Category Archives: Freedom

Inside Higher Ed (blog)

Defending Central European University and Academic Freedom Inside Higher Ed (blog) Her main field of expertise and research is international and European human rights law, particularly on freedom of expression. Dr. Parmar's entry provides us with a number of important insights on how and why CEU is defending itself after being ... EUROPP Can Europe stand up for academic freedom? The ...EUROPP - European Politics and Policy (blog) all 27 news articles »

Read the original post:

Defending Central European University and Academic Freedom - Inside Higher Ed (blog)

RICHARDSON U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Tuesday defended conservative lawmakers against what he described as critics in the White House who are not serving President Donald Trump's best interests.

"I will say those voices in the White House that are trying to get the White House to unload on conservatives, to unload on the Freedom Caucus, are doing the bidding ofthe left, of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, andprofoundly damaging our prospects of success," Cruz said during a panel discussion about Trump's first 100 days in office.

Cruz's remarks came as he spoke of the consequences if Republicans under Trump do not fulfill their longtime promises, including repealing and replacing Obamacare. Negotiations over a House bill to do so collapsed last month amid opposition from some moderate legislators and many in the House Freedom Caucus, a powerful group of hard-line conservatives.

Asked afterward what he meant by "voices in the White House" Trump and his allies have had a hot-and-cold relationship with the Freedom Caucus Cruz said he was referring to "whoever is encouraging the White House to go after conservative members who are working hard to save this legislation and make sure it actually lowers health insurance premiums."

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

"Any voices that are encouraging that are not looking after the president's interests," Cruz told The Texas Tribune. "They're settling their own partisan agendas."

Appearing on a panel with three conservative radio hosts, Cruz spoke multiple times about the need for the GOP to make good on its promises in the Trump era. He warned of grave consequences if Republicans fail to deliver, including the prospect of a liberal firebrand taking over the White House in 2020.

Asked whom they want to see challenge Trump for re-election, the panelists mostly answered in jest, with one acting out a dramatic impression of U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. But when it was Cruz's turn to answer, he appeared to turn serious.

"I think it is likely to be Elizabeth Warren," Cruz said, adding that Republicans should not be "overconfident" about Trump's re-election chances given the intensity of Democratic opposition to his agenda.

"If we screw all this up, you better believe the American people could elect President Elizabeth Warren," Cruz later said. "If we deliver on all this, it doesn't matter who they nominate we win."

Meet Paige: Our new Facebook Messenger bot helps you keep track of the 85th Legislature. Subscribe by messaging HELLO to m.me/texastribune.org. Learn more.

Originally posted here:

Cruz defends House Freedom Caucus against White House critics - Texas Tribune

The House Freedom Caucus drew attention from the White House, lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the press last month because of itsopposition to GOP health care legislation. But despite its prominence in Washington, the group is little known to many Americans.

About four-in-ten adults (42%) say they have heard nothing at all about the caucus, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 5-11 among 1,501 U.S. adults. Another 39% say they have heard a little about it, while only about one-in-five Americans (19%) say they have heard a lot about the group.

The House Freedom Caucus is a group of conservative Republican lawmakers in the lower chamber of Congress. It was formed in January 2015, and while the caucus does not make its membership public, it is believed to consist of about three dozen lawmakers who share the goal of pushing House GOP leaders toward more conservative positions on fiscal and social issues.

In addition to its opposition to the White House-backed health care bill last month, the caucus also reportedly played a role in the resignation of former House Speaker John Boehner in 2015.

Democrats and Republicans are about equally likely to say they have not heard of the Freedom Caucus. However, in both parties, the caucus is better known among the more ideological. About half (52%) of moderate and liberal Republicans have heard nothing at all about the caucus, compared with just 36% of conservative Republicans. Among Democrats, 47% of conservatives and moderates, compared with 30% of liberals, have heard nothing at all about the caucus.

Americans who have heard of the House Freedom Caucus are more likely to have negative than positive views of it. Overall, 36% of these adults view the group favorably and 48% view it unfavorably, and opinions vary sharply by political affiliation.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who have heard of the caucus, 59% view it favorably and 25% view it unfavorably. The reverse is true among Democrats and Democratic leaners: About two-thirds (66%) of those who have heard of the group view it unfavorably, while one-in-five (19%) view it favorably. Among conservative Republicans who have heard of the caucus, 67% view it favorably; among liberal Democrats who have heard of the group, 74% view it unfavorably.

