Daily Archives: February 6, 2017

Libertarian Party Gets Victory in Suit Aimed at the Partisanship of Commission on Presidential Debates – Reason (blog)

Posted: February 6, 2017 at 3:59 pm

The Libertarian Party, and fellow plaintiffs, won a victory in federal court this week in the case of Level the Playing Field v. FEC. (The full background of the case can be read from reporting here when it was first assigned its day in court and when the oral arguments occurred.)

Gary Johnson Facebook

To quote from my previous reporting summing up what was at issue in the lawsuit, which while technically against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is ultimately targeting the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for locking out third parties while pretending to be nonpartisan, the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs claim that:

the CPD has always been a deliberate duopoly for the two major parties and has "been violating FECA and FEC regulations limiting debate-sponsoring organizations' ability to use corporate funds to finance their activities" since its efforts are not truly "nonpartisan."

The suit accuses the FEC of "refus[ing] to enforce the law and ignored virtually all of this evidence in conclusorily dismissing the complaints even though there is plainly reason to believe that the CPD is violating FECA...."...

"The Court should...direct the FEC to do its job, which is to enforce the law and put an end to the CPD's biased, anti-democratic, and fundamentally corrupt and exclusionary polling rule."

Judge Tayna Chutkan in U.S. District Court for D.C. agreed with the L.P. and others that the FEC was derelict in its duties when it blithely refused to act on the those complaints about the CPD.

Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").... in dismissing two administrative complaints regarding the CPD and in denying a petition to engage in rulemaking to change the FEC's regulations regarding debate staging organizations.

Judge Chutkan explains how CPD's operations should be affected by the FEC and its enforcement of election finance law:

The debate staging regulation...acts as an exemption to the general ban on corporate contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political campaigns or candidates. To prevent debate staging organizations such as the CPD from operating as conduits for corporate contributions made to benefit only one or two candidates from the Democratic and Republican partiesvia the much-watched prime-time debatesthe regulations require these organizations to (1) be nonpartisan, (2) not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or campaigns, and (3) use pre-established, objective criteria.

If a debate staging organization fails to comply with the regulations, such as failing to use objective criteria in determining which candidates participate in its debates, then the value of the debate is actually a contribution or expenditure made to the participating political campaigns in violation of the Act.

The Act provides that any person who believes a violation of the Act has occurred may file an administrative complaint with the FEC...

The L.P. and its co-plaintiffs filed such a complaint in September 2014, as well as "a Petition for Rulemaking with the FEC [that] asked the FEC...to specifically bar debate staging organizations from using a polling threshold as the sole criterion for accessing general election presidential and vice-presidential debates."

They were not satisfied with the FEC's reaction, leading to the current lawsuit "challenging the dismissal of their administrative complaint...and the agency's decision not to engage in rulemaking" about the debate threshold.

Judge Chutkan agrees that the FEC did a shoddy and careless job in actually considering and reacting to the arguments and evidence the L.P. and others presented about the potential partisanship of CPD, and thus:

the court cannot defer to the FEC's analysis and further concludes that the FEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law when it determined that the CPD did not endorse, support, or oppose political parties in the 2012 election....On remand, the FEC is ORDERED to articulate its analysis in determining whether the CPD endorsed, supported, or opposed political parties or candidates....

....the FEC must demonstrate how it considered the evidence, particularly, but not necessarily limited to, the newly-submitted evidence of partisanship and political donations and the expert analyses regarding fundraising and polling.

As for the argument that the CPD's 15 percent polling requirement for third party access is not properly objective and is in fact clearly designed to privilege major parties, Judge Chutkan:

GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion....as to whether the FEC's analysis of the criterion's objectivity was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. While the court cannot and does not mandate that the FEC reach a different conclusion on remand, the court notes that the weight of Plaintiffs' evidence is substantial, and the FEC must demonstrate that it actually considered the full scope of this evidence, including the CPD chairmen's and directors' partisan political activity and the expert reports, as well as explain how and why it rejected this evidence in deciding that the CPD's polling requirement is an objective criterion

Judge Chutkan spells out that the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs:

clearly argued, and attempts to establish with significant evidence, that in presidential elections CPD's polling threshold is being used subjectively to exclude independent and third-party candidates, which has the effect of allowing corporations to channel money to the CPD's expenditures to the C campaigns they would be prohibited from giving the campaigns directly.

It further argued and presented evidence that polling thresholds are particularly unreliable and susceptible to this type of subjective use at the presidential level, undermining the FEC's stated goal of using "objective criteria to avoid the real or apparent potential for a quid pro quo, and to ensure the integrity and fairness of the process." In its Notice, the FEC brushed these arguments aside....

Judge Chutkan is thus demanding the FEC do a better job actually grappling with those arguments. This does not mean that the CPD is on the ropes or will somehow instantly be required to either give up its firewall against third parties or stop taking in the corporate bucks.

