forde-Mazrui

Kim Forde-Mazrui teaches Constitutional Law, Employment Discrimination, Criminal Law, and Race and Law at the University of Virginia. His scholarship focuses on equal protection, especially involving race and sexual orientation. His articles have been published in several prestigious law journals, including the University of Chicago Law Review, the California Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and the Georgetown Law Journal. At Virginia, Forde-Mazrui has also served as the Barron F. Black Research Professor and the Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Research Professor of Law. In 2003, he was appointed the inaugural director of the Center for the Study of Race and Law. Forde-Mazrui holds a B.A. in philosophy from the University of Michigan and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

More:

Do We Need the Equal Rights Amendment Today? Divided We Fall - Divided We Fall

Michael Morse| Guest columnist

Michael Morse (mmorsepfd@gmail.com), a monthly contributor, is the author of "Let There be Light" and other books and a former captain with the Providence Fire Department.

A spirit of rebellion is in the air; people are questioning authority, standing up to government overreach, rejecting forced narratives being preached over the air and social media waves and following their instincts. When something feels wrong we trust common sense earned through experience and question the source, expose the frauds and celebrate the truth when and where we can find it.

This is a different kind of uprising than any in our history. The forces that seek to discredit us, and ridicule our beliefs are strong. They are united. They are relentless. They are absolutely certain that their way is the right way, and no matter what we sayor how much we reason, our words fall on deaf ears.

They are our children. It seems we just cannot trust anyone under 30.

This oppressive regime that we created has managed to create misery out of opportunity, racism from equality, censorship over free speech and oppression over liberty has decided for all of us that fun is a thing of the past. Until everybody thinks and behaves alike there will be no progress. Garage bands that shouted teen rebellion into quiet neighborhoods have been replaced by lonely kids in basements laying down computerized beats for other lonely kids to rap over.

A fun night out is no longer a keg party in the woods, Its an edible enhanced protest against something they have never experienced, led by people who are using them for leverage.

The adults in the room have literally fought for liberty, civil rights, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. We have survived decades of unrest, upheaval, numerous shifts in political philosophy and a few wars. We have worked for minimum wage, and paid our college loans, rented crummy apartments in crummy neighborhoods and somehow survived. We figured out how to navigate the world as it was presented to us.

We paid 18% interest on our first mortgages, worked second jobs, then another on weekends, treated those around us with respect and never considered blaming our elders for our problems.

But more important than all of that; we did not forgot how to have fun. Life can be miserable, and it can be great, all in the exact same place. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. People over 30 know how much fun can be had, and spent vast amounts of time figuring out how to have it. Nobody gave it to us, we made life fun.

I hope that some day soon the Malcontent Generation will figure things out, and stop demanding and start living. It is by enjoying what those who came before us have created that we progress. Being obsessed with righting the wrongs of the past leaves one stranded in a quagmire of irresolvable rage. Embracing the progress we have achieved while acknowledging the sins of our past, and then working toward making the world a better, more harmonious place, leads to a far more satisfying existence.

The amazing American Experiment has led us to this moment. We are 330 million individuals free to lead our lives to the best of our ability. Our republic gives us freedom from the demands of the majority. We do not have to go along to get along, and that is the beauty of this place.

Never in history have people from every corner on earth, in every shape, color, religious belief and orientation lived together peacefully under the same set of laws. We are a work in progress. Engaging in battles between races, genders, generations and sexes squanders so much, and accomplishes so little.