Despite the clash over health care legislation last month between the White House and members of the Freedom Caucus and Trumps subsequent criticism of the group Republicans who hold a favorable view of the caucus are significantly more likely than those with an unfavorable view of it to approve of Trumps job performance. Among Republicans and Republican leaners who view the Freedom Caucus favorably, 94% approve of the job Trump is doing as president. By contrast, among Republicans with an unfavorable view of the caucus, a smaller majority (75%) approve of Trumps job performance.

Topics: Congress, Federal Government, U.S. Political Parties

Go here to see the original:

Many Americans haven't heard of the House Freedom Caucus - Pew Research Center

Alex Goodlett, Deseret News

Clint Nash helps Melissa Hatch mail her taxes at the post office in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, April 18, 2017.

SALT LAKE CITY While Tax Day is among the more stressful and sometimes expensive times of the year for taxpayers in Utah and nationwide, the true cost of freedom from income taxes typically comes days afterward.

The Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax policy research organization based in Washington, D.C., reported Tuesday that Americans work nearly five months a year to earn enough to cover the state, local and federal taxes owed collectively. The information was calculated using income and tax data to determine when each state and the country as a whole has paid off its total tax burden.

Nationally, Tax Freedom Day 2017 falls on April 23 113 days into the year. The date is derived by taking all federal, state and local taxes individual as well as payroll, sales and excise, corporate and property taxes and dividing by the nations income, explained Scott Drenkard, director of state projects for the Tax Foundation.

This year, Tax Freedom Day in Utah falls on April 21.

"(Utah) is a little bit better than average, a little before the national day," Drenkard said.

The total tax burden carried by residents of each state varies considerably due to fluctuating state tax policies and the progressivity of the federal tax system, he said.

For states with higher incomes and higher taxes, Tax Freedom Day arrives later, Drenkard said.

This year, Connecticut will be last on May 21, with New Jersey on May 13 and New York on May 11. In contrast, residents of Mississippi have the lowest average tax burden, with Tax Freedom Day arriving on April 5, followed by Tennessee on April 7 and South Dakota on April 8, according to the report.

The significance of Tax Freedom Day for taxpayers and lawmakers represents how long Americans have to work to pay the nations tax burden, Drenkard said. In 2017, Americans will pay more than $5.1 trillion in taxes or 31 percent of the nations income, including $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, and $3.5 trillion in federal taxes, he said.

"The United States federal income tax is one of the most progressive of the federal income taxes of all big, large, developed nations (in the world)," Drenkard said.

As a whole, Americans will spend more on taxes this year than on food, clothing and shelter combined, he noted.

Over the past 15 years, federal expenses have exceeded federal revenues, with the budget deficit surpassing $1 trillion from 2009 to 2012, the Tax Foundation reported. The deficit is expected to shrink slightly in 2017, from $657 billion to $612 billion, Drenkard explained.

If yearly federal borrowing was included, which would represent future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur on May 7 14 days later, he said.

Read the original post:

Tax Freedom Day still to come in Utah - Deseret News

Benjamin Franklin closed the Constitutional Convention in 1787 by announcing to citizens outside Independence Hall the arrival of a republicif you can keep it! Legitimate Democracy is more fragile than we care to admit.

Aggressive hectoring, reducing many town hall meetings to shout-fests, has become the headline these past few months. And now dozens of congressmen are ducking even their most basic responsibilityto meet with their constituents in local forums or town halls to address their grievances.

We are from two different parties; we debate regularly our often divergent political philosophies. We agree, however, that if we cant figure out how to have civil exchanges between citizens and their representatives, our democracy is in grave danger.

Recent events at the University of Virginia give us hope that browbeaters are on the retreat. Our school was asked to host our local congressman for a public forum. This community is deeply divided over many issues, from climate change and coal, to Confederate War statues in our parks and Russian meddling in our elections. Several local government meetings have recently disintegrated into shouting matches amidst physical threats.

Rival groups in our blue college townsurrounded by bright red rural countiesassailed our invitation to a Freedom Caucus member to speak in our schools 230 seat auditorium. We were pressed to cancel the event or move the conversation to a 14,000 seat sports arena to accommodate seating demand in turn facilitating a shout-fest between the congressmans passionate supporters and his ardent critics.

The president of our university was counseled that there was substantial risk of violence if the event went forward. The danger came not from determined anti-Trump groups like Indivisible, or University Republicans, who support our congressmans small government agenda, but rather from outside provocateurs who have sparked violence at several events across the country.

After consultation with state and federal law enforcement officials, University of VirginiaPresident Teresa Sullivan made an exceptionally difficult decision. Protecting first amendment freedoms was worth the risk.