But it does mean the FEC is going to have to come up with convincing reasons why the CPD isn't bipartisan rather than nonpartisan and why the CPD's debate inclusion criteria are fair and objective and not partisan. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Via the always indispensable Ballot Access News.

See the rest here:

Libertarian Party Gets Victory in Suit Aimed at the Partisanship of Commission on Presidential Debates - Reason (blog)

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarian Party Gets Victory in Suit Aimed at the Partisanship of Commission on Presidential Debates – Reason (blog)

Libertarians against gas tax – Jackson Sun

Posted: at 3:59 pm

Omer Yusuf , USA TODAY NETWORK Tennessee 2:56 p.m. CT Jan. 30, 2017

America for Prosperity's Andy Ogles speaks at the Delta Regional Conference Wednesday at the Samuel T. Bryant Distillery in Jackson.(Photo: OMER YUSUF/The Jackson Sun)Buy Photo

Libertarian Party of Madison Countychair Corbin Brown was confused when he heard about Gov. Bill Haslams gas tax proposal.

Brown said the states $800 million-plus surplus makes the proposal unnecessary.

This is one more way for the government to take which does not belong to them, Brown said. Its our money they are taking away from us.

Earlier this month, Haslam proposed a 7-cents-per-gallon increase on gasoline to the states gas tax and a 12-cents-per-gallon increase on diesel. If approved, it would be the first time since 1989 Tennessee has raised its gas tax.

Haslam said the additional $227.8 million in revenue, generated by the gas tax, would go toward completing transportation projects across Tennessee.

The gas tax proposal was the big issue discussed Wednesday at the Libertarian Party of Tennessee Delta Regional Conference at Samuel T. Bryant Distillery. Brown said the Libertarian Party will head to Nashville on Feb. 13 to speak out against Haslams proposal.

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971. According to their party platform, Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into personal, family and business decisions. They believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as long as they do not harm one another.

Libertarian Gary Johnson ran for president of the United States in 2012 and 2016. Johnson received more than four million votes in the 2016 election.

Tennessee has two Libertarian elected officials. Wallace Redd in Clarksville City Council, Ward 4, and Mike Sexton, Union County Commissioner in District 6.

Jesse Fullington is running as a Libertarian for state representativein the 79th District.

Fullington said he wants great roads but raising taxes is not the answer and Haslams tax cuts, a notable one being the grocery tax rate going from 5 percent to 4.5 percent, is not enough.

When youre driving, spending more money at the pump, it costs more money to move things around, Fullington said. Can you name one thing not transported without fuel? By the nature of raising transportation costs, its going to raise the value of the product. So groceries might be cheaper tax wise, but they will be more expensive. It either balances out and hits zero or the increase in the value of the product is going to be more than what the tax was to begin with.

President and CEO of the Jackson Chamber Kyle Spurgeon said Haslams proposal is an opportunity for the issue of infrastructure and transportation to be addressed.

Spurgeon said he will pay close attention to discussion over the next few months.

You want to make sure you have a good feeling your tax dollars are being spent wisely, Spurgeon said. Its about how our tax dollars can be spent in the wisest manner to give us the most return on our investment on our highway infrastructure.

The Libertarian Party is clear on their views, but the biggest challenge its facing long-term in Tennessee is visibility and ballot access.

Brown said when the Madison County Libertarian Party started holding meetings last year, he was the only one there but eventually a handful of people began attending the meetings.

We are building that base and were getting the information out there but it is a slow process, Brown said.

If the Libertarian Party does not get at least 34,000 signatures in the state of Tennessee before the summer of 2018, all their Tennessee candidates, including Fullington, will have to run as independents during the 2018 midterm elections.

Weve got until July 2018 to hit that goal, Brown said. Its not just about face-to-face. Its social media. This is our main goal. Anything else we want to do rests upon that foundation.

Reach Omer Yusuf at oyusuf@jacksonsun.com. Follow him on Twitter: @OmerAYusuf

If approved, it would be the first time since 1989 that Tennessee has raised its gas tax.(Photo: C.B. SCHMELTER/The Jackson Sun)

Gov. Bill Haslam said a tax increase would give the state's Department of Transportation an additional $227.8 million in funds.(Photo: C.B. SCHMELTER/The Jackson Sun)

Read or Share this story: http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/30/libertarians-against-gas-tax/97253266/

See the article here:

Libertarians against gas tax - Jackson Sun

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarians against gas tax – Jackson Sun

3 Questions for Bernie Supporters – Being Libertarian

Posted: at 3:59 pm

Picture credit: The Huffington Post

Recently graduating from a left-leaning university, in a left-leaning city, with a majority left-leaning friends, all of whom are overly-equipped with cuddle bears and safe spaces, every day Ive had to suffer through hearing about the glorious socialist utopia that would come about with a Bernie Sanders presidency.