Original post:

Opinion/Morse: Never trust anybody under 30 - The Providence Journal

Facebook

San Cristobal (Agenzia Fides) - "With pain we have learned of the murder of our brother Simn Pedro Prez Lpez, an indigenous Tzozil, catechist of the parish of Santa Catarina, in Pantelho, diocese of San Cristbal de las Casas, who was president of Civic organization Abejas de Acteal, whose members have waged a peaceful struggle in the search for justice". Thus begins the statement of the diocese of San Cristbal de las Casas, in the state of Chiapas, signed by the Bishop, Mgr. Rodrigo Aguilar Martnez, by the Auxiliary Bishop, Mgr. Luis Manuel Alfaro Lpez, by the Chancellor and by the Vicar of "Justice and Peace". The Acteal massacre, named after the small indigenous village in the state of Chiapas, was committed on December 22, 1997: a paramilitary group killed 45 people, of the Tzotzil ethnicity, mostly women and children, while they were in church. In the text, sent to Fides, which bears the date of July 6, 2021, it is recalled: "In the context of the spiral of violence that we are experiencing in the State of Chiapas, added to the pain of the Tsotsil, Tzeltal, Ch'ol, Totic, Tojolabal peoples, are an open wound for the diocese, aggravated by countless testimonies of abuse, injustice and impunity, forced displacement, murder, political murder, theft of land and vehicles. Our memory reminds us of the events that took place before the Acteal massacre, which we struggle to forget". The diocese notes that several inhabitants of the municipality of Pantelh have denounced "that for several years they have suffered threats from people from the municipal authority who conspire with organized crime in the municipal seat and different communities of Pantelh, as well as the murders of people who have been left without justice being applied". He then recalls the murder of four people belonging to a political party, which took place on March 13, 2021, and underlines that "after the June 6 elections, violence and murders in this town hall have increased". After citing the analyzes of the Latin American continent and the dynamics that generate oppression, terror and death, the text denounces: "As a diocese, in various ways we have warned the municipal, state and federal authorities of these situations and we have become spokespersons for all these complaints and sufferings, but it seems that there are obscure interests that cause the omission of complaints, which are minimized. We are still witnessing, in Chiapas, the reactivation of the forces that have changed from paramilitaries to organized crime, allies of the narco-government, who have invaded our state to control the resistance of the organized peoples who defend their autonomy". This situation, continues the text of the diocese, pushes us to ask the government authorities to prevent similar events from happening again; to protect the population, especially those who defend human rights; to report on the progress of the cases that have so far gone unpunished. They then call on the "intellectual and material" perpetrators of acts that cause terror, cruelty and death to repent and change their attitudes according to God's plan. "May the blood of Simn Pedro and of all the murdered people - he concludes - be the seed for the liberation of indigenous children who suffer marginalization, persecution and displacement. The blood cries out for peace, the blood cries out for justice but never cries out for revenge". (SL) (Agenzia Fides, 7/7/2021)

See the article here:

AMERICA/MEXICO - An indigenous catechist, defender of rights, assassinated, the diocese's complaints on the increasing violence in Chiapas are not...

Are you kind of, sort of, not really into the fact that the Olympics are still going to happen later this month in Tokyo despite the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that the vast majority of our planets 7.8 billion people remain unvaccinated, with alarming outbreaks cropping up worldwide?

If so, youve got a friend in Kayoko Takahashi.

According to the Tokyo Reporter, the 53-year-old woman from Hitachi attempted to extinguish the flame of the Olympic torch as it passed through Mito en route to Japans capital on Sunday by shooting at it with a squirt gun.

We are opposed to the Olympics! she can be heard shouting in a video that has since gone viral on social media as she takes aim at the torch. Stop the Olympics!

Apparently, Takahashis opposition stems from the fact that only 14% of Japans population has been fully vaccinated against Covid-19.

Her efforts to extinguish the flame ultimately proved unsuccessful, though she was arrested for deliberately aiming at the runner [carrying the torch] and interfering with the relay, Noriaki Nagatsuka, Mitos deputy chief of police, told Vice News.

In Takahashis defense, its actually hard to put out an Olympic torch. (Unless youre a literal rainstorm, like the one at the 1976 Montreal Games that managed to put out the entire gigantic flame in the stadium.) Many have attempted to do just that, though! And often for political reasons. Others have taken advantage of the torchs far-reaching media visibility to stage other kinds of protests while leaving the flame itself alone. Here are some notable examples from the past few decades.