Preparations for the event advanced amidst a climate of fear, fueled by divisive and often hostile rhetoric in the community. Viewing the mishandling of events on other campuses where academic freedom took a hitfrom Middlebury to Berkeleywe took extra precautions to try to run a fair and transparent exchange.

The difference is the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy went ahead with the public forum. Attendance was secured by a random lottery among district voters. Written questions came from hundreds of voters and an impartial moderator permitted unlimited follow ups allowing students and constituents alike to interrogate our guest directly.

Guests were checked for weapons. Bomb sniffing dogs swept the building. Some in attendance wore bullet proof vests. Angry confrontations outside were defused by the effective deployment of law enforcement personnel. Disruptions inside were responded to with a pledge to remove and detain those who would deny fellow citizens rights to be heard and the congressmans right to respond.

Questions were thoughtful, passionate and personal. The congressman responded to unrelenting criticism with candor and conviction. The session was spontaneously extended for a second full hour, telecast live locally into primetime.

The rights of citizens to petition and confront their elected representatives was affirmed. There were zero injuries and zero arrests, a tribute to exceptionally wise judgment by the police. In the end, faith in democracy felt justified: neighbors actually began tolistenif not to agree with one another. Only by doing the hard work and sustaining our commitment to both free as well as civil dialog can we begin to restore necessary faith in our democratic institutions.

The authors teach at UVas Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, where Stam serves as Dean.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more from the original source:

Town Halls: What price freedom? - The Hill (blog)

Rep. Dave Brat on Tuesday said its incorrect to blame conservative House members for Republicans failure to pass health care legislation last month, saying in a radio interview they got to yes on several different provisions.

Weve been to a yes on several alternatives, Mr. Brat, Virginia Republican, said on The John Fredericks Show.

Mr. Brat, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said members got to a yes on several proposals offered by President Trump on regulations.

We got to a yes. We were going to vote yes for the health care bill. And then someone said no, he said.

Mr. Brat then said Vice President Mike Pence offered another compromise that allowed states some flexibility on regulations.

And we said yes to that deal, in public, in the newspapers, he said. And still its reported like the House Freedom Caucus is holding this thing back. So someone said no to that.

And I said, OK, dear press, go win a Pulitzer, Mr. Brat said. See if you can find out where the no is. [Because] the Freedom Caucus has been yes, yes, yes.

Mr. Trump himself called out the Freedom Caucus, a group of some three dozen conservative House members, after House GOP leaders had to pull legislation repealing parts of Obamacare from floor consideration.

The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they dont get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018! the president tweeted last month.

Presidents change and lawmakers come and go, but The Washington Times is always here, and FREE online. Please support our efforts.

Read more:

Dave Brat: Freedom Caucus has been 'yes, yes, yes' on health care proposals - Washington Times

Its getting rather difficult to write headlines and lede paragraphs for these sorts of things, since the same tripe keeps bubbling up over and over from the septic tanks of the American academy.

It has been over a week since conservative scholar Heather Mac Donald was chased off the campus of Pomona College by the illiberal ilk of the same whiny thugs who mobbed Charles Murray at Middlebury College earlier this year.

"This is not just my loss of free speech, Mac Donald told Fox and Friends afterwards. These students are exercising brute force against their fellow students to prevent them from hearing me live."

A few days prior to the incident, the universitys outgoing president, David Oxtoby, sent an email that reiterated the colleges commitment to the exercise of free speech and academic freedom.

Now, with all the trappings of a modern-day witch-burning, a trio of underclassmen graduating in 2019 and 2020, along with some 20-plus signatories, have demanded that Oxtoby formally recant in the form of a revised email apologizing for the previous patronizing statement, enforcing that Pomona College does not tolerate hate speech and speech that projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples

The letter was first reported by the Claremont Independent, an independent student paper at the Claremont Colleges. According to the outlets story on Monday, the signatories have demanded a response by Tuesday, April 18.

But the recant is not enough for Pomonas heretic hunters; These kids want some scalps. They are demanding that Pomona College and the Claremont system take action against the Claremont Independent editorial staff for its continual perpetuation of hate speech, anti-Blackness, and intimidation toward students of marginalized backgrounds.

Such tittles, of course, are all typical battle streamers one should aspire to accrue when writing anything that drifts slightly right of center on a college campus these days.

Most of the eight-paragraph letter remainder reads as a semi-coherent mini-screed articulating what appear to be this months most recent intersectionalist shibboleths. For those of you who may not be familiar with the latest liberty-hating campus fad-philosophy, Andrew Sullivan has a worthwhile synopsis at New York Magazine.