Having actually studied political science, focusing heavily on various countries policies and economics, I have to fight a constant urge where I dont lower myself to the lefts standards and go on a peaceful protest rampage. Fortunately, it has never come to that. Being well-equipped with a basic knowledge of economics and morality, one can ask three simple questions to stun any Bernie bro.

This is probably one of the best arguments against Sanders specific idea of socialism, as his views are radical even for a modern socialist.

While socialism never works in the long run, as we have seen with Venezuelas collapse and Sweden and Denmarks reduction in benefits and fragile economic systems, there are measures that can prolong its life.

Sweden and Denmark, both the golden standard for socialists, have some the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. In Sweden and Denmark, the corporate tax rate is 22 percent; whereas in the United States, we have a whopping tax rate of 38.9 percent; the second highest in the world. For socialism to be sustainable, even if it is only in the short run, Sweden and Denmark understood the necessity for investment. They needed incentives for companies to move to their country and employ their population.

As mentioned before, this still isnt enough to save them from disaster that occurs from any type of economic change, which usually leads to heightened unemployment, budget imbalance and increased deficit, and the inevitable removal or reduction in welfare benefits. However, Sweden and Denmarks policy on low corporate tax rates is something Bernie never addresses. Hedoesnt understand this and seeks only to ridicule corporations and the wealthy; the very people that provide the economic means to make socialism as sustainable as it will ever be. Could you imagine a millennial wrapping his head around the idea of lowering tax rates for those evil corporations? Me neither.

This is, arguably, the biggest flaw in Sanders socialist dream.

While this should be common knowledge for a Bernie supporter, youll find many dont actually know the answer or have looked at the in-depth causal effect of what is proposed.

Quoting from Bernie Sanders official site, he states: There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. While this figure is mostly accurate, there are debates about its validity. Politifact references fellow libertarian Daniel Mitchell when he argues that tax laws in the late 20th century required high income taxpayers to report capital income, while middle income citizens didnt have to. Despite this fact, Mitchell goes on to say that the rich arent rich because the poor are poor; the rich are rich, because they are innovative and provide services which others want.

Back to the question at hand. While Bernie mostly relies on demonizing the wealthy, there are instances where he provides a plan to redistribute the wealth.

They consist of raising taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, providing government-funded youth programs, and other expensive programs, all to be billable to higher income individuals. At this time, the top 10 percent already pay 68 percent of all federal income taxes and 53 percent of all federal taxes in general.

What happens when that tax rate widens and the wealthy pay more in taxes and middle class pays less? If you believe those in the top 10 percent are millionaires, youre very wrong. The income for the top 1 to 10 percent is between $380,354 to $113,799. In other words, essentially anyone that owns and operates a successful business. The people that took a risk with their own money, bet on themselves, and came out positive; the people that are providing jobs to the middle class; the people that have to put payroll on their own credit card and often use their own funds to invest in their company; those are the people that Bernie Sanders wants to tax even more, and he hides that fact by having the public perceive the top 10 percent as fat oil men sitting on a mountain of cash.

By redistributing wealth, you are essentially taking money from those that provide the jobs for everyone else, invest and take rise, and essentially keep the economy going. Not only is it morally wrong, but economically idiotic.

The American Dream is based on an idea that anyone can succeed in this country if they have the desire to work hard enough. It is one of the major reasons that America has had the most successful economy since World War II.

The government, specifically under Reagan and Clinton, facilitated an environment where people could achieve anything, because the government would interfere as little as possible. It is why the Reagan and Clinton years (despite the Democrats stance on the economy today, Clintonomics was very much in favor of being enterprise-friendly and making the government smaller) were some of the best economic years in American history.

Bernie Sanders plan is to go against this logical concept, and label the successful and wealthy as the enemy and everyone else as the victim. So, if a successful economy is determined by innovation and a strong working class as Reagan and Clinton proved how do you incentivize people to take risk on themselves and open businesses or try to get a promotion and make more money, when the more money you make, the more is taken away?

* Braden Paynter is your average Joe Schmoe, who loves his country and all the freedom it entails. He has received an education in political science and international politics, being one of the few in his class to emerge without shouting leftist propaganda at the top of his lungs.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:

3 Questions for Bernie Supporters - Being Libertarian

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on 3 Questions for Bernie Supporters – Being Libertarian

Let the Golden Rule be our response locally and globally – Berkeley Independent

Posted: at 3:58 pm

Much has taken place over the last few days in our country. For those following the news we have seen demonstrations, court actions and other activists kind of activities in the light of the executive order signed by the president which affected refugees and other non-citizens, legal and illegal entering and leaving the country.

Some people have applauded the actions of the president. Most according to the polls have disagreed with the president; if not in the substance or purpose of the order, at least in the way it was carried out and the breadth of the order.

People on both sides of the aisle have reacted to the situation, with some being extremely diplomatic to the point where they actually said nothing in their statement. But politicians learn over time, if they dont already know how at first, to use the maximum number of words to say very little and sometimes to say nothing at all.

