Category Archives: Freedom

A U.S. government commission on religious freedom is recommending that Russia be designated as a "country of particular concern" (CPC), putting it in a group of the world's worst offenders of basic rights on religious worship.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said in its annual report on April 26 that it is, for the first time, recommending Russia be recognized as a offender along with 15 other countries.

The commission said Russia is unique among the countries in its report because it is the only state that "not only continually intensified its repression of religious freedom" but also "expanded its repressive policies to the territory of a neighboring state," a reference to Moscow's illegal annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

The report also cited a 2016 law that it said "effectively criminalized all private religious speech not sanctioned by the state."

Known as "Yarovaya's Law," the legislation tightens restrictions on the activities of religious groups -- particularly smaller denominations such as the Mormons and some Christian evangelical sects.

It also noted a Russian Supreme Court ruling earlier in April that imposed a nationwide ban against the Jehovah's Witnesses.

WATCH: Jehovah's Witnesses Fight Russian Ban

USCIRF Chairman Thomas Reese said the United States needs to "send a clear message to Russia that we will not tolerate its continued campaign of attack and intimidation against freedom or religion and beliefs."

The commission also recommended that Pakistan be named a CPC, as it had done in 2016 when then-Secretary of State John Kerry rejected the recommendation.

Pakistan has been selected by the commission for offender status each year since 2002, but the State Department has rejected the recommendation every time.

The latest commission report said Pakistans government has "continued to perpetrate and tolerate systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations."

It also cited "discriminatory constitutional provisions and legislation, such as the country's blasphemy and anti-Ahmadiya laws" which it says still result in believers being prosecuted and imprisoned.

There are currently 10 countries designated by the United States as the world's worst offenders of religious freedom: Burma (aka Myanmar), China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The commission has recommended that along with Russia and Pakistan, the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Syria, and Vietnam be added to the CPC list.

Reese said in the 2017 annual report that international religious freedom "is worsening in both the depth and breadth of violations."

At an April 26 press conference in Washington D.C., Reese was particularly critical of Russia -- calling the ban against Jehovah's Witnesses a "very serious violation" of religious freedom.

"It is banning a religion throughout the country; it is going to be confiscating their property [and] basically declaring them outlaws," said Reese, a Jesuit cleric. "We do not feel that religious freedom is respected when a government decides who can be a religion and can't be a religion.... We believe that people should have the right to believe what they want...and to assemble as believers and worship together."

Reese also said the commission is not only worried about the judgment against the Jehovah's Witnesses.

"We are also very concerned about what is happening in terms of religious freedom in Ukraine, where Russia has invaded a country illegally and occupied it, and is now imposing its religious restrictions, it's very tough registration laws, on the religions in the Crimea," Reese said.

He cited the Crimean Tatars as being the hardest hit by representatives of Russia in Crimea, but noted that the Ukrainian Catholic Church has also experienced problems and that Russians "are not allowing them to practice their religion."

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will be responsible for determining whether to add Russia and the other five recommended states recommended to the list of countries "of particular concern."

Once added, the law states that U.S. officials must seek to hold negotiations with authorities from the offending countries and to come up with ways to resolve the complaints regarding violations of religious freedom.

A failure to come up with such resolutions is supposed to result in the imposition of sanctions.

For the first time, the U.S. freedom or religion commission designated nonstate entities as "entities of particular concern," or EPCs.

Reese said the commission was recommending that Islamic State (IS) extremists in Syria and Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Al-Shabaab in Somalia be the first such designated entities.

The USCIRF is a bipartisan U.S. federal government commission made of nine commissioners and headed by Reese -- a senior analyst for the National Catholic Reporter.

The commission was created by Congress in 1998 and issues an annual report each year, making recommendations and giving advice to the president, Congress, and the State Department on which countries are the worst violators of freedom of religion and beliefs.