As the Olympic torch relay entered its final stretch on the way to Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Games, a young man hurled a bucket of water at it in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to extinguish it.

The man was not the only one who attempted to put out the torch in the lead-up to the 2016 games in Brazil. As the flame passed through Angra dos Reis, a group of striking teachers furious at Rios state government for funding the Olympics while not paying them for two months seized upon it, successfully putting it out as part of their protest.

Two years earlier on the torch relay to Sochi, a gay rights activist attempted to wave a rainbow flag as the flame passed through Voronezh, presumably to call attention the Russian state oppression of LGBTQ+ people. He was tackled and detained by police for doing so.

As the Olympic torch passed through London on the way to the 2008 Games in Beijing, a protester unsuccessfully tried to put it out using a literal fire extinguisher.

French protesters succeeded where that fire extinguisher fan failed, though, successfully extinguishing the flame at least three times in an effort to call attention to the Chinese governments record of human rights abuses in occupied Tibet.

And finally, we have ... bong hits for Jesus? Yep! Bong hits for Jesus. In 2002, an Alaska high school student held up a banner advocating BONG HITS 4 JESUS on the side of the Olympic torch relay as it cut through Juneau on the way to Salt Lake City. His 10-day suspension gave way to a first amendment legal battle, culminating with a 2007 supreme court ruling in favor of school administrators.

Link:

There is a light that sometimes goes out: the Olympic torch protests - The Guardian

After a year of lockdowns and letdowns, many Americans wanted to do Independence Day up right. They were ready to party, to let their patriotic party flags fly.

Only, according to The New York Times last weekend, flying the American flag is now problematic.

An article headlined A Fourth of July Symbol of Unity That May No Longer Unite suggested waving the national symbol is actually a political partisan act. Today, flying the American flag from the back of a pickup truck or over a lawn is increasingly seen as a clue, albeit an imperfect one, to a persons political affiliation in a deeply divided nation, the Times wrote.

To paraphrase Woody Guthrie, this flag was made for you not me.

That was certainly the message of progressive Democrat and Squad member Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri:

When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this: the freedom theyre referring to is for White people, Bush tweeted. This land is stolen land and Black people still arent free.

Not surprisingly, the tweet sparked a backlash in conservative media. But it also sent many progressivesto the Twitter barricades to re-tweet her message and defend her views.

Bush isnt a national political figure like her fellow Squad members such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but her message seems to fit right in. And while some Democrats might want to dismiss her as part of the fringe, they cant do the same to The New York Times, or The Washington Post, or National Public Radio.

The same day the Times was declaring the U.S. flag politically suspect, their fellow travelers at NPR were adding a trigger warning for the first time ever to their annual reading of the Declaration of Independence.

Over the past 32 years, Morning Edition has broadcast a reading of the Declaration of Independence by NPR staff as a way of marking Independence Day, the host announced. But after last summers protests and our national reckoning on race, the words in the document land differently.

It famously declares that all men are created equal even though women, enslaved people, and Indigenous Americans were not held as equal at the time, the host added before listing more grievances against the Founders.

And The Washington Post took the opportunity of the Fourth to argue its time to reconsider another iconic American symbol. Maybe Its Time To Admit That the Statue of Liberty Has Never Quite Measured Up, they wrote.

Not to be outdone, longtime MSNBC regular and social justice activist Toure tweeted,Fk Independence Day. Not only were we not free, the whole reason the Colonies wanted independence was because Britain was moving toward abolishing slavery. Why would Black people celebrate a day so wrapped up in our enslavement?

Democrats can dismiss claims that their party is anti-American or at the least unpatriotic and these examples as mere anecdotes. The problem is that these ugly claims about the grand old flag and the home of the free and the brave are now at the center of Democratic Party politics.

And as a result, theyre likely to be a drag on even the most patriotic Democratic candidates in their wake.

