Category Archives: Government Oppression

WikiLeaks uncovers the U.S. police state

By Mark Luedtke

All hail Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks. No scribe in history has dared expose the machinations of rulers to the extent Assange has. A hero in every respect, including his flaws, Assange sacrifices his freedom and risks his life to inform people of the evils of coercive government.

Assange could not accomplish this mission on his own. All members of WikiLeaks and the whistleblowers who feed them are heroes.

WWII was presented to the American people as a conflict between an open society and a closed one. Rulers contrasted how Americans enjoyed the free exchange of ideas without surveillance or consequence while fascist countries were ruled by secret police that monitored everything. The communists employed the same tactic during the Cold War.

The book They Thought They Were Free documents how Germans believed they were free until the Nazis made it clear they werent. They had surrendered their freedom before the Nazis took power, and then the Gestapo ruled them. The KGB ruled the Soviet Union.

We recently learned Americans are ruled by our own secret police: the NSA, FBI, and, as WikiLeaks spectacularly documented, the CIA. Americans who believe they are free are as mistaken as the Germans before them.

Of course, Americans have never been allowed the free exchange of ideas without surveillance or consequence. George Washington read every piece of mail he could confiscate during the Revolutionary War and the revolts during his presidency. John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were forced to write essays protesting oppression under pseudonyms. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned newspaper writers who criticized him and his war against Southern states. Roosevelt imprisoned Americans of Japanese descent. War is the impetus for oppression.

However, despite the governments efforts, Americans largely succeeded in keeping society open. Thats why the best and brightest people in the world moved to America, especially during the rise of fascism between the world wars. The openness of American society was one of the major factors in winning WWII and the Cold War.

But not any more. The WikiLeaks expos proves beyond a shadow of a doubt all Americans are now monitored and controlled by secret police.

The first important takeaway from this WikiLeaks dump is U.S. government agents will go to any extreme to hack anybody they want. The law does not limit them. They are not limited by conscience. They follow their worst instincts without consequence. Promoting changes to the law to limit U.S. spies is useless, because they dont obey the law.

Second, government agents intentionally make the internet less secure. Rhetoric about wanting to secure the internet is a joke. Rulers spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually making it less secure so we are more vulnerable to internet predators.

Exile Edward Snowden tweeted, If youre writing about the CIA/WikiLeaks story, heres the big deal: first public evidence USG secretly paying to keep U.S. software unsafe.

Snowden continues, The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

Surrendering power to the U.S. government, ostensibly to secure the internet, is setting the fox to guard the henhouse.

WikiLeaks CIA document dump also shows how U.S. spies regularly create fake intelligence and masquerade as rival intelligence services, so the next time you hear Russian or Chinese hackers hacked something, you cant trust it. Fake intelligence from the U.S. government, especially the CIA, is the primary source of the fake news that permeates the mainstream media.

Its ironic that despite all its tools for creating fake intelligence, the CIA produced zero evidence Russia hacked the recent presidential election. Its outrageous that America, once the haven for the best and brightest people in the world, now has a government that drives productive Americans to expatriate in record numbers.

I fear for Julian Assange. WikiLeaks has been so successful that Sean Hannity, who never saw a war or spy program he didnt like, is suddenly talking about the danger of the deep state. The last person to so publicly wound the CIA was President Kennedy, and he was assassinated for it.

Assange is already trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, but the Ecuadorians cant protect him from the CIA. I fear hell either be extradited or assassinated by years end. Hopefully, WikiLeaks will continue doing the job American establishment reporters wont do if the worst happens to Assange.

The views and opinions expressed in Conspiracy Theorist are the views and/or opinions of the author and do not reflect the views and/or opinions of the Dayton City Paper or Dayton City Media and are published strictly for entertainment purposes.

Tags: conspiracy theorist, headline, surveillance, U.S. police state, WikiLeaks

Read the original:

Conspiracy Theorist: 3/21 - Dayton City Paper

5543108

Its budget-whiner season again and progressive big-government gadflies are swarming around President Trumps proposed budget cuts like the buzzing blood sucking pests that drive arctic caribou herds and humans to literal madness in the Great White North.

It is pernicious progressive political propaganda that any attempt to downsize the federal government is somehow evidence of President Trumps putative penchant for fascism. Dystopian author George Orwell said of fascism It is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword. But shriek fascism as a swearword the pettifogging panderers of political profligacy do at the slightest suggestion that the federal government is too large and costs too much, despite the inherent idiocy and hypocrisy of suggesting that smaller government is somehow fascistic.