More:

US Commission Says Russia, Pakistan Among Worst Violators Of Religious Freedom - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

New York Times

What Changed in the Health Repeal Plan to Win Over the Freedom Caucus New York Times A month after pulling their health care overhaul bill from the floor, House Republicans are growing increasingly confident that they may have found a way to pass it. An amendment drafted by Tom MacArthur, a New Jersey congressman, would keep much of ... GOP's latest Freedom Caucus headache: Oversight chairmanshipPolitico Freedom Caucus gets to yes on healthcareThe Hill House Freedom Caucus announces it will support amended Obamacare replacement planCNBC USA TODAY -NBCNews.com -CNN -Politico all 242 news articles »

Originally posted here:

What Changed in the Health Repeal Plan to Win Over the Freedom Caucus - New York Times

Google is marking the anniversary of South Africa's first post-apartheid election on Thursday with a Doodle honoring 19th century composer Enoch Sontonga, who wrote a song that is now part of the country's current national anthem.

Sontonga, who was also a choirmaster and poet, composed the song Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika (God Bless Africa) in 1897. It became popular over the years, according to Google, and was even recorded in a London studio in 1923.

Singing the song became "an act of defiance" during apartheid, the South African government notes on its website , and became the anthem for the African National Congress. Because of this connection the song was banned during apartheid, as the Guardian noted in 2013. In 1997, parts of Nkosi Sikeleil' iAfrika were fused with the country's other anthem, Die Stem (The Call of South Africa), to become the current national anthem of South Africa

Freedom Day, on April 27, is a public holiday in South Africa. On this day in 1994, the country's first democratic elections took place, in which people of voting age from all races and ethnicities could cast a ballot. With over 60% of the votes going to the ANC, Nelson Mandela became the country's first black, and first democratically elected, President.

Originally posted here:

Google Celebrates South Africa's Freedom Day with Doodle Honoring Composer Enoch Sontonga - TIME

After taking a "dog's-eye view" of law and freedom, I wanted to delve deeper. The relationship between law, authoritative truth, and freedom is complex and thorny. Which of them is primary? Disagreement on that question is central to much modern-day polarization and bitter name-calling. Today we'll touch on just a bit of this topic.

I recently read two thought-provoking articles in First Things magazine. One was by French author Pierre Manent. Lamenting the decay of political culture in the West, Manent observes: "For us, freedom is a world without commandment or obedience."

The second article, by R. R. Reno, ponders the weakening of the "strong gods" of nationalism, universal truth and traditional values. He cites Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo, who approvingly describes this "disenchantment of strong truth." Reno summarizes Vattimo's position: "If there are no strong truths, nobody will judge others or limit their freedom. ... Any form of moral authority or regulation represents an evil regression back to fascism."

Reno understands why many fear the return of "strong gods." When they run amok, bloodshed and injustice often result. Isn't it sensible to beat back their slightest recurrence, as if they were cancer cells?

Thus, there are calls from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum to weaken or eliminate legal or moral restraints on various issues. "Market forces" will provide just wages and pollution abatement, so abolish government regulations. Any restriction on abortion signals renewed war on women. "Standard English" should be scrapped because it denigrates the speech patterns of minorities. You can supply other examples.

Fear of "strong gods" demands strongly condemning them; working for their destruction; and ensuring that freedom is situated in a world "without command or obedience." This mindset views law as a weapon with which the powerful impose their will upon the weak. It is inherently coercive, and is the enemy of freedom, not the necessary (though fallible) framework within which human freedom and dignity may flourish.

There's enough truth here to be plausible. We've all seen the effects of law's heavy hand. Political philosophers ponder how to balance the coerciveness of law with individual freedom. One popular idea is a sort of "least common denominator" methodology. It argues that the justification for law's coercion must not only be intelligible to, but also accepted by, all who will be affected by it. Private or sectarian notions of truth may not be used as justification for or against coercion by the state, even when they are proven to be factually true. Belief in authoritative truth must be kept leashed and muzzled; being a "strong god," it is deemed exclusionist and authoritarian, even when proven.