The fundamental premise of the Critical Race Theory, for example, is that America is a racist nation, infected with systemic racism and full of racist (read White) people who are pillars of the countrys white supremacy. New Hampshire Democratic legislators literally took turns during the budget debate declaring that not only is this true, but properly educating students is impossible if teachers cant advance these ideas.

They continue to insist, today, that refusing to allow government workers to use CRT is racist, as a recent House Democratic Caucus press release called it.

The Democrats economic policies are also premised on the notion that America is an unfair place where the rich (read White people) steal from the poor (read people of color.) Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren have called for widespread wealth confiscation in the pursuit of economic justice.

In fact, Democrats went so far as to pass a COVID relief bill that gives some forms of COVID relief only to people of color, denying funding to White farmers and business owners in need. (Courts have since struck down those racist policies.)

It may come as a shock to Democrats in swing states like Arizona and New Hampshire, but when your party keeps bashing America as a racist hellhole and its flag a symbol of hate and oppression, voters are eventually going to notice. Theyll be tempted to conclude that being part of the Democratic Party thats pushed this anti-patriotism says something about the politicians who are members, and cast their votes in 2022 accordingly.

In the past, Republicans tried to label Democrats as unpatriotic, using issues like the War on Terror as political wedges. Not this time.

Saying Democrats dont like America isnt an accusation. Its quoting them accurately. Its not a smear from some right-wing talk host. Its the front page of The New York Times.

See the article here:

After This Fourth of July, Democrats Should Plead the Fifth InsideSources - InsideSources

On the eve of the entry into force of Hungarys new anti-LGBTIQ law, parliamentarians took aim at the gradual dismantling of the rule of law in Hungary during a plenary debate on Wednesday.

On June 15, the Hungarian Parliament adopted a law originally intended to fight paedophilia, which, following amendments proposed by members from the ruling Fidesz party, contains clauses prohibiting the portrayal of homosexuality and gender reassignment to minors.

The law also prohibits homosexuality and gender reassignment from being featured in sex education classes and stipulates that such classes can now only be taught by registered organisations.

On June 22, 18 Member States issued a statement expressing grave concern over Hungarys LGBTIQ discrimination, calling the new law a flagrant form of discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression that deserves to be condemned.

Speaking earlier in plenary on Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the new Hungarian legislation uses the protection of children as an excuse in order to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.

It is a disgrace, this legislation. It is something that flies in the face of the values of the European Union. Protecting human dignity, equality, preserving human rights; these are our values, and they are anchored in Article 2 of our Treaty.

This law conflates gay people with paedophiles and it incites violence and hatred. If this is not enough for the EU to take action then nothing else will be. So stop funding Viktor Orbns corruption and apply the rule of law mechanism Katalin Cseh, Renew Europe

At the European Council, European heads of state and government made it quite clear that they wanted to support the Commission on this issue. I shall use all instruments available to the Commission in order to defend these fundamental principles, Von der Leyen added.

The ensuing plenary debate on breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary saw a groundswell of fierce opposition to Hungarys new anti-LGBTIQ law, as MEPs urged the Commission and Council to take punitive action against Hungary over its backsliding in democratic values.

Opening the debate, Ane Logar, Slovenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared, There is no place for homophobia in European Union. No one should feel a need to conceal their true selves in order to avoid discrimination, hate or even violence. All citizens of our Union are equal and should be able to live in freedom and safe from discrimination based on their age, sex, race, colour, religion or sexual orientation.

S&D leader Iratxe Garca Prez started her speech by stating that LGBTI rights are human rights and that acting against those rights in the European Union is illegal.

This is why the new Hungarian law must be revoked, because it is an attack on human rights and it is an indecent and shameful law. This retrograde law sows the seeds of hate and violence.

She added that reaction must now become action through the use of the conditionality mechanism linked to the rule of law, and sanctions via Article 7.