Circumspectly, fascism is to political polarity as religion is to theocratic polarity. Religion is how you go about practicing your religious beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. In the same way fascism is how you go about achieving your political goals, not what your political beliefs are. You can be a Buddhist or a Baptist and youre still practicing religion. Likewise, you can be a Socialist or a Conservative and still be a practicing fascist. Therefore liberal fascism is an actual thing precisely because liberal fascists in the guise of progressivism are all about authoritarian government and oppression of pretty much anybody who doesnt hew to the leftist party line, as seen in the freedom-suppressing wildings of liberal fascists at UC Berkeley and pretty much anywhere else a conservative or Republican tries to engage in free speech and expression.

The Wilsonian premise of progressive politicians including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that we, the People, are simply too stupid to know whats good for us, therefore the more federal bureaucrats there are to shepherd the sheeple the better, and shearing the sheeple to pay for it is obviously necessary. This progressive presumption fits quite nicely with both Marxs useful idiots of Marxism statement and the general opinion of the Socialist elite that the lumpen proletariat cannot govern themselves, which is why Marxist and Progressive elites usually work hand in hand to create oppressive authoritarian governments that definitely qualify as liberally fascistic.

The progressive purpose of creating an enormous federal bureaucracy that gets its marching orders from the President is to unconstitutionally transfer power and control to the Executive branch to marginalize Congress in order to turn it into a mere debating society that has no power of its own. This unchecked administrative state is the ultimate goal of progressivism as espoused by its creator Woodrow Wilson back in 1912 and exemplified by former President Obama when he said Were not just going to be waiting for legislationIve got a penand I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward

Progressives have been moving the ball towards this goal for more than a hundred years and the election of President Trump is viewed by them as the gravest threat progressivism has ever faced: the wholesale dismantling of the administrative state and the salvation of the Separation of Powers doctrine that once again makes all three branches of government equal in authority and equal in power, particularly when it comes to checking and balancing overreaches by the other branches. Thus the hysterical response to President Trumps budget recommendations and the political panic at the prospect of a Republican-controlled Congress and White House going nuclear on progressivism.

When it comes to budget cuts its important to remember that the federal government creates nothing but expenses to taxpayers. Every dollar that the federal government grants to some program or other must be first forcibly extracted from the pockets of the people. These filched funds flows to the government, where at least 15 percent is skimmed off the top to fund the bloated bureaucracy. According to an article in the Washington Post, the government spent $200 billion in discretionary funds on federal employee compensation alone in 2011.

Once the bureaucrats have been paid more is skimmed off to pay for their office buildings, desks, computers, paperclips and for air-conditioning their offices (which if eliminated by executive order would go a long way towards downsizing the bureaucracy all by itself through voluntary attrition from the actual swamp that is DC in the summer).

Only after all the costs of creating and supporting the entire federal bureaucracy are paid is any money left over to grant to federally-funded social programs like National Public Radio or Planned Parenthood. But remember where all that money comes from in the first place: taxpayers. So these programs are simply a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul with a middleman skimming 15 percent off the top. Therefore, any grant the federal government can make can be made by a state with at least a 15 percent increase in available funds.

It is an economic truth that bureaucrats are always looking for something to do in order to justify their existence. The rule for academic researchers and government bureaucrats is publish or perish. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than at the EPA, which under President Obama was the king of pointless and costly over-regulation. According to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce between 2009 and June, 2016 the EPA issued about 3,900 new final rules comprising more than 33,000 pages in the Federal Register that will cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Obama administration stuffed the EPA with platoons of progressive civil-service bureaucrats, who like many pests are incredibly hard to get rid of, precisely in order to publish as many new regulations as possible, whether or not the regulations were actually necessary and regardless of the economic harm they might cause, simply in order to increase the size and power of the administrative state to levels unprecedented in human history.

But along comes President Trump, who was elected in large part based on his promise to downsize the government, and when he proposes to do so more dramatically than any president since Ronald Reagan or perhaps Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the pestilential progressive politicos swarm and subsume all rational discussion in a sea of shrieks about their oxen being gored.

This is not unexpected, but just as one deals with mosquitoes in Alaska by dispensing DEET and then getting on with life we must apply the anodynes against progressive pestilence, which include reason, determination and fiscal responsibility and get on with applying a healthy dose of political DDT to the bloated bureaucracy in DC.

The best way to do that is to deconstruct the EPA administrative state entirely by abolishing the agency and return both the authority and the money to the individual states, all of which have their own environmental protection agencies that are perfectly capable of dealing with environmental issues all by themselves, particularly if the state doesnt have to fork over billions of dollars to the feds every year to run the duplicative and entirely unnecessary EPA. Where environmental issues cross state lines nothing prevents states from either cooperating with one another in making interstate agreements or, if necessary, suing one another in federal court to deal with such problems.