Two of our representatives joined with others to make joint statements concerning the issue of the executive order which caused such a furor and set the country in some degree of turmoil. One was very clear where he and his colleague stood. The other was so diplomatic he and his colleague said nothing really. But, others have gone to the other extreme too.

We can disagree with someone, even the president, and disagree very strongly without demonizing him. This did not take me by surprise however, because the country had practice and exposure during the last administration when the former president was called all kinds of names and made the butt of all kinds of derogatory jokes based on color and because of ideological differences.

Sometimes the chickens come home to roost. However, I cannot join the chorus that would paint our present president as the devil incarnate or anything close to that. And it has nothing to do with liking him or disliking him.

I believe in principle, not personality. My principle says that although I believe the executive order went too far, or was implemented very poorly, and as a result caused untold hardship on many lives, it is not sufficient justification to dehumanize the president.

We have more effective ways, and lawful ways, which many have pursued to address issues when we disagree with our president or government. Many used that door, and as a result, at the time of writing this article a judge had issued a nation-wide stay on the presidents order.

I trust the people collectively more than I trust the leaders collectively. And I believe the same people who voted for our leaders are the same people who will not hesitate to remove those same leaders if they cross certain boundaries.

I believe in the collective voice of the people. That doesnt mean I believe they are always right. I also believe in the individual and collective actions of the people. I believe we can make a difference even when our leaders are on the wrong track. And that is the direction this column wants to take; that we the people do the right thing, and on an individual basis reach out to others to help bring about unity, reconciliation, peace and goodwill in our communities, churches, workplace and where ever else we engage each other.

I want to appeal to us, the people to do what we know in our hearts is the right thing, and the right way to deal with others.

The golden rule has been a standard that many Christians and non-Christians have used. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, it says. In other words, we treat others the way we would like them to treat us, if we were in their position, and they were in our position.

Let us help to heal some wounds, bandage some hurts, show love where hatred has dominated, caring where there is none and sow peace where there is war and discord. Lets not just talk about love, let's show love.

Lets show that we are a welcoming, receptive people and not the kind of people many are making us to be across the world. And lets start in our neck of the woods, next door, and the places where we engage people every day.

Valentine Williams is a pastor and a former adjunct instructor at Trident Technical College. Contact him at valmyval@yahoo.com.

See more here:

Let the Golden Rule be our response locally and globally - Berkeley Independent

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off on Let the Golden Rule be our response locally and globally – Berkeley Independent

No Gods, No Masters: Live the Golden Rule – Dissident Voice

Posted: at 3:58 pm

Deep inside anyone whos capable of thinking for themself beats the heart of an anarchist. Robb Johnson, arguably the greatest political songwriter working today, wrote a line that goes Each child born, is born an anarchist. Quite so.

Anarchism is one of the many words thats routinely misused and abused by the mainstream media. If asked what an anarchist is, most people would reflect this misinformation by replying with words suggesting some sort of violent terrorist. This is the image thats been carefully crafted, polished and maintained by the media. Even highly educated people, who really should know better, routinely misuse the word anarchy to mean chaos and disorder. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Derived from the Greek word anarkhos, meaning without chiefs, anarchism could reasonably be defined as meaning a society without leaders. It does not deny the need for society, it denies the need for leaders.

The hard proof of this can be easily found by anyone who can read. Its there in black and white in the actual words written by real anarchists people like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and Chomsky. And although he wasnt known as an anarchist, possibly because he was active before the word was in common use, the writing of Tom Paine resonates with anarchist values on almost every page. Some people even claim that Jesus Christ was an anarchist because of his allegedly pacifist teaching, but given that no one really knows what he actually taught, thats impossible to confirm. However, most words written by known anarchists express values that are the diametric opposite of the interpretation routinely used by the media.

No doubt every real anarchist has their own personalised concept of anarchism. Most of my clothing is black or black and red the widely-used colours of anarchism and much of it has a circled A, anarchisms unofficial logo: my work-clothes, I call them. I do this not to show-off that Im an anarchist, but to promote anarchism, to encourage others to wonder what the A means. When they ask me, which sometimes happens, I like to have a quick and easy explanation of anarchism to hand because few people want to know about the writing of Kropotkin, for example, in reply to a casual half-interested question. So I have a quick one-sentence line patiently waiting in the wings: No gods, no masters, live the Golden Rule. Like all slogans, its far from perfect, but I think it captures enough of the important essence of anarchism to be pretty useful.

The no gods component carries enormous significance in those two little words. They burst with confrontational iconoclasm. There have been many times in our history when uttering those words could have been a death sentence. In parts of the world today, they still could be. The notion that we should have a society where all religion has been consigned to the scrapbook of history (along with all the other dead myths and superstitions that once ruled over different people but which are now rightly known to be complete nonsense) is still a powerful, radical concept. Religion is still a dominant force in most parts of the world, and is still used as it always has been as a highly effective controlling mechanism, supplying supposedly divine approval for the criminal actions of secular rulers. Shattering the right of priests to exert this power, as the words no gods do, is an important component of anarchism. It demands liberation from control by any and all religion and dares any priest to prove it wrong if they can.

