Category Archives: Freedom

Weve discussed Stanley Kurtzs effort, in conjunction with the Goldwater Institute, to promote free speech on college campuses through the enactment of state legislation mandating it. Now, Stanley has a proposal that, if enacted, would do even more for campus free speech.

Stanley wants federal legislation to make the protection of First Amendment rights a prerequisite of federal financial assistance to Americas colleges and universities. He presents his proposal and his reasons here, on NROs Corner. His proposal builds on the work of the National Association of Scholars.

In my view, the presumption should be against the federal government using its financial leverage to tell colleges and universities what to do. Certainly, bureaucrats should be (but arent) loath to indulge in this practice.

On the other hand, federal taxpayers cannot be expected to fund institutions that deny people their basic constitutional rights. The right of free speech is probably our most fundamental constitutional right and, until recently, the free exchange of ideas was considered an essential element of the college experience.

Unfortunately, in the past several decades the academy has ceased to be a reliable defender of the First Amendment. We now face a free speech crisis on many, if not most, college campuses.

Accordingly, the case for congressional action is strong.

Actually, Stanley points out that the Higher Education Act (HEA), enacted in 1965 and last reauthorized in 2008, already affirms the importance of protecting student speech and association rights. Title I, Section 112 of HEA provides that no studentshould, on the basis of participation in protected speechbe subjected toofficial sanction, with protected speech defined as speech protected under the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

However, Title I, Section 112 of HEA express only the sense of Congress. Stanley wants to give it teeth by adding enforcement mechanisms.

The HEA is due to be reauthorized this year. This presents Congress with a great opportunity to restore the First Amendment on college campuses.

Stanley concludes:

The American taxpayer is under no obligation to subsidize speech codes, speaker disinvitations, or shout-downs. Its past time that Congress took steps to ensure that taxpayer dollars no long underwrite campus assaults on freedom of speech.

Indeed, it is.

Read this article:

How Congress can promote freedom of speech on college campuses - Power Line (blog)

Doug Richards, WXIA 5:25 PM. EST February 21, 2017

Aerial images of the Georgia State Capitol. January 2017

ATLANTA -- Georgia senators have introduced a new religious freedom bill.

SB 233 cites the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993 "and shall in like manner apply to this state or any political subdivision thereof." The bill mirrors a controversial bill introduced in 2015 by Sen. Josh McKoon (R-Columbus), "just an even tighter mirroring by simply citing to the federal language," McKoon said in a text message.

McKoon is one of more than a dozen Republicans co-sponsoring the bill.

House Speaker David Ralston has expressed a desire to allow Congress to handle religious freedom issues now that Republicans control the Congress and White House.

Over the last two years, religious freedom has roiled the Capitol. Last year, Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a religious freedom bill after Georgia business leaders raised concerns about losing jobs and business. Gay rights activists have contended that religious freedom bills would encourage discrimination against the LGBT community.

( 2017 WXIA)

WXIA

GA 2016 sponsor: Let feds handle 'religious freedom' legislation in '17

View original post here:

Georgia Senate introduces new religious freedom bill - 11alive.com

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In the joint press conference with Tusk, Vice President Pence stated in part:

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Saturday, as President Tusk said, I was pleased to address the Munich Security Council to speak about the importance of the strategic alliance [inaudible] entered the bond so many years ago in the North American Treaty Organization. But the president did ask me to come here, to Brussels, to the home of the European Union, and deliver an additional message, so today it is my privilege on behalf of President Trump to express the strong commitment of the United States to continued cooperation and partnership with the European Union. Whatever our differences, our two continents share the same marriage, the same values, and above all, the same purpose to promote peace and prosperity through freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. And to those objectives, we will remain committed. This has been European Unions goal since before its formal founding in 1993. What began as a modest Western European trade agreement in 1951, freedom of movement, has grown into a commitment to the four freedoms the freedom of movement, goods, capital, services and people, the common currency, and common approach to foreign and security policy.

Pence continued speaking of the history of the European Union (EU). He moved to speak of U.S. and EU economies and reaffirm our commitment to a free, fair and flourishing economies that undergird our success and a cooperation in achieving that. Maintaining and strengthening our economic vitality will require hard but necessary choices.

Pence also reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to fighting terrorism, mentioned the Islamic terror bombings on Brussels that killed more than 30 people, then called on the European community to intensify efforts to fight radical Islamic terrorism alongside the United States. This will require greater coordination and intelligence-sharing among EU member states and between the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he said.

Speaking of Russian aggression, Pence said, In addition to confronting terrorism together, clearly, we must stand strong in defense of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nations in Europe.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that in the week leading up to the vice presidents meetings in Brussels and affirmation of U.S. commitment to the EU, in a conversation with a German diplomat, White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon described the EU as a flawed construct. He cited three confidential sources that had been briefed on the meeting.