Government that governs from a position as close to those governed as possible is best. That is a fundamental precept of our union of sovereign states and the Founders concept of federalism demands that the federal government butt out of state and local matters. How Colorado deals with a pollution-generating gold mine is not the business of people in New Jersey, and how New Jersey deals with pollution in their rivers is not the business of Coloradoans. And in neither case is federal government meddling either needed or wanted, so we need is to ignore the pests buzzing about and do what needs to be done.

See the rest here:

Budget-Whiners Are Pernicious Pests - Daily Caller

The Oregon legislature is considering a bill that could re-enshrine juries to the their former place as the last line of defense against legalized despotism.

Senate Bill 924, introduced by state Senator Kim Thatcher, mandates that judges must provide very particular instructions to juries in felony cases. Prior to giving a case to a jury for their consideration, judges must issue them the following instruction:

As jurors, if you feel that a conviction would not be a fair or just result in this case, it is within your power to find the defendant not guilty even if you find that the state has proven the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should a judge fail to provide the requisite instruction, the bill provides that such failure constitutes a mistrial.

Before one is able to understand why jury nullification is a good idea, one must understand the importance of a trial by jury. Our Founding Fathers universally considered it to be a powerful weapon in the war against tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

InThe Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that trial by jury was the very palladium of free government and a valuable check upon corruption.

Hamiltons fellowFederalist author and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay informed a jury in a 1794 case that:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

Given the strength of these opinions, then, it is no surprise that the denial of trials by jury was one of the foremost acts of despotism listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

As for the concept that juries have not only the power but the obligation to nullify unjust rulings of a judge, John Adams wrote, It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

And Hamilton, again from The Federalist Papers, described the jurys check on the judge as a double security that tends to preserve the purity of both judge and jury.

Obviously, the idea that juries may act contrary to the will of a judge is nothing new in American law, and in fact it is an act of resistance to government oppression that our Founders believed to be fundamental in a Republic that was to remain free under the rule of law, rather than enslaved according to the rule of men.

As indicated by the statements provided above, our Founding Fathers zealously defended this right and recognized that only an informed and empowered jury could effectively protect a defendant from the potentially harmful effects of autocratic judges.

Such staunch opposition to official overreach is to be expected from our Founding Fathers, but even during the hedonistic days of Summer of Love the U.S. Supreme Court held that undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. (U.S. v. Moylan, 1969).

Only a year ago, during a speech she delivered at New York University, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor came out in favor of encouraging juries to exercise the demands of their consciences in refusing to accept a judges interpretation of a law.

There is a place, I think, for jury nullification finding the balance in that and the role judges should play, Sotomayor said, commenting on the Second Circuits decision to excuse a juror based on a suspicion that he was practicing jury nullification by refusing to find a suspect guilty.In its ruling, the Second Circuit wrote, We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.

The Second Circuits statement notwithstanding, support for this layer of protection from systematic despotism is strengthening. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is an organization devoted to educating Americans on the benefits of jury nullification. On their website, FIJA explains why jury nullification is not only a good idea, but one supported by constitutional principles of freedom from tyranny:

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.

Despite all this, theWashington Times reported in 2013 that jury nullification proponents in Florida and New Jersey have been arrested and charged with jury tampering for distributing handbills at the courthouse that essentially publish the text of the New Hampshire law.

In an editorial, the Times sees such persecution as a prime example of the need for jury nullification in the fight against government oppression:

This demonstrates clearly the responsibility of juries to serve as a check against judges and prosecutors who may think theyre the last word in all matters of the law. Respect for the law and the courts is necessary for the good of all in a free society, and sometimes, as the number of frivolous and oppressive laws multiply, a little nullification can be a tonic, and a reminder to the lawyers, including judges, of whos really the boss.

Naysayers notwithstanding, the Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury. This means that the government must bring its case before a jury of the people if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. In defense of those unalienable rights, indeed, as the last line of defense, jurors can reject government tyranny by refusing to convict those subjected to prosecution for violating unjust laws.

Americans should be especially zealous proponents of any method of dismantling institutional abuse of authority, as this is the precise spark rejection of royal usurpation of power where none was granted by the people that set off the powder keg of war in 1775.

As of press time, the Oregon bill awaits consideration by the state Senates Judiciary Committee.

Read more here:

Oregon Bill Would Restore Power of Juries to Vote Their Consciences - The New American

In honor of Womens History Month this March, we are highlighting books featuring the numerous contributions and achievements of women, past and present.

The A.K. Smiley Public Library has a great selection of books to choose from portraying women from many countries and distinct backgrounds who have each made a mark on history, through talent, hard work and determination to make life better. Here are just a few suggestions to consider.