This methodology has merits; it allows a complex, pluralistic society to function. But it comes at a high price. It refuses to seat "belief in authoritative truth" at the conversation table when weighty matters of communal concern are debated. But most people do have strongly held values and beliefs on many aspects of communal and private life. They do perceive "certain truths to be self-evident," universal, and of compelling value in matters public and communal, not merely personal and private. As Reno observes, people do push back against efforts to unseat foundational "strong truths" that provide meaning and direction to their lives. And the more they push back, the more stridently do "disenchanters" denounce their recalcitrance.

Ironically, the very attempt to create a world devoid of "strong gods," "without command or obedience," free of "authoritarian coercion," involves commanding compliance from dissenters and coercing their obedience. "Strong gods" like nationalism, religious beliefs and universal truths are replaced by the "stealth gods" of tolerance, relativism and public secularism. Those "stealth gods" are no less demanding than the strong ones they supplant. In their service, coercive laws may multiply, restricting the expression of certain freedoms to purely private venues and compelling the acceptance of public expression of others. It hasn't been an altogether happy exchange.

Can we locate freedom and human dignity within a larger framework of Law or Truth without summoning the dark side of those "strong gods?" In a broken, fallen world, it's not entirely possible. But the solution isn't throwing out the dirty "baby" of Law along with the even-dirtier "bathwater" of its abuse! Though we disagree widely and strenuously on specifics, most people believe that some things are inherently true and universally valuable, and provide a worthy framework for human freedom and flourishing. In future articles, I hope to explore that.

Cathy Ammlung is a pastor in the North American Lutheran Church and a resident of Sykesville. You can contact her at cathycarrollcountytimes@gmail.com.

See original here:

Ammlung: A second look at law and freedom - Carroll County Times

In a major win for GOP leadership, the leadership of the House Freedom Caucus said Wednesday that it supports a new deal to repeal Obamacare.

But support from centrist Republicans is lagging.

"While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the House Freedom Caucus chairman, said in a statement.

Meadows did not indicate whether all of the approximately three dozen members of the group would vote for the bill. The Freedom Caucus typically supports legislation only when 80 percent of its membership is behind it.

The number of Freedom Caucus lawmakers supporting the measure is critical.

Republicans will need 217 votes to pass a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, and there could be significant defections from their centrist wing.

Many members of the Republican Tuesday Group, which is comprised of centrists, left a meeting in the Capitol basement Wednesday without agreeing to support the proposal.

"The amendments that we have seen so far really don't address the concerns I have with the original replacement plan," said Rep. Dan Donovan, R-N.Y.

Donovan and other Republicans don't want insurance companies to be able to charge higher rates for older people or those with pre-existing conditions, for example.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., said his constituents would be hard hit by the changes.

"I understand Obamacare is collapsing," Diaz-Balart said. "My concern continues to be the most vulnerable and those who are 50 to 64 years old and who use Medicaid. I want to make sure their options are better."

The compromise amendment to the American Health Care Act would allow states to opt out of the requirement that insurers must cover essential health benefits such as maternity care or hospitalization. While the amendment keeps a requirement that insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, it lets states apply for waivers for the price control called "community rating," which prevents insurers from charging more to people with pre-existing conditions.

The deal addresses a key concern from the Freedom Caucus, whose lack of support forced GOP leadership to scuttle a planned vote last month.

Some caucus members have said that gutting the regulations is key to lowering premiums. However, the deal is a far cry from the full repeal that members sought when the AHCA was introduced in early March.

The House Freedom Caucus support follows endorsements by conservative outside groups, including Freedomworks and Heritage Action.

"This is not full repeal and it is not what Republicans campaigned on or outlined in the Better Way agenda," Heritage Action Chief Executive Officer Michael A. Needham said. "The amendment does, however, represent important progress in what has been a disastrous process. Given the extreme divides in the Republican Party, allowing Texas and South Carolina to make different decisions on health insurance regulations than New York and New Jersey may be the only way forward."

View original post here:

Freedom Caucus supports Obamacare repeal deal while centrists waver - Washington Examiner

On Friday, April 21, 2017, the Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8 plus launched in Canada.

The phone launched on the incumbent carriers and their flanker brands owned by Rogers Communications Inc. (NYSE:RCI), BCE Inc. (NYSE:BCE), and TELUS Corporation (NYSE:TU).