The sources stated that Bannon conveyed favor for bilateral relations with Europe. One White House official claimed to Reuters a more brief version of the interaction between Bannon and German ambassador to Washington Peter Wittig than the three other sources. The three sources reportedly described Bannons message to the diplomat as favoring strong nationalist movements. One of the three described the White House position on the EU as not seeing an unraveling of the EU as having grave consequences.

The vice president spoke at the Munich Security Conference in the days before his visit to Brussels as part of his first trip abroad since taking office. Last week, the conference chairman, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, called on Pence to affirm during his visit that the U.S. supports the EU and was not aiming to break up the organization, according to Reuters.

Pence made the trip to the security conference on behalf of President Trump. A senior White House policy adviser previewed the trip last week, promising an overarching message of reassurance. In his speech to conference participants, he brought this promise from President Trump: We will stand with Europe today and every day; we are bound together by the same noble ideals freedom, democracy, justice, and the rule of law.

At Mondays joint press conference, Pence stated, The United States commitment to the European Union is steadfast and enduring. President Tusk, President Trump, and I look forward to working together with you and the European Union to deepen our political and economic partnership.

During his presidential campaign, now-President Donald Trump made clear that he supported the United Kingdoms Brexit vote to leave the European Union. The day after the June 23 Brexit vote, then-candidate Trump compared the vote to the upcoming presidential election in the U.S. and attributed the U.K. vote to leave the EU, and prospectively the U.S. presidential vote, in large part to peoples desire to control borders and block illegal immigration.

USA Today quoted Trump as stating, All over the world [people are] angry. They are angry at the borders. They are angry over people coming into the country and taking over.

In late January, European Parliament chief Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt, who vehemently opposes Brexit, said, We have a third front undermining the European Union, and it is Donald Trump, who has joined [the far-Right parties] from across the Atlantic. He has talked fairly favorably of other countries wanting to break away from the EU and that he hoped for disintegration from European Union, according to the Telegraph.

In the Monday press conference, President Tusk emphasized a particular portion of his meeting with Vice President Pence, saying, I asked the vice president directly if he shared my opinions on three key matters: the international order, security, and the attitude of the new American administration towards the European Union. Tusk continued, In reply to these three matters, I heard today from Vice President Pence three times yes. After such a positive declaration, both Europeans and Americans must simply practice what they preach.

Request for comment from the vice president on whether the State Department had a role in statements made at Mondays joint Pence-Tusk press conference returned no comment by the time of this report.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana.

Link:

Vice President Pence Appears to Support EU Freedom of Movement - Breitbart News

|

Posted: Feb 22, 2017 12:01 AM

Its official title is 2017 Index of Economic Freedom. But you could also call it President Obamas Report Card.

At least when it comes to the United States. The Index scores and ranks for almost every country, after all. And the news for the rest of the world, on balance, is good. Economic freedom is up again. Many countries have taken steps to ensure greater liberty for their citizens to make, spend and invest their money as they see fit. But not the United States.

Economic freedom isnt the same as political freedom (though the two often go hand in hand). Im not talking about free speech; Im talking about how free are we to earn without being over-taxed and over-regulated. How hard it is to start a business and keep it running. How much our government spends. How easily we can trade with other countries.

Our economic liberty has a profound effect on our daily lives. It influences how much money we make, what kind of work we do, how high prices and unemployment are -- even what kind of appliances we can buy.

So where does the U.S. fall on this years Index? Our global ranking is No. 17, with a score of 75.1 (on a 0-100 scale, with 100 being the freest).

On the list of 180 countries graded in the 2017 Index, thats not bad. But thats 10 slots below where we finished in 2008. Indeed, the U.S. was once a regular top 10 finisher when the Index was first published in 1995. Now weve been eclipsed by the United Arab Emirates, a newcomer to the global top 10.

Were not even the freest economy in the Americas. Canada and Chile beat us out this year -- again.

Before looking at why, lets consider how the Index editors determine the scores. Each country is evaluated in four broad areas:

1) Rule of Law. Are property rights protected through an effective and honest judicial system? How widespread is corruption -- bribery, extortion, graft, etc.?

2) Limited Government. Are taxes high or low? Is government spending kept under control, or is it growing unchecked?

3) Regulatory Efficiency. Are businesses able to operate without burdensome and redundant regulations? Are individuals able to work where and how much they want? Is inflation in check? Are prices stable?

4) Open Markets: Can goods be traded freely? Are there tariffs, quota or other restrictions? Can individuals invest their money where and how they see fit? Is there an open banking environment that encourages competition?