Born in 1865, growing up on the Omaha Indian reservation, Susan La Flesche, at age 24, became the first Native American woman doctor in U.S. history. A Warrior of the People: How Susan La Flesche Overcame Racial and Gender Inequality to Become Americas First Indian Doctor by Joe Starita tells the story of this remarkable woman.

Although experiencing countless obstacles, like government oppression, prejudice and balancing white and Native cultures, La Flesche chose to pursue a medical career. She was accepted at the Womens Medical College of Pennsylvania, graduated at the top of her class in 1889 and returned to the reservation as a physician, providing a much-needed service to her community.

La Flesche spent her life dedicated to treating more than 1,200 patients with a range of health issues, such as tuberculosis and smallpox. She also worked on educating her community about hygiene, food contamination and alcoholism, improving quality of life for her people. In 1913, two years before her death, she fulfilled her dream of opening a hospital on the reservation.

La Flesche was a trailblazer and a role model and her contributions to the Native American people were immeasurable.

A memoir that puts you in direct range of air battle, Danger Close: My Epic Journey as a Combat Helicopter Pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan by Amber Smith, is a gripping read. Coming from a family in which both parents and sisters were pilots and where the family farm had a grass airstrip in the backyard, Smith knew that aviation was in her future.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks and with various family members having served their country, Smith was compelled to sign up with the military. To become a pilot, all of the branches required a college degree, which she was still working on, with one exception the Army. They would allow her to continue working on her degree while training.

But there was one caveat shed be joining as a helicopter pilot and the only experience she had so far had been flying fixed-winged aircraft.

This is the story of her time as a U.S. Army Kiowa helicopter pilot, her training, deployments and combats. She describes her service in the 101st Airborne Division, the Screaming Eagles, as a reconnaissance pilot, assisting and supporting ground forces and flying close to the enemy while under fire. Enjoy this inspiring book of a patriotic and courageous woman.

Advertisement

Growing up in Pakistan in the 90s, in a village where girls were expected to stay indoors and not participate in sports, Maria, at a young age was determined to pursue her love of the outdoors. So, at age 4, she cut her hair, wore shorts and eventually starting living as a boy.

A Different Kind of Daughter: The Girl Who Hid from the Taliban in Plain Sight by Maria Toorpakai tells the story a girl who, despite the threats and danger involved, disguised herself as a boy to be able to follow her passion of playing sports. She initially trained and competed in weightlifting, later becoming enthralled with the sport of squash.

Ultimately, the truth of her gender became known, causing trouble and considerable harassment, even death threats.

Read the story of a woman who, despite adversity, became a professional athlete, rising to No. 1 as a female squash player from Pakistan.

Jill Martinson is a library specialist at the A.K. Smiley Public Library in Redlands.

Read the original here:

What's New at the AK Smiley Public Library: Check out books about women's achievements - Redlands Daily Facts

EDWARDSVILLE - Eyes and minds were opened as Southern Illinois University Edwardsville community members walked through Student Governments Tunnel of Oppression on Tuesday, March 14. The maze of impactful experiences demonstrated issues people face at home and globally.

More than 400 people walked through the Tunnel of Oppression, which included topics encompassing immigration, same-sex marriage, womens rights, mental health, international injustices and more.

These topics are relevant and these things actually happen to our students, said Carmen Connors, a senior in the SIUE School of Business and external affairs officer for Student Government. Right as you enter the tunnel you have three screens that feature testimonials from different students who have been affected by topics that people will then go and experience throughout the tunnel.

Sometimes you get caught up in your school work, graduating and getting a job, and you kind of forget whats going on in the real world when it comes to diversity and inclusion, and for certain groups that are oppressed, added Taylor Bodine, a senior in the School of Business and marketing and communications officer for Student Government. Even if you may not fall into any of those categories, its important to educate yourself.

The goal of the event was to raise awareness of these important topics, and allow individuals to walk in another persons shoes to gain a greater understanding of actions they can take to help and be inspired to do a greater good for the people around them.

There are a lot of people in the world going through things that I cant even imagine, but Ive experienced a little bit of that today, said Ricky Rush, a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences, after walking through the tunnel. I realize that for some people its not easy to let strangers know their experiences, so this was a way for me to show my support and hear their stories, and hopefully that will make me a better person in the long run.

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville provides students with a high quality, affordable education that prepares them for successful careers and lives of purpose to shape a changing world. Built on the foundation of a broad-based liberal education, and enhanced by hands-on research and real-world experiences, the academic preparation SIUE students receive equips them to thrive in the global marketplace and make our communities better places to live. Situated on 2,660 acres of beautiful woodland atop the bluffs overlooking the natural beauty of the Mississippi Rivers rich bottomland and only a short drive from downtown St. Louis, the SIUE campus is home to a diverse student body of more than 14,000.