It is a disgrace, this legislation. It is something that flies in the face of the values of the European Union. Protecting human dignity, equality, preserving human rights; these are our values I shall use all instruments available to the Commission in order to defend these fundamental principles

Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President

Dutch EPP member Jeroen Lenaers asked, What kind of message are we sending as a government to young people by insisting that even the mere portrayal of homosexuality in itself is already so abnormal or so dangerous that young people should be shielded from it?

What message does it send to a boy or a girl who falls in love for the first time with another boy or another girl, that their feelings aren't normal, that they have something to be ashamed about, that there is something wrong with them?

Lenaers added, The only one who has anything to be ashamed of is a parliament who sends such a message. The rule of law in Europe is in need of some long overdue maintenance and you Member States have all the tools necessary to make the difference and it is time now to put your money where your mouth is and finally act.

German Greens/EFA deputy Terry Reintke said, Between a Europe of freedom and a Europe of hatred and oppression, the choice is very clear: we choose freedom, we choose equality, we choose democracy.

And we choose a European Commission that will stand up for this freedom, for the freedom of people in Hungary, for the freedom of judges in Poland, for the freedom of everyone in the European Union to love who they want to love and to be who they are.

Renew Europe MEP Liesje Schreinemacher said, Let's make Mr Orbn listen the only way he knows how. If the law is not revoked, bring Hungary to court, repeal its voting rights and stop EU funds ending up in his pockets.

The new Hungarian law must be revoked, because it is an attack on human rights and it is an indecent and shameful law. This retrograde law sows the seeds of hate and violence Iratxe Garca Prez, S&D leader

This Parliament is doing everything in its power to make this happen. We are doing our job and now we are urging the European Commission, but especially the Council, to finally do theirs.

Hungarian Renew Europe colleague Katalin Cseh said, It is beyond tragic that we are here today, to witness the exact replica of Putins law being adopted in the EU.

Right now, in Hungary, its illegal for high school teachers to talk to high school students about diversity and acceptance, or for kids to watch cartoons with queer characters in them. This law conflates gay people with paedophiles and it incites violence and hatred.

If this is not enough for the EU to take action then nothing else will be. So stop funding Viktor Orbns corruption and apply the rule of law mechanism, because human rights abuses are only a means for him and kleptocracy is the ultimate end.

Though the majority of MEPs voiced their strong opposition to the Hungarian anti-LGBTIQ legislation, not all members were on board, as evidenced by some ECR and ID group deputies such as Polish ECR member Joachim Brudziski, who said that Poland and Hungary are part of Europe and will stay in Europe.

He said, No one gave the left [in Parliament] the right to decide who is a European and who isn't. In Poland and in Hungary, the governments have democratic legitimacy and they are permitted to protect the real values from the Old and New Testament and not from the lefts arsenal.

View original post here:

MEPs lament 'putinisation' of Hungary as EU urged to take urgent action - The Parliament Magazine

Now, the Fourth of July, as you know, celebrates our independence from some toothless weirds. Its quite an accomplishment to trounce an empire so 250 years later we can listen to this.

CAMPUS REFORM: Are you proud to be an American?

STUDENT: No. I feel embarrassed to be an American every day. I think a lot of things about this country are really embarrassing, just, like, I mean, racist history, colonization, even currently, just whats going on with politics and the cops.

STUDENT: Um, not really in this climate, like, Im a Black person, so obviously I experience a lot of, um, theres oppression that comes with that.

STUDENT: Not most of the time. I think sometimes its just a little embarrassing.

STUDENT: I think thats a complicated question for me. I think most of the time, no, at least over the past four years its been tricky to love to be an American.

STUDENT: Halfsies on that.

STUDENT: Like, partly, because like, I feel like there are certain topics where its, like, very controversial, but, like, I dont know. I just think our economy just cares about money and not, like, humans in general.

I mean, oh, my gee! I mean, like! She said like 433 times. Halfsies.

I cant wait until she enters the real world and takes my order at Arbys.