Religions are most actively practised, and widely believed, in the poorest communities. Theres a good reason for this. The people who are the most oppressed and the most likely to rebel against their oppression need to be convinced that their suffering is part of some divine plan: the more they suffer, the greater their rewards in heaven will be. As the great Joe Hill song goes, Youll get pie in the sky when you die. Often this is the easiest and most comfortable option for oppressed people, permitting them to meekly accept, instead of openly resist. Priests are, of course, the people most responsible for this particularly powerful and effective brainwashing, and with very few exceptions priests have always allowed themselves to be exploited by the super-rich and powerful to continually maintain the lie.

Confronting the lie, as most anarchists do, making people begin to ask important questions about their cherished religious beliefs, is deeply subversive. It makes people realise that the desperate lives theyre living is all there is for them; that those lives are not pre-ordained by some old guy living in the clouds who nobodys ever seen. Theyre pre-ordained by human beings who are no different to them except in their ability to wield awesome power. Confronting the lie sews the essential seeds of rebellion the vital sense of injustice, the powerful motivating force to rise up and make things right. During the Spanish Civil War, priests, allies of Francos fascism, were rightly targeted by anarchists for the essential role they played in keeping the people oppressed. I dont suggest that priests should be murdered as they were in Spain but their ideologies must be continually confronted.

No masters is arguably even more confrontational and challenging. Most societies have always been ruled by masters. Few of these people have been selected by the free choice of those they control. Historically, the masters were often warlords who attained their status through bloodshed and terror, ruthlessly crushing all opposition. The hierarchical structures of lesser masters they established below them, to rule in their name, are reflected today in almost every institution and organisation in most parts of the world hierarchies of junior masters overseen by some supreme master. Suggesting that all these people are unnecessary, should not exist at all as the words no masters clearly does suggest is obviously the same as suggesting that our whole model of society is fundamentally flawed, and the very glue that keeps the model together should be scrapped.

The last part of the slogan, live the Golden Rule, is vital. The first two parts are negative, iconoclastic and destructive, calling for the complete breakdown of everything we recognise as normal society. Live the Golden Rule is positive, constructive, and proposes how a new society should be fashioned. That one sentence is more than sufficient to replace any religion, and also suggests a basis for remodelling the hierarchical structures no one really needs.

The Golden Rule is a simple basic philosophy thats so old it appears in one form or another in almost every ancient civilisation. Repeated in the work of Kropotkin, for example, who wrote: Treat others as you would like them to treat you in similar circumstances, the Golden Rule is arguably the most positive contribution anarchism makes to society. It doesnt promise the perfect society, but its quite easy to see that if everyone lived by the maxim, the world would be an infinitely happier place than it is today. Anarchism rightly confronts and opposes just about every core principle and feature of modern society an obviously destructive position; and with its support for the Golden Rule it proposes a simple solution for replacing our existing cruel and oppressive system.

Many anarchists embrace the Golden Rule so closely that they live vegan lifestyles, in recognition of the fact that animals too should be included in interpreting the rule. Voluntarily bound by the Golden Rule, as most anarchists are, its very clear to see that far from being dangerous terrorists, as the media routinely portray them, real anarchists are peace-loving humanitarians who disdain violence against all living things. They may destroy property, when they think its necessary, but they usually go to great lengths to avoid harming any living creature.

Our societies are not plagued by war, hunger, misery and oppression because we the 99% like to live that way. e have those things because our leaders, the 1%, deliberately choose to inflict them on us. Anarchism rightly identifies two of the biggest problems society has, and which must be overcome a deep existential belief in gods and masters; and it offers the simplest almost perfect solution upon which society could and should remodel itself: the Golden Rule.

John Andrews is a writer and political activist based in England. Check out John's books: Fiction: The Road to Emily Bay; Non Fiction: The School of Kindness; The Peoples Constitution. Read other articles by John.

This article was posted on Thursday, February 2nd, 2017 at 10:02pm and is filed under Anarchism, Religion.

Here is the original post:

No Gods, No Masters: Live the Golden Rule - Dissident Voice

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off on No Gods, No Masters: Live the Golden Rule – Dissident Voice

Rev. Jeff Bobin: The Golden Rule – GoErie.com

Posted: at 3:58 pm

In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, Jesus outlines what it takes to experience the Kingdom ofGod.

We all know certain parts of those chapters and I want to concentrate on one verse, chapter7 verse 12, which we know so well as the Golden Rule. Do onto others as you would have them do untoyou. I like to add "if you were in their shoes."

We live in a world that looks for something to divide us or to be angry about. Jesus wanted us to learn to love one another by treating each other with respect and I believe that starts by assuming that others donot want to harm us. It starts with putting ourselves in another place and treating them as we wouldwant to be treated if we were in their shoes.