Send your news tips to news@riverbender.com or on twitter @RiverBenderNews

Print Version Submit a News Tip

Share this story with your friends and family.

Here is the original post:

Eyes and minds opened by SIUE Student Government's Tunnel of Oppression - RiverBender.com

Invoking chapter 58 of the Book of Isaiah, Don Millican spoke Thursday to a congressional committee on behalf of the George Kaiser Family Foundation on the importance of funding early childhood programs, particularly those targeted to low-income families.

It tells me all of my religious practices are worthless if I do not break the yoke of oppression. In my opinion, there is no greater yoke of oppression than that laid upon a child born in generational poverty a child who did not choose the circumstances of his or her birth, said Millican, chief financial officer of Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. and board member for Tulsa Educare.

Tulsa represented two of the four positions on the panel before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, which is led by Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma. The subcommittee is responsible for making decisions on allocations to its designated agencies.

Also featured were Steven Dow, executive director of the Community Action Project of Tulsa, which administers the local federal Head Start grant; actress Jennifer Garner, representing Save the Children; and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, professor of child development and education at Columbia University.

Cole excused himself after about 30 minutes in order to attend a meeting of the appropriations committee. When making introductions of the panelists, Cole referred to Millican and Dow as friends of his.

I sort of packed the panel a little, but I knew youd like these people, Cole told the committee members.

In Millicans remarks, he described how Oklahoma developed a program of grants for high-quality child-care centers in which the state chipped in $10 million matched by $15 million in private donations.

We believe this committee should consider a similar structure for federal grants, he said. The value of public-private partnerships is somewhat obvious as government dollars are stretched further through private philanthropy, but we further believe these partnerships add an element of local accountability as donors expect a return on their philanthropic investment and the reporting to prove it.

As a businessman, I also understand there are times we must do more with less.

Millican recommended strengthening the re-compete process for Head Start grants and encouraging more federal dollars go to programs serving children age infant to 3.

Its always hard re-allocating funds, Millican said. By being good stewards of these resources, it means requiring poor agencies to lose funds and strong agencies to gain, and these re-allocations should happen even across state borders. We owe this to the children and to the taxpayers to remove poor performers and reward excellence.

Garner, known for her roles on TV shows such as Alias and in films including The Dallas Buyers Club and 13 Going on 30, is a trustee for Save the Children. She also makes home visits on behalf of the program to speak for those in poverty.

Also, her mother grew up on a farm in Locust Grove as one of 10 children before going to college and moving with her husband to West Virginia, where Garner was raised. She describes herself as one generation and one holler away from poverty, and knew many friends facing hardships while growing up.

I couldnt stand up for them back then, but I can stand up for them now, Garner testified. Poverty is silent. Go into those homes and listen for the sounds of adult conversation. There is none. Listen for children laughing or crying. Poverty is silent.

Garner said federal grants used by Save the Children allow for home visits to teach mothers how to connect with their babies and toddlers. While it may seem instinctual or common sense for a parent to read, talk, laugh or play with a child, some parents deprived of those basic comforts as children never learn how to pass them on.

A child who is not touched, spoken to or read to in his or her life will not fully recover. Neglect is every bit as harmful as abuse, Garner said. I never look at these people and say How could you. I say, But there but for the grace of God go I. We can intervene in these childrens lives to make a difference.

Dow outlined lessons learned through Tulsas development as a national model for early childhood programs. Those include hiring and retaining teachers by paying the same as local public schools, partnering with existing state and local programs to leverage federal resources, having strong kindergarten and early elementary programs to build on the foundation and offering social programs to meet family needs of housing and nutrition.

He stressed there is no silver bullet for intervening in poverty and that all the elements including the role of the federal government play together for the best results.

With more federal funding, we can help stimulate state, local and private investment to help millions of children and families to reach their full potential, Dow said.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Michigan asked about the concern of losing religious liberty in raising children when government offers early childhood programs, saying some people argue government is the oppressor playing off Millicans opening statement. A panelist noted the federal child care development block grant can go to faith-based groups.

Millican said Oklahoma had no counties in the last presidential election that voted for the Democratic candidate.

We are a very conservative state. We are a very religious-focused state, and this kind of early childhood emphasis is done in Oklahoma, Millican said. There is recognition that these children who are in poverty are not going to have a lot of options. They really dont have the religious kind of preschool options to have the kind of training they need to have the social, emotional language skills they require to have a chance in life. This kind of focus is not for the broad population in Oklahoma. This is for a specific need ... In this case, its poverty that is the oppressor.