Of more importance is the launch of the recently re-branded Freedom Mobile, owned by Shaw Communications Inc. (NYSE:SJR). Shaw, like the incumbents, also offers subscription television service, land-line telephone service, and internet services.

Discount carrier Freedom Mobile has launched or is in the process of launching LTE in the non-roaming areas it serves. Those areas include the greater Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Ottawa areas, and other parts of Eastern Ontario. Freedom is unavailable, except via roaming in an "Away" zone in many other parts of Canada, including Quebec.

As I previously wrote on this site, when Freedom launched its LTE service, it was incompatible with Samsung (OTC:SSNLF) and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) devices. At the time, the company only offered two phones that were compatible on its LTE network: a ZTE (OTCPK:ZTCOF) phone and an LG (OTC:LGEAF) phone. This was because the company launched LTE on the AWS-3 Band 66 spectrum.

The new Samsung Galaxy phones are compatible with this spectrum, giving Freedom its first meaningful opportunity to compete with the incumbents on its LTE network.

Based on the ever-increasing stock price of Shaw, it seems investors have high hopes for growth of Freedom subscribers.

Below is a table reporting the number of subscribers of the four major companies in some major competing segments.

Most Recently Reported Number of Subscribers and Year-Over-Year Percent Change (except Shaw subscriber change, which is total subscriber change quarter over quarter)

Segment

BCE (Q4 ended December 31/16)

Rogers (Q1 ended March 31/17)

TELUS (Q4 ended December 31/16)

Shaw (Q2 ended February 28/16) *Consumer only, excludes business

Wireless

8.469 million

+2.7%

10.292 million

+4.3%

8.585 million

+1.5%

1.086

+33,427 (q over q)

TV

2.745 million

+0.2%

1.796 million

-4.0%

>1.0 million

+5.4%

2.421 million

-11,735 (q over q)

High-Speed Internet

3.477 million

+1.9%

2.175 million

+5.4%

1.7 million

+5.7%

1.818 million

+13,466 (q over q)

We can see from the above table the following:

All companies reported seeing subscriber growth in wireless and internet.

Rogers and Shaw are seeing declines in consumer TV subscribers. TELUS, which offers services in Western Canada, in competition with Shaw, is seeing growth in TV.

Shaw's Most Recent Reported Earnings

For the most recent quarter, Shaw reported earnings per share of $0.30. If earnings remained constant, this would work out to $1.20 on an annualized basis. (All amounts are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise indicated).

On April 24, 2017, Shaw closed at $28.65 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. This means that Shaw's most recent quarterly earnings, if annualized would have a P/E of almost 24. In comparison, Western Canadian-based competitor TELUS has a P/E of about 21, according to Yahoo Finance.

During its most recent conference call, an analyst asked Shaw about its consumer products in Western Canada (which include its television and internet bundles marketed as Internet 150 and BlueSky TV). President Jay Mehr noted:

"I think Western Canadian benefit[s] from the highly competitive environment and we've certainly seen [an] extremely competitive environment in this fiscal year in Alberta and BC... Our primary competitor is fierce and does a great job and that's what this is going to continue to be."

Given the results of its consumer internet and TV businesses, it appears that wireless growth is the main thing getting investors excited about Shaw, which closed near a 52-week high of $28.79.

That is why the new Samsung phones should provide a good first indicator of Shaw's ability to compete with the incumbents. I have summarized some of the incumbents' online flanker brand offers (as at the time of pre-sale, advertised on their websites from April 19th to the 21st, 2017) on the lowest priced Samsung Galaxy S8 phone and compared them to Freedom Mobile. All offers were for the province of Ontario.