How would you treat someone in handcuffs if you saw yourself in them? If you were addicted to a drughow would you want others to treat you? When you win or lose a competition, how would you want tobe treated if you were on the other side?

In todays environment of conflict and division there is a longing in our souls to return to the Kingdom ofGod and the peace that comes with it. That can only happen if we dig deep into the Bible and allowourselves to be shaped by what it teaches us. Wouldnt the Golden Rule be a great place to start?

There is only one way for us for us to improve our culture and that is for some of us to break the cycle ofblame and anger and look for ways we can work together to fulfill the Golden Rule. We could be thestart of a change that impacts our community and the world. Will you begin to treat others as you wouldwant to be treated if you were in their place? We can make a difference!

Reflections is a column by religious leaders in the region. The Rev. Jeff Bobin is pastor of Bethany United Methodist Church, 140 Wadsworth Ave., Meadville; Littles Corners United Methodist Church, Routes 98 & 198, Saegertown; and Hamlin Chapel United Methodist Church, 16460 Route 198, Saegertown.

More here:

Rev. Jeff Bobin: The Golden Rule - GoErie.com

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off on Rev. Jeff Bobin: The Golden Rule – GoErie.com

Opinion: No room for walls in Gospel’s Golden Rule – The Catholic Register

Posted: at 3:58 pm

Theres a lot of talk these days about building walls.

One of the most powerful politicians on the planet is obsessed with building a wall to keep out undesirables. The promise to do so was popular enough to help get him elected. And now two countries that once prided themselves on friendly relations are divided by the spectre of that great wall.

The wall, the idea of the wall and what the wall represents are deeply problematic. The wall is symbolic of grave differences of opinion between the two countries. The country that wants to build the wall wants to keep residents of the other country out. The theory is that they arent trustworthy, not good enough to mix with the residents of the suddenly isolationist nation. Help us build the wall or well slap tariffs on your exported goods to our country. What a needless, avoidable quandary.

But that is exactly what happens when individualism, misplaced superiority and intentional detachment is allowed to trump solidarity. Its not the way Pope Francis sees the world and its not an acceptable Christian view.

Is there anyone among you who would hand his son a stone when he asked for bread? Jesus asks in Matthews Gospel. Or would hand him a snake when he asked for a fish? If you, then, evil as you are, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will your Father in Heaven give good things to those who ask Him.

So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the law and the prophets.

The Golden Rule message delivered by Pope Francis to North Americans and all others is straightforward. If we have sympathy and concern for ourselves, we should exhibit the same for others. If we want opportunities for ourselves, we must strive to do the same for others. When we go out of our way to maintain our own safety, we should go out of our way to keep others safe. Whatever we would do for ourselves, we ought to be comfortable doing for others.

The worries and problems of others have to be our worries and problems. If people are living in abject poverty in our countries, we cannot stand idly by. If civil wars and other conflicts leave people orphaned or in refugee situations, those living in better circumstances are obligated to lend a hand.

Pope Francis points out that it is not good enough to sustain your own family. Its equally important to look after others. It is not appropriate or Christian to build a wall around our own needs, wants and desires while shutting out the needs of others.

Thats a concept that seems to be lost on those now tasked with running the country to our south. They say their country doesnt have room for refugees displaced from war-torn Syria and would rather build a wall around their own interests. They say there are far too many unsavoury characters stealing across the border. A high wall is needed to protect their selfish interests.

They say they contribute an inordinate amount of financial resources to a 28-nation international military alliance and that others better up the ante or face the prospect of losing an influential and powerful member country. The concept of using what you have to help others seems to have been abandoned.

They say that multilateral trade deals that were negotiated to benefit all countries involved are weighted against them. They want to change the playing field, build a wall around their manufactured goods to protect against the free flow of other nations products coming into their market.

Its wrong to say that someone elses problems are theirs alone. Its wrong to say that those less fortunate than us are the authors of their own misfortune. And its wrong to say their misfortune is none of my business. Walls of selfishness do not cut it for Pope Francis and they didnt cut it for Jesus.

The message for individuals and for nations is simple. Treat others as you would have them treat you. No man and no country is an island.

Looking past the barriers that separate us from others will always trump building protective walls around ourselves.

(Campbell is a writer in Halifax, N.S.)

View original post here:

Opinion: No room for walls in Gospel's Golden Rule - The Catholic Register

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off on Opinion: No room for walls in Gospel’s Golden Rule – The Catholic Register

House Science Chairman Sees Liberal Cover-Up on Warming Pause – Scientific American

Posted: at 3:58 pm

The chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee claimed yesterday he has new evidence showing that scientific research discrediting a purported pause in temperature increases was politically motivated.

John Bates, who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, told the Daily Mail newspaper in England that a 2015 federal study was intended to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and was rushed to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.