Several committee members mentioned the budget recommendation released by President Donald Trump earlier this week included an 18 percent cut to Health and Human Services programs, referring to it as heart-breaking and budget dust.

It is Congress who puts together the budget. We are the ones who decide through hearings and so forth and testimony on whether programs are actually being successful or not, said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who was filling in for Cole.

Read this article:

Talk of poverty's oppression, hope dominates as Tulsans address Congressional hearing - Tulsa World

Forbes

The Hijab's Progression To Symbol Of Political Oppression Forbes Now, hijab was a symbol of government oppression and tyranny. Unfortunately, this is how the people of Iran are likely to see it today. The Iranian population is comprised largely of young people under the age of 35, a very progressive, pro-Western ... and more »

Read more from the original source:

The Hijab's Progression To Symbol Of Political Oppression - Forbes

Some Kenyan laws still in use were designed by colonialists to control the people. Shutterstock Mercy Muendo, Mount Kenya University

Its been 54 years since Kenya got her independence and yet there are still a number of archaic, colonial and discriminatory laws on the statute books. From archival research I have done its clear that these laws are used to exploit, frustrate and intimidate Kenyans by restricting their right to movement, association and the use of private property.

They also make it difficult for ordinary Kenyans to make a living by imposing steep permit fees on informal businesses.

These laws were inherited from the colonial British government and used to be within the purview of local government municipalities under the Local Government Act. This act was repealed when municipalities were replaced by counties after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.

Currently, these laws are contained in county rules and regulations, criminalising a good number of activities, including making any kind of noise on the streets, committing acts contrary to public decency, washing, repairing or dismantling any vehicle in non-designated areas (unless in an emergency) and loitering aimlessly at night.

The colonial laws served a central purpose segregation. Africans and Asians could be prosecuted for doing anything that the white settlers deemed to be a breach of public order, public health or security.

Many of these archaic laws also restrict citizens use of shared or public space. Some of them grant the police powers to arrest offenders without warrant, and to prosecute them under the Penal Code.

Offences like the ones mentioned above are classified as petty crimes that can attract fines and prison terms.

Some have argued that these laws are being abused because they restrict freedom of movement and the right to a fair hearing.

A few of them also hinder the growth of the economy. For example, hawking without a permit is against the law. To get a permit, traders must pay steep fees to various government authorities. This requirement is a deterrent to trade and infringes on the social economic rights of citizens.

Another example is the law that makes it a crime to loiter at night. This law was initially put on the books to deter people from soliciting for sexual favours, or visiting unlicensed establishments. It has however become a means for state agents to harass anyone walking on the streets at night.

The laws can be traced back to legal ordinances that were passed by the colonial government between 1923 and 1934.

The 1925 Vagrancy (Amendment) Ordinance restricted movement of Africans after 6pm, especially if they did not have a registered address.

Post-independence, the ordinance became the Vagrancy Act, which was repealed in 1997. The Vagrancy Act inspired the Public Order Act, which restricts movement of Africans during the day, but only in the special circumstances that are outlined in the Public Security (Control of Movement) Regulations.

The Witchcraft Ordinance of 1925, which formed the basis for the Witchcraft Act, outlawed any practices that were deemed uncivilised by colonial standards. The provisions of the Act are ambiguous and a clear definition of witchcraft is not given. This has made it easy for authorities to prosecute a wide range of cultural practices under the banner of witchcraft.

The idea behind most of the targeted legislation enacted by the colonialists was to separate whites from people of other races, including Asians. For example, in 1929 settlers in the white suburbs of Muthaiga in Nairobi raised an objection when the Governor announced plans to merge their suburban township with greater Nairobi.

That would have meant that they would have had to mingle with locals from Eastleigh and other native townships, which were mostly black. As a caveat to joining the greater Nairobi Township, the Muthaiga Township committee developed standard rules and regulations to govern small townships.

These rules and regulations were applied to other administrative townships such as Mombasa and Eldoret.

White townships would only join larger municipalities if the Muthaiga rules applied across the board.

The Muthaiga rules allowed white townships to control and police public space, which was a clever way to restrict the presence and movement of Asians and Africans in the suburbs.

Variations of these rules remain on the books to date. The current Nairobi county rules and regulations require residents to pay different rates to the county administration depending on their location.

In addition, the county rules demand that dog owners must be licensed, a requirement that limits the number of city dwellers who can own dogs. This rule can be read as discriminatory because the vast majority of lower-income earners now find themselves unable to keep a dog in the city. Indeed, discrimination was the basis of the colonial legal framework.

Strictly speaking, these discriminatory rules and regulations were unlawful because they were not grounded in statutory or common law. Indeed, they were quasi-criminal and would have been unacceptable in Great Britain.