On the surface, its a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power, he explains. It is operating, in Orwells words, as a smelly little orthodoxy, and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion, the enforcement of which is reminiscent of New England Puritanism.

But it gets better. As if the entire exercise were not rich enough, the authors of intersectional bull then turn their attention to the concept of truth.

Your statement contains unnuanced views surrounding the academy and a belief in searching for some venerated truth, the letter continues.

Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of subjectivity vs. objectivity as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth--the Truth--is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny.

One wonders how often the professors who indoctrinated these kids have asked them to cite their sources. Im not sure if were talking about the same Enlightenment, because it sounds like they have a philosophical movement focused on human liberty and empirical truth confused with a weird racist version of Marvel Comics Luke Cage.

There are two great ironies here. The first one is that those doing this disparaging of the concept of a universal truth as being deeply rooted in the Enlightenment dont realize how being free to pursue that truth without coercion is itself an Enlightenment principle, or that the rejection of this liberty is typically what leads to real oppression. [See: Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, Sharia supremacism, etc.] If freedom hurts your feelings, I dont really know where else to send you, since you clearly also cant handle true oppression.

The concept of an objective truth isnt rooted in one philosophical movement; Rather, philosophy itself is rooted in the search for truth, which is rooted in human nature. The difference between those who believe in oppressive Enlightenment concepts like free speech and those who dont is that the former are far more likely to engage in debate than brute-force tactics and toddler-esque demands.

The second irony here is that the letter goes on to espouse a metanarrative of history right after disparaging the concept of objective truth altogether. Thats a flag on the play. You dont get to call a narrative absurd or have the audacity to make someone recant their beliefs when just a moment before you removed the framework that lets you claim one set of beliefs is greater than another. A freshman logic class should remedy this.

Claims like these are best met with philosopher Roger Scrutons famous quip: A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is merely relative, is asking you not to believe him. So dont.

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religious freedom, immigration, and the judiciary. Follow him @NateMaddenCR and on Facebook.

Here is the original post:

If freedom hurts your feelings, college crybabies, watch out for this truth grenade - Conservative Review

Freedom Sings has discovered a unique way to teach people about the history of the First Amendment through music.

"We tell the story of free speech through songs, simply," Ken Paulson, narrator and author of the show, said.

Paulson is also president of the First Amendment Center.

Freedom Sings will be in the Ames City Auditorium at 7 p.m. Wednesday to help Iowa State and the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication celebrate First Amendment Day.

The show will feature music of all genres, including The Beatles, Beyonc, The Black Eyed Peas and Little Big Town. Freedom Singsoften plays songs that were extremely censored or even banned from the radio because of the lyrics.

"You'll hear a song from the '50s that was banned and laugh because it's ridiculous," Paulson said.

Freedom Sings features many talented musicians, including Bill Lloyd, successful guitarist and country music writer; Joseph Wooten, three-time Grammy winner and former keyboardist for the Steve Miller Band; and many others.

"(The band made) some of the best music stars you've never heard of," Paulson said.

Paulson has written each Freedom Sings show since they began in 1999. He rewrites each show and makes sure to keep relevant music and free speech topics included in the program.

"We were looking for a way to inform others about the history of free speech, and music is easy to integrate with learning," Paulson said.

Paulson is also the dean of the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University and is an advocate for free speech.

"The First Amendment and free speech have to be protected above all else," Paulson said.

Through teaching the history of free speech in Freedom Sings, Paulson hopes to keep people engaged and make them care about their rights.

Paulson said Freedom Sings can best be described as a "musical lecture," but you really don't know what it is until you see it.

"Almost always we're met with standing ovations, often people come up to me after shows and say, 'I wish I would've brought my roommate or my friends,'" Paulson said. "It's funny, it's informative, it's full of talent. ... It's unlike anything else you'll see."

More:

Freedom Sings adds music to First Amendment - Iowa State Daily

Though Trinity Lutheran qualified under the program's terms, the state rejected the application, citing a provision in the Missouri constitution that says "no money shall ever be taken from the treasury, directly or indirectly, in any of any church, sect, or denomination of religion."

The church sued but lost in the lower courts. Now it's asking the Supreme Court to rule that it cannot be excluded from a program that benefits other schools except those run by churches.

But late Thursday, Missouri's newly elected Republican governor, Eric Greitens, said religious organizations must be permitted to apply for and be eligible for state grants.