Bates said his NOAA colleagues relied on unverified data to prove their hurried claims.

Opponents of climate action have frequently highlighted data that seemed to suggest global temperatures stopped rising from about 1998 to the early part of the 21st century. They say it shows the Earth is constantly in cycles of cooling and heating, and they dispute the notion that global temperatures are consistently rising as the result of human activity. It has become a frequent talking point for politicians who argue that there is no urgency to curb the use of fossil fuels.

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who receives significant donations from the energy industry, accused federal scientists again yesterday of politically motivated fraud. He said Bates' comments were proof that the study was rigged.

The 2015 NOAA study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president's climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA's own standards for scientific study, Smith said in a statement.

He also said Bates has exposed the previous administration's efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.

The so-called hiatus was disproved by a team of NOAA climate scientists in a 2015 study that found the data set supporting a pause was inaccurate because it relied on different methods of temperature collection. A second study published last month also found that a pause never happened. It, too, highlighted data problems.

Last month, federal researchers found that 2016 was the warmest year globally on record. It broke previous records set in 2015 and 2014.

Smith in 2015 launched a congressional investigation into the work of scientists who sought to rebut inaccurate claims about temperatures being static. He frequently refers to the vast body of research about climate change as politically correct science.

Tomorrow, Smith is scheduled to hold a hearing promoting Republican efforts to make EPA great again. Critics argue it's intended to weaken scientific research that's used to justify environmental regulations

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at http://www.eenews.net.

Read the original:

House Science Chairman Sees Liberal Cover-Up on Warming Pause - Scientific American

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on House Science Chairman Sees Liberal Cover-Up on Warming Pause – Scientific American

Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection – Daily Caller

Posted: at 3:58 pm

5464743

President Trump was correct in excoriating liberal activist federal judge James Robart for his grossly legally defective temporary restraining order against President Trumps temporary travel ban. Beyond excoriation Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence.

Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority in even supposing that the State of Washington had standing to appeal President Trumps order in the first place. Robart hinges his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf. Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.

In the case Massachusetts v. Mellon however, the Supreme Court ruled with absolute clarity that it is no part of [a States] duty or power to enforce [its citizens] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government. Its difficult to imagine a ruling that more clearly denounces and derogates both judge Robart and the State of Washington in this clearly extra-legal attempt to arrogate the power of controlling immigration to the State of Washington. If Robart didnt know about this case he was explicitly informed of it by the Department of Justice in its objection to the TRO, so he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he is authorized to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Having granted this authority to the President, only Congress can revoke it and no federal court, not even the Supreme Court has the power to interfere in that presidential authority short of challenging the constitutional power of Congress to delegate certain of its plenary powers over immigration to the President.

It is simply not within the power of any state to interfere with such a presidential decision, as immigration-control advocates found during Obamas tenure in office. Obama did exactly the opposite, he ordered our Border Patrol officers NOT to deny entry to any aliens who illegally entered the United States, and when Arizona and other states challenged this policy in court on exactly the same sort of grounds of detrimental impacts to the people of Arizona caused by rampant and uncontrolled illegal immigration, Obama simply invoked the plenary federal power over immigration policy and did nothing to secure our borders.

Now that President Trump has chosen to exercise his part of Congress plenary authority over immigration liberal Democrats want to prevent him from doing so, and they found a corrupt judge to do it for them by venue-shopping.

By going to Seattle and finding a sympathetic liberal-inclined pet judge they accomplished two things: they got their TRO and they put the case into the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest and most liberal (and most-reversed by the Supreme Court) federal court in the United States, which reacted to a well-formed and legally-sound appeal of the TRO with a one-page ruling rejecting the appeal without any analysis of the case or the law. This was not circumstantial, it was very deliberate tactic on the part of liberal progressive Democrats.

This makes the 9th Circuit Court as much of a co-conspirator in violating the separation of powers doctrine as Robart and the State of Washington are, which is a good reason for the plan to break up the 9th Circuit Court into several smaller courts to move forward. Impeachment of 9th Circuit judges should also begin immediately.

There is no doubt whatever that review of both the TRO and the order rejecting the governments appeal, along with every other case filed against the Presidents Executive Order, will be summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court because the law could not be more clear: the states have no standing to sue Congress or the president over immigration actions because Congress power over immigration law is plenary and not subject to judicial review according to Article 1, 8, clause 4 of the Constitution.

This is nothing more than another liberal Democrat attempt to impede and inhibit President Trumps administration, but this one is entirely unlawful and they know it and therefore Democrats are stepping outside of mere procedural obstructionism and are dabbling in the realm of insurrection and treason, particularly when it comes to giving aid and comfort to radical Islamist jihadi enemies whom President Trump is trying to keep out of the country.