Ironically, because such rules and regulations didnt exist in Great Britain, criminal charges could not be brought against white settlers for enforcing them.

To curtail freedom of movement and enjoyment of public space by non-whites the settlers created categories of persons known as vagrants, vagabonds, barbarians, savages and Asians.

These were the persons targeted by the loitering, noisemaking, defilement of public space, defacing of property, and anti-hawking laws. The penalty for these offences was imprisonment.

Anyone found loitering, anyone who was homeless or found in the wrong abode, making noise on the wrong streets, sleeping in public or hawking superstitious material or paraphernalia would be detained after trial.

Police had the powers to arrest and detain offenders in a concentration camp, detention or rehabilitation centre, or prison without a warrant.

This is the same legal framework that was inherited by the independence government and the very same one that has been passed down to the county governments.

The Public Order Act allows police powers to arrest without warrant anyone found in a public gathering, meeting or procession which is likely to breach the peace or cause public disorder. This is the current position under sections 5 and 8 of the Act.

This law, which was used by the colonial government to deter or disband uprisings or rebellions, has been regularly abused in independent Kenya.

At the end of the day Kenyans must ask themselves why successive governments have allowed the oppression of citizens to continue by allowing colonial laws to remain on the books.

Mercy Muendo, Lecturer, Information Technology and the Law, Mount Kenya University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

Read more here:

Kenyans are still oppressed by archaic colonial laws | News24 - News24

Since Novembers presidential election, I have had an uneasy feeling of dj vu. It took me a while to put my finger on exactly what I was remembering. Until I realized, its 1985. Now, just as then, we are living in a time when the presidents actions are leading to harm for marginalized people around the world.

My vantage point on 1985 is that I grew up in the 1980s in New York City in the midst of the AIDS epidemic. It was likely during the latter part of the decade that I acquired HIV.

I have lived with HIV for about 30 years, and yet this disclosure is a new one for me to offer in my professional life. I am a university president who has been out as a gay man across my career, but up until now, disclosure about my HIV status has been on a need-to-know basis.

Why am I making it public now? Because of the parallels between then and now. In 1985, the president not speaking one particular word caused us injury and death. In 2017, the president speaking many incendiary words is causing injury and death.

It is difficult to explain what 1985 was like for me, when todays prevailing narrative about the Reagan years and the 1980s is fond nostalgia. Fondly is not how I remember the 1980s. Sickness and death were everywhere around me.

I did not get tested when the HIV test became available in 1985, because no treatment was available and because I was scared. But I was sure I had acquired the virus that was revealing itself across my friendship and partner circles.

The government knew an epidemic was raging through marginalized communities, and public health strategies were available, but government policy reflected indifference and inaction. President Reagan did not say the word AIDS until 1985, after more than5,000 known AIDS deaths in the United States, and well after the scope of the coming pandemic was understood.

I was certain as were many gay men that few cared if we all died, because we heard those words often and from many. I believe the vitriol and volume of the hate speech of the 1980s has receded from most peoples memory. It has not receded from mine: I believed then that dying from AIDS was simply part of being gay.

Today, I wonder whether many immigrants and many people who might look like immigrants feel now how I felt in the 1980s. I cannot know the contemporary experience of many marginalized groups, but I can imagine that many people Muslims, women, people living with disabilities, people of color standing up against institutionalized racism, people at the intersection of these and many more identities feel as abandoned by the state as I felt then.

The parallels between then and now are why I am disclosing my HIV status publicly. My status and my story are what I have to offer. We saved our community from extinction in the face of government-sanctioned indifference, hatred and oppression. I not only survived the plague, but have achieved some level of success, as a university president, perhaps in part because of what I learned in surviving.

To be clear: We did not beat or cure AIDS in the 1980s. Many of us died across a protracted fight with society and the government. Our success was more for gay white men than it was for women, people of color and people living in poverty and prisons. And millions around the world continue to acquire, live with and die of AIDS in the shadow of indifference, hatred and oppression. But we secured a specific and significant success, and I am here to tell about it.

Others have documented how Gay Mens Health Crisis (GMHC) and ACT UP forced the government to respond to the public health crisis of HIV. My story is that I participated in that solution as a young person.

In 1985, I was 20. I expected to die within a few years. I felt powerless amidst sickness and death, anticipated symptoms and illness on any given morning, and yearned for an outlet for my sadness and anger. Fortunately there were wise elders to tell me what to do. I did not fully understand what I was doing when I volunteered or went to a protest. I was simply doing what those elders who led GMHC and ACT UP told us to do without appreciating the leadership, strategy and focus of our advocacy and political action.