Carrier

Minimum Up-Front Price of Samsung Galaxy S8 (excludes any activation, SIM card, or other fees or taxes)

Required Monthly Payments Over Two Years To Get Phone For Minimum Up-Front Price

Minimum Cost of An LTE Monthly Plan

Total Monthly Cost Before Taxes and Other Fees

Fido

(Rogers)

$489

$25

$65

1 GB of data

$90

Virgin Mobile

(Bell)

$489.99

Platinum Plan Required

$90

1 GB of data

$90

Koodo Mobile

(TELUS)

$490

$21

$69

1GB of data

$90

Freedom (Shaw)

$59

$35

$30

250 MB full-speed data

$65

Freedom (Shaw)

$59

$35

$40

4 GB full speed data

$75

Freedom and Koodo also conspicuously advertised a free Samsung Gear VR with a pre-order. I am unaware of whether the other carriers offered it, but I am most interested in the money that a customer has to put down to get the phone (prior to any fees for SIM cards, activation, etc.)

I showed two of Freedom's plans above because it is clear that Freedom is aggressively competing on upfront price and monthly plan price.

It is also apparent the incumbents are not competing with each other on price of this phone, when one considers the total cost of a two-year plan.

So Far No Price War On The Samsung Galaxy S8

As of the time of writing (Tuesday, April 25, 2017), none of the flanker offers has changed from the pre-sale offers I saw advertised on their websites. This is good news for Shaw/Freedom as despite lower pricing from Freedom, an all-out price war has not resulted.

If this trend continues, Freedom should be able to increase market share among value-conscious Samsung fans. It appears the incumbents are prepared to let Freedom try to gain those consumers, rather than sacrifice margins.

The incumbents' flankers offer lower-priced plans for other phones. For example, as of the time of writing, if you bring your own phone to Koodo or Virgin Mobile you can get plans starting at $30 per month. Fido offers bring-your-own phone plans at $40 per month.

In other words, the value proposition is different for customers who already have their own phones. I suspect that is because customers who already own their own phones are able to move to whatever network they want (with the exception of moving to Freedom LTE, which, as discussed, requires an AWS-3 Band 66 compatible phone).

If you do the math, Freedom is selling the phone for $899 to its customers over a two-year term. Management previously said during a conference call that its goal was to get average revenue per wireless user to $40 per month. The company is offering more data than its competition for that price. It is foreseeable that absent a price war, in regions including Toronto and Vancouver where Freedom has already rolled out LTE, Freedom will continue its trend of wireless growth.

The Bigger Test Comes With Apple

Apple sells iPhones in its retail stores, resulting in customers willing to pay full price becoming free agents, who can port their phone numbers to any carrier. Assuming that the next iPhones will be compatible with the AWS-3 Band 66 network, this increases the probability that customers may be willing to give Freedom a chance. If they are dissatisfied, they can always change to any of the incumbent carriers' brands.

Originally posted here:

Samsung Galaxy S8: First Major Test For Shaw's Freedom Mobile ... - Seeking Alpha

Photo: Noah Berger, Special To The Chronicle

Demonstrators supporting President Donald Trump withdraw from a confrontation with counter-protesters on Saturday, April 15, 2017, in Berkeley, Calf.

Demonstrators supporting President Donald Trump withdraw from a...

Encouraged by viral news coverage, the left and right alike imagine UC Berkeley is a hotbed of student activism. The left: liberal students protest hateful Trump-inspired speech. The right: social-justice-warrior students kill free speech.

The reality is much less exciting: sleep-deprived students, ill-prepared administrators and widespread apathy.

How did studying for finals become the front line of the battle for free speech? This most recent spat began when Berkeley College Republicans invited conservative pundit Ann Coulter to speak on campus, originally scheduled for Thursday.

Administrators feared her appearance would cause a mob-like protest similar to what happened at the Milo Yiannopoulos event in February. So they insisted on postponing Coulters speech to next week so they could find a less exposed venue. Coulter claimed the postponement was in effect a cancellation, because next week is Cals dead week the week before finals when no classes are held and students would be less likely to attend. The Republican club and its outside-of-Berkeley supporters, the Young Americas Foundation, responded by suing the university for infringing on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The backers then pulled their support of the event citing safety concerns, prompting Coulter to ultimately cancel her appearance.