See the original post here:

Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection - Daily Caller

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection – Daily Caller

Fake news for liberals: misinformation starts to lean left under Trump – The Guardian

Posted: at 3:58 pm

Whoever is in power is going to be the target. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo / Photomontage by GNM imaging

While stories of police violence at Standing Rock have become commonplace, the account that spread last week was particularly shocking. An article from AlternativeMediaSyndicate.com said officers had burned the camps of indigenous activists fighting the Dakota Access pipeline and destroyed their tipis.

The piece, which included an image of multiple large tipis engulfed in flames, was shared more than 270,000 times on Facebook. But the photo was from a 2007 HBO film, and a key premise of the story was fake.

Its absolutely frustrating, said Dallas Goldtooth, an indigenous leader at Standing Rock who warned his followers on Facebook that the article was false. There is so much misinformation.

The 2016 presidential election led to international debates about filter bubbles and the spread of misinformation, with many analyzing how the proliferation of fabricated content may have helped Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

But Trumps chaotic first weeks in office filled with a steady stream of astonishing news developments that have rattled progressives has laid the groundwork for what could be a significant uptick in fake news, misleading articles and propaganda with a distinctly liberal bent.

Whoever is in power is going to be the target [of fake news], said Eugene Kiely, director of FactCheck.org, which is partnering with Facebook to help identify false news stories.

Research has suggested that there was a huge volume of fake news across the political spectrum during the election, but that pro-Trump false stories were much more widespread than pro-Clinton ones. Some of the most high-profile examples, such as the conspiracy theory that Clinton was tied to a child sex ring, fed rightwing narratives.

Media and communications experts suspect those dynamics could shift under Trump. In an interview with the Atlantic, Brooke Binkowski, managing editor of the fact-checking site Snopes, said she had seen a spike in the amount and popularity of fake news directed toward liberal audiences.

On the left, there are numerous styles of misinformation that appear to be gaining traction. In addition to blatantly fabricated stories, there have been increasing concerns about articles featuring deceitful and hyperbolic headlines, viral memes that have a very tenuous connection to the truth and poorly sourced articles that use inaccurate visuals to draw readers.

At Standing Rock, for example, progressive sites have published random photos of massive buffalo herds suggesting they were at the demonstrations. One Facebook page posted footage of Trump talking to tech leaders in a highly misleading video about tribal leaders meeting with the presidents transition team.

A recent countercurrentnews.com article falsely declared: State Gives Cops the Green Light To Shoot DAPL Protesters On Sight.

In the case of the fake tipi-burning story, Linda Black Elk, who was present during last weeks confrontation with law enforcement, told the Guardian that police had forced them out of their camps, but that no tipis had been torched or destroyed.

In an email, a writer with Alternative Media Syndicate defended the post, saying the photo was a stock image meant to draw a connection to the HBO film and that the site removed it once there was confusion.

Goldtooth said it had been a constant struggle to stop the spread of false news about Standing Rock. Folks feel like they need to sensationalize something to get attention and get awareness. You dont need to do that. Tell the story as it is.

Other recent fake or misleading stories catering to progressive audiences include a LearnProgress.org piece that falsely said Melania Trump was selling jewelry on the White House website; a viral story about a boy handcuffed at an airport due to Trumps immigration ban, which used a photo from 2015; and a Politicot.com story with a fabricated Mike Pence quote about abortion and rape.

Progressives have also widely shared tweets from a number of accounts claiming to be rogue government officials speaking out against Trump, even though theres no evidence that they are run by public servants.

Liberal anxieties about Trump have created an appetite for false news, and social psychology dictates that fearful people may be more gullible, said Claire Wardle, research director with First Draft News.

Its unsurprising to me that were seeing a growth of disinformation on the left People want information that makes them feel better, she said. Were living in a time where there is so much fear and concern mapped onto social technology.

Users are especially susceptible when stories and images appear directly in their social feeds, she added. If one of your peers sends something, you already trust them. So you are much less likely to be critical.

There may appear to be a spike in false liberal articles, because progressives are simply consuming higher quantities of news due to Trump angst, said Judith Donath, with the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University.

On the left, however, readers tend to be better at debunking fake news and more responsive to fact-checking, she added. On the right, theres less concern of whether its real or fake as much as whether it fits into the narrative.

Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication and media at Merrimack College, who created a viral list of untrustworthy news sites, said it was unclear how the frequently shocking real news of the Trump era would impact the fake news ecosystem. Because many mainstream headlines have been consistently alarming to progressives, she said it was possible that the content from viral left-leaning sites that promote exaggerated or manipulative clickbait might not actually spread as much any more.

But outrage at Trump ultimately makes users vulnerable to false stories, said Fil Menczer, a professor of informatics and computer science at Indiana University. And if progressives do start reading higher quantities of fake news, he said, the country would probably become even more divided. It means more polarization, more segregation and stronger echo chambers.

Go here to see the original:

Fake news for liberals: misinformation starts to lean left under Trump - The Guardian

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Fake news for liberals: misinformation starts to lean left under Trump – The Guardian