PROUD TO BE AMERICAN? STUDENTS STRUGGLE TO ANSWER

So, all these lovely people are embarrassed by America. But do they have any alternatives?

CAMPUS REFORM: Can you name a better country?

STUDENT: Im not sure if I can.

STUDENT: I dont think I can.

STUDENT: Um, probably a really tiny European country that is thriving.

STUDENT: Oh, good question, Europe.

CAMPUS REFORM: Europes not a country.

STUDENT: You know what Im saying.

Maybe the British are better off without us.

Their food still sucks, but at least they like their country.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA, DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS BASH AMERICA THROUGHOUT FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND

And I know surveys like this are like shooting really stupid fish in a tiny, tiny barrel.

College is where grades dont matter as long as you get a hammer and sickle tattoo on your but.

But hey, theyre just dumb kids, right? We can forgive them. But what happens when patriotism is considered offensive by our very own leaders.

This weekend, idiots from Maxine Watters to Cori Bush slammed the Fourth of July as nothing more than a celebration of racism.

I could read their tweets, but why.

Heres this gist from Bush. "The freedom theyre referring to is for White people."

This raises a point. Perhaps our politicians do such an awful job because they hate America. Did you ever think about that? Their incompetence is their weapon.

Think about how easy it is to subvert a Republic.

Get elected, then rot it from within, and if anyone challenges you, well thats racist.

Meanwhile, National Geographic marked the Fourth by tweeting that smoke from fireworks causes disproportionate harm to communities of color.

So I hope you enjoyed that Roman candle, you racist.

WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: IT WILL BE HARDER TO CELEBRATE AMERICA'S 250TH BIRTHDAY

But of course, National Geographics virtue signal comes after decades of exploiting communities of color all over the world.

Oh, look at topless women in their natural habitat. Remember that?

When I was a young man, I assumed that every naked woman carried a basket of food on their heads.

And then, theres the new Facebook feature that warns users when theyve been exposed to extremist content.

Facebook asks if you know someone whos becoming extremist, which is why this morning I ratted out every anchor at CNN.

But I did ask myself if I came across anything that seems extreme, and I did, but oddly, its from Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg himself.

What the hell was that? I mean, really, what the hell was it?

Have you seen anything as White as that in your life?

I mean, if riding a Hydrofoil surfboard holding an oversized American flag isnt extremist privileged behavior, what is?

All thats missing is the red hat, a rifle rack, and a plate of racist apple pie.

FACEBOOK WARNS USERS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO HARMFUL EXTREMISTS

In this era, where patriotism is merely a dog whistle for hate, couldnt one argue that any form of patriotism in an oppressive racist society is celebrating its past and therefore an example of extremism?

I believe thats MSNBCs mission statement.

Zuckerberg certainly isnt helping his own case here as he encourages citizens to narc on citizens.

And its working. At my Fourth of July cookout, I caught my brisket wearing a wire.

But thanks to Facebook, its no longer media and government policing your beliefs. Theyre motivating the public to do the dirty work for you. Its the new version of if you see something, say something.

The only difference is that something is no longer an unintended suitcase at the airport. Its your buddy getting a Dont Tread on Me tattoo.

The rise of cancel culture isnt a mistake. Its bad on purpose.

The fear of losing ones job over something you said, thats intended. So that fear self-polices your own words. You dont need a government to do it when your fear silences you and debate mysteriously disapp[ears.

When the worlds largest social media platform asks you to narc on your neighbors, its not just you theyre asking, but your neighbors too.

But at least real narcs point out people who actually broke the law.

So what if someone reports you?

According to Facebook, youll never know your accuser.

NPR DECRIES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AS A DOCUMENT WITH FLAWS AND DEEPLY INGRAINED HYPOCRISIES

How Stasi is that?

Big Brother eases you into becoming their informant by reminding you that "others in your situation have received confidential support."

Its a high-tech self-made witness protection plan, only when you rat somebody out, you dont need to change your name, grow a beard, and move to Scranton like Joe DeVito did.