The one thing everyone has gotten right is that this is no longer the heyday of Berkeley activism that birthed the Free Speech Movement not because free speech is dead, but because the vast majority of students are not involved.

When Yiannopoulos came to campus nearly three months ago, he was met with modest student protest and violence from non-student activists. Yiannopoulos, an alt-right provocateur, gained notoriety for racist, sexist remarks, and ultimately was disowned by members of his circle for comments defending pedophilia.

In the run-up to his event that eventually was canceled, masked members of an antifascist antifa anarchist group, which is not a registered student group, smashed windows and set off fireworks. Pictures of their violence made headlines and Berkeley took the the fall. President Trump weighed in on Twitter: If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

There should have been better crowd control, no question. But blaming students for the chaos and declaring colleges enemies of free speech plays right into the provocateurs hands.

Coulter and Yiannopoulos belong to a class of commentators who exist to stir the pot. Yiannopoulos has even admitted, I dont care about politics. I only talk about politics because of Trump. They say outlandish things about people of color, immigrants, women, gay people and others, come to college campuses, get banned, and have the perfect gotcha! moment.

Meanwhile, free speech is alive and well on campus, just in less headlining ways. The Berkeley College Republican president has a weekly column in the school paper. The Republicans counterpart, the CalDems, hosts its own speakers and events. These quiet forms of speech on campus are more important than cries from the loudspeaker Coulter got to hold in this debacle. She should have been allowed to speak, and just like the students, we should have ignored her.

Madeleine Chang is a Chronicle editorial writer. Email: mchang@sfchronicle.com

Read more:

The freedom to ignore hate speech - San Francisco Chronicle

Mount Rushmore a reminder of freedom Page Six Rapid City, SD Time for patriotism. Wave the flag. Give thanks for your freedom, for our Constitution, for the United States of America, for the greatest country God ever created. A friend's birthday gift was to visit Rapid City. We went to see the ...

Read the rest here:

Mount Rushmore a reminder of freedom - Page Six

April 26, 2017, 10:13 a.m.

The conservative House Freedom Caucus is backing the latest healthcare proposal as the White House tries to revive efforts to repeal President Obama's signature law.

In a statement Wednesday, the 40 or so hard-line members who helped scuttle the earlier bill announced their support for the plan crafted by New Jersey Rep. Tom MacArthur, a moderate, and North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, head of the House Freedom Caucus.

While the endorsement is a boost for the effort, some 50 moderate Republicans are still uncertain or oppose the latest plan.

The group said the new proposal will give states flexibility and while it isn't a full repeal of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, they are prepared to support it.

The proposed changes would let states get federal waivers to some coverage requirements Obama's law imposed on insurers, such as providing basic services includingmaternity and newborn care, and preventive and wellness visits.

Excerpt from:

Healthcare repeal gets boost from House Freedom Caucus - Los Angeles Times

Starting Monday, what Colorado taxpayers make will be theirs to keep, according to the Tax Foundation, a tax policy research firm.

The average taxpayer in the state will have made enough to cover federal, state and local tax obligations as of April 24, what the group calls Tax Freedom Day. Thats the same point as in 2016, but down from 2015s Tax Freedom Day of April 25, and up from April 22 in 2014.

Tax Freedom Day nationally this year came on April 23, so Colorado is only a day behind. But its break-even day is the 37th latest among states.

Connecticut taxpayers on average have to work until May 21 to cover their taxes, while those in New Jersey must work until May 13 and New Yorkers until May 11. At the other extreme, Mississippi residents have the lightest tax burden, which they cover by April 5, followed by Tennessee on April 7 and South Dakota, April 8.

Colorados state and local tax burdens arent extreme compared to some of the coastal states, ranking 21st among states, saidMorgan Scarboro, a policy analyst at the Tax Foundation.

But tax returns here report higher incomes on average ranking 13th-highest on a per capita basis. Thatresults in more filers in higher tax brackets paying more in federal taxes.

The state will pay more in federal taxes due to our progressive federal income tax structure, Scarboro said.

Follow this link:

Coloradans work until April 24 to reach Tax Freedom Day, research firm says - The Denver Post