The orchestrated posing of hundreds pretending to be dead in front of federal buildings, the relentless closing down of traffic and commerce, the messaging that straight people could not ignore I participated in these actions, gradually understanding them as a solution, and sometimes choosing them over less productive behaviors that a kid pursues if he believes hes living under a death sentence.

I find myself back in the 1980s as I listen to President Trump. But Im not a kid. I am instead the product of schooling by wise elders and by 30 years of HIV.

I do ask myself why I didnt disclose more publiclyuntil now. My list of answers is long and psychologically revealing: fear of repercussions (many real, some imagined), a desire not to be pitied or summed up by my status, a need to focus on others and to be useful, my own internalized heterosexism and homophobia, a need to remain private in a very public job.

Or, perhaps its that I was waiting to use this asset of mine when its most needed.

Students at my university a university thatis explicitly focused on social justice ask me what to do right now. Black and brown students ask how to stand up to hate and violence. Queer students ask what it means that the Department of Education is led by someone who has supported discrimination and conversion therapy. Students ask how to translate their passions into actions that will matter. I realize they think Im an elder who has answers, and I see theyre more ready than I was in the 1980s. I realize too I have some answers that Ive learned from the successes and failures of the 1980s lessons about leadership, strategy and focus of advocacy and political action. I know how to fight for my life and an oppressed community and how to win.

Recently, Larry Kramer, one of the founders of GMHC and ACT UP, offered observations similar to mine. He said, Its the early days of AIDS all over again. I didnt think this would ever happen. It makes you want to cry.

Ive cried too, Mr. Kramer. And Ive paid attention. My tears are dry, and Im ready. We have precedent and the credentials to secure social justice.

The rest is here:

It's 1985 all over again: To me, the Reagan years were a time of death and Trump's era feels eerily similar - Salon

On Thursday, March 2, Colorado College hosted Kecheng Fang, a former Chinese political reporter, who spoke about contemporary media in China. Fang is a doctoral candidate at the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg School for Communication, and holds a bachelors and masters degree in journalism from Peking University in Beijing. Fang worked as a reporter for Chinas Southern Weeklythe Chinese equivalent of the New York Timesfrom 2010 to 2013, and his writing has been featured in publications like The New Yorker, The Atlantic, BBC, and Politico.

Fang intended to major in math but he changed courses after developing an interest in the way news shapes public opinion. Reading newspapers that were outspoken and invested in the world changed the direction of my life, said Fang. I believe they are key to achieving social justiceespecially in countries like China where people enjoy less freedom and there is less social justice because the government is not held as accountable. After graduating from university, Fang observed the complex relationship between Chinese media and the government as a reporter for Southern Weekly. His curiosity was not satisfied. Seeking a theoretical framework to help him understand the purpose and influence of media, Fang moved to the U.S. to pursue a PhD in philosophy.

Fangs primary focus was to debunk some of the common misconceptions surrounding Chinese media and move beyond the censorship, resistance, and dichotomy often associated with the Chinese government. People always want to know what it was like working as a journalist in China, said Fang. They think reporters are rebels and dissidents working against the government. But its not that simple.

Hoping to provide a more nuanced picture of Chinese media, Fang addressed three common misconceptions: freedom of the press, the labeling of reporters as dissidents, and the role of the internet in modern-day China. Even though there are no private forms of traditional Chinese media and none of the digital platforms can publish original work or hire their own journalists, Fang maintained that Chinese media has far more freedom than Western media indicates.

There is space for diverse opinions and investigative journalism in China, said Fang. It is the method of informing, the types of stories and information deemed appropriate for public consumption that differs from Western media. Reporters resent their portrayal by Western media as dissidents resisting the oppression of their government. Traditional publications are owned by the government to inform the public without violating the trust of those who grant them access. Access is not everything and does not guarantee good journalism, said Fang. Nevertheless, Fang argued that it is working for and with the Chinese government that enables them to do their jobs.

With regards to the internet, many social media sites are blocked within Chinas borders for the majority of citizens. The Chinese government knows the power held by that platform. While they encourage Chinese social media entrepreneurship within the country, government officials use social media to influence the way the world views China. Like many politicians in the U.S., social media acts as the Chinese governments direct line to the world, said Fang. They know how to use it.

Hosted by the Mosaic Club and attended primarily by students, Fangs presentation provided a unique look into a world removed from the United States. At the end of his presentation, Fang asked the audience to consider moving beyond the headline angle of censorship and resistance and instead concentrate on the tactical cooperation that is crucial to Chinese media.

Go here to read the rest:

Speaker Kecheng Fang Breaks Down Misconceptions of Chinese Media - The Catalyst