You can think without repercussions.

"Take action now to protect yourself and others," Facebook says.

Let Facebook be the bad guy. Theyre protecting, not you.

I remember when we were young, we were supposed to fight Big Brother, not hold hands with him. I wonder what the Angry White Male thinks.

Tom Shillue, Angry White Male: Me, well I guess I spent the holiday feeling extremely proud, extremely thankful, and extremely blessed that I was born in the greatest country in the world. Hey, I guess I am an extremist.

Alright, how about you, Angry Black Male.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Tyrus, Angry Black Male: Yes, it was the Fourth of July. Yes, we celebrated Americas independence. Yes, this country was built on the backs of men and women of all colors, creeds, to make it what we are today. So cheers to everybody.

So I hope you all had a good Fourth, but no its the sixth. You might want to take that flag down now, before you get reported.

This article is adapted from Greg Gutfeld's opening monologue on the July 7,2021 edition of "Gutfeld!"

More:

Greg Gutfeld: We use to fight Big Brother, now Big Brother wants you to be an informant - Fox News

Dunamis International Gospel Centre said on Wednesday that it has no hand in the arrest and detention of #BuhariMustGo protesters.

The Department of State Services (DSS) had on Sunday, stormed Dunamis International Gospel Centre located on the Airport Road in Abuja and arrested six activists, who wore #BuhariMustGo T-shirts.

Convener of RevolutionNow, Omoyele Sowore, had accused the senior pastor of the church, Dr. Paul Enenche, of giving up innocent worshippers for arrest because of their beliefs.

But responding to the development in a statement signed by Dr Adah Ochowechi, on behalf of the church, Dunamis said the protesters were arrested outside the premises of the church without the knowledge of the Senior Pastor, Enenche.

For the records, the Senior Pastor, Dr Paul Enenche who was engaged in preaching the sermon in the second service was not privy to the unfolding development, let alone giving the order for their arrest.

We wish to state categorically that Dunamis Intl Gospel Centre has no hands in the arrest and detention of the said youths as they were arrested outside the premises of the church, the statement said adding that church has no right to arrest and detain people, and has no detention custody.

The right of arrest and detention resides with government security agencies. The church of Christ, over the course of human history, has remained resolute in her advocacy for human right, justice and freedom. The Senior Pastor, Dr Paul Enenche is known for his relentless voice against oppression, injustice and evil in the country at all levels.

The church that is praying and advocating for a free, just, orderly and peaceful society cannot but help to further the cause of justice, order and peace in the land.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The church holds three services every Sunday, and the Senior Pastor, Dr Paul Enenche preaches in all the services. After the sermon in the first service that Sunday, an altar call was made, to which many people came out, including the said youths, and nothing happened to them. No one questioned the legality or otherwise of the inscription on their T-shirts.

However, soon after their departure from the altar, they swung into protest with blaring trumpets and saxophones right from the exit door of the church. At the same time, the event was being covered and live-streamed with the background shots of the church building and those of the thronging crowd, both exiting and entering the sanctuary for the next service. The live streaming had the caption: BUHARI MUST GO Campaign Hits Dunamis Church in Abuja.

This appears intriguing for many reasons: No one knew who they were or where they came from, the statement added.

The church said no one knew the organization they represented as well as their ultimate agenda until the DSS apprehended them.

No standard rule of engagement was followed as they merely sneaked into the church and swung into protest on a holy day of service.

Moreover, the church is not an activism ground, but a centre for the projection of truth against all forms of evil. The church is non-political and non-partisan and thus, not an appropriate ground for political protests. It is not the seat of government where those being protested against reside.

As intriguing as it was to a common onlooker, so was it to members of undercover security forces on the premises for routine duties. Acting in their line of duty, the DSS officials arrested the protesters, the church stated.

Read the original:

We Have No Hand In Arrest Of Anti-Buhari Protesters Dunamis - LEADERSHIP NEWS