Their request for state money will be "judged on the merits like any other applicant," a statement from his office said.

Related:

It was a clear reversal of the policy under his predecessor, Jay Nixon, a Democrat. In response, the Supreme Court directed lawyers for both sides to submit letters by Tuesday on how the policy change affects the case.

A group that sided with the state's earlier position, Americans United For Separation of Church and State, said the court should now dismiss it.

"The governor made Trinity eligible to receive this grant," said Richard Katskee, the group's legal director. "The church no longer has anything to ask of the Supreme Court."

In legal briefs filed earlier with the court, lawyers for the church said the state's denial of funds for the playground project was unconstitutional.

"This religious exclusion wrongfully sends a message that some children are less worthy of protection simply because they enjoy recreation on a playground owned by a church," said David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative organization representing Trinity Lutheran.

He argues that government should be neutral toward religion and that blocking the church from a widely available public program "imposes special burdens on non-profit organizations with a religious identity."

That amounts to "an undeniable hostility to religion," Cortman said.

Missouri responds that the constitutional provision does nothing to interfere with a church's religious activities.

Related:

"Trinity Lutheran remains free, without any public subsidy, to worship, teach, pray, and practice any other aspect of its faith however it wishes. The state merely declines to offer financial support," said James Layton, Missouri's solicitor general.

The US Constitution prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Layton said. "It does not guarantee churches opportunities for public financing."

Both sides will say that a 2004 Supreme Court decision helps them. The court ruled that Washington state did not violate the Constitution's free exercise clause when it declined to provide financial aid for students studying theology.

Trinity Lutheran says there's no such religious obstacle in its case, because the state grant would be used for an entirely secular purpose. "The surface that children play on as they enjoy recess is about as far as one can get from the devotional training of clergy," ADF's David Cortman said.

Not so, the state counters. "Money is fungible, and a dollar saved on capital improvements is an extra dollar that can be spend for religious teaching, salaries for church staff, or other religious purposes," said Missouri's James Layton.

The case has attracted widespread attention among groups defending religious liberties. Some claim that state bans like Missouri's are rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry and modeled after an effort by Rep. James G. Blaine, who unsuccessfully proposed a federal constitutional amendment in 1875 to ban government aid to churches.

A group representing Christian schools says a victory for Missouri could jeopardize government-funded loans to students who attend religiously affiliated colleges, including BYU, Georgetown, and Yeshiva University.

A total of 39 states have restrictions that either, like the Missouri provision at issue, ban state support for churches or forbid taxing their citizens in order to aid churches.

A decision is expected by late June.

Continued here:

Supreme Court Scheduled to Hear Important Freedom of Religion Dispute - NBCNews.com

SPRINGFIELD Glenn Welch, president and CEO of Freedom Credit Union, announced a promotion within the credit union and the appointment of a new mortgage loan originator.

Edward Nuez has been promoted to assistant vice president of Member Business Lending at Freedom. He has more than 19 years of experience in the financial services industry, 15 of which have been at Freedom. Most recently, Nuez led the credit unions business development department and led its youth banking, credit union partners program, and financial literacy programs.

He is active in the community, and serves on numerous boards and committees, including the Roger L. Putnam Technical Fund, Elms College Board of Trustees, the Basketball Hall of Fame Finance Sub Committee, the Executive Committee for the Credit for Life Financial Literacy Fairs, and the Greater Springfield Visitors Convention Bureau Howdy Award Committee, to name a few. He is West Springfield Rotarian and treasurer for the Springfield Puerto Rican Parade Committee. In 2012, Nuez was named one of BusinessWests 40 Under Forty award winners and was one of the first recipients of the Warren Groups Credit Union Hero awards recognizing credit union leaders throughout Massachusetts.

Also, Lisa Mish has joined Freedom as a mortgage loan originator and is responsible for real estate origination throughout Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin, and Berkshire counties.

As she helps expand Freedoms mortgage services to its members throughout the Pioneer Valley, she will offer her expertise in conventional, FHA, Masshousing, Mass. Housing Partnerships One Mortgage, as well as USDA and VA loans. Mish has 14 years of experience in the finance industry, including expertise in residential mortgage origination, first-time home buyer assistance, and secondary-market sales.

Most recently, she was loan originator at Lee Bank. Currently, Mish is a board member of the Western Mass. Homebuilders and Remodelers Assoc., a member of the Realtor Association of Pioneer Valley, and participates on several committees. She is working at Freedoms main office branch in downtown Springfield.

See more here:

Freedom Credit Union Announces Promotion, Addition - Business West (blog)