Lets look at how the U.S. fares on these measures:

Rule of Law: Our judiciary functions independently and predictably, but the protection of property rights has been uneven. The Pew Research Center reported in late 2015 that only 19 percent of the public trusts the government all or most of the time.

Government size: Heres where we really lag freer economies. Our top individual income tax rate is 39.6 percent. The top corporate tax rate is among the worlds highest: 35 percent. Government spending at all levels amounts to about 38.3 percent of GDP (roughly $30,000 per household). Spending keeps rising, and government keep growing.

Regulatory efficiency: The number of federal regulations has increased substantially, raising total annual compliance costs to more than $100 billion in just seven years. (Thanks, President Obama.) Ballooning deficits are fueled by federal welfare programs, farm subsidies, green energy programs, corporate welfare and other special-interest spending.

Open markets: The average applied tariff rate is 1.4 percent. Over one third of all land is owned by government. The overall financial sector remains competitive, but the banking sector is hampered by such federal interference as the Dodd-Frank legislation.

The U.S. economy is remarkably resilient, but it needs help. Fortunately, the Trump administration has promised a sharp break with the regulatory, tax and trade policies of recent years.

Regaining our place among the top 10 economies wont be easy, but it can be done. And the sooner, the better. Your move, President Trump.

Read this article:

US Economic Freedom Hits New Low - Townhall

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Today and every day of my presidency, I pledge to do everything I can to continue that promise of freedom for African Americans and for every American, Trump said to reporters during the tour on Tuesday. So important. Nothing more important.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Trump praised the African American heroes of history, including specifically naming Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington and Rosa Parks.

Im deeply proud that we now have a museum that honours the millions of African American men and women who built our national heritage, especially when it comes to faith, culture and the unbreakable American spirit, he said.

Trump toured the museum with Dr. Ben Carson and his family, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, and Alveda King Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s niece.

Dr. Carsons work as a surgeon is featured in the museum, as part of an exhibit. Trump previewed his administrations plans once Carson is confirmed as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Were going to do great things in our African American communities together, Trump said. I look forward to watching that. Hell do things that nobody ever thought of.

Go here to read the rest:

At African American Museum, Donald Trump Vows to Defend 'Promise of Freedom' - Breitbart News

Forbes

Freedom Investing And Emerging Markets In 2016 Forbes Studies have shown that countries with more economic freedom significantly outperform those with less freedom not only in per capita gross domestic product (GDP), but also in per capita incomes, health care, education, protection of the environment ...

Go here to see the original:

Freedom Investing And Emerging Markets In 2016 - Forbes

5492449

Is a threat to eliminate the tax exemption of churches that endorse candidates or political parties posed by a 1954 law called the Johnson Amendment a constitutional infringement on the rights of church leaders to freely express themselves from the pulpit?

At ColoradoPolitics.com, Deb Walker, executive director of Citizens Project writes, Government may not subsidize political endorsements through tax exemption, and that The Johnson Amendment ensures that citizens of all faith traditions (or no faith tradition) are not inadvertently financially supporting church-based politicking. There are two failures in reasoning here.

First, the reasons for exempting churches from taxation are distinguishable from those that apply to other types of charitable organizations. Whereas the law may exempt secular charities because it deems that the charitable purposes provide public benefits that outweigh the need to tax such activities, the principle of not taxing churches originates in the constitutional, philosophical and political foundations of our nation.

The Supreme Court examined this principle in Everson v. Board of Education, a 1947 case affirming the authority of a state to provide funding for school busses to transport children to Catholic schools in New Jersey writing, The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. These practices of the old world began to thrive in the soil of the new AmericaCatholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faithmen and women of varied faithswere persecuted. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches.

The people [of Virginia], as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax[in order to] interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least thisno tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

This sounds as if the Court would hold that New Jersey has no authority to provide taxpayer-funded school busses for Catholic schoolchildren, but thats not case. What the Court pointed out in affirming that policy is that the amendment commands that New Jerseycannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Nonbelievers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. (Emphasis in original)

The second error is that a tax exemption is not a subsidy. An exemption from a tax is not giving the person or group exempted something they dont already have. Neither a taxpayer not affiliated with a religious organization nor the government has something taken from them that goes to a church merely because the church doesnt pay a tax. Therefore, a tax exemption does not mean that the public is financially supporting church-based politicking, nor does it mean that the government is entangled in underwriting partisan political activity.

Where the Johnson Amendment and Walker go wrong is in failing to understand that when it comes to religion the taxing power of Congress has a constitutional hurdle it must overcome that doesnt apply to conventional non-religious charitable organizations.

The historic truths cited by the Supreme Court stand for the proposition that the government cannot tax religious institutions in ways that inhibit the free exercise of religion just as much as it does the proposition that it cannot tax anyone for the purposes of advancing religion.

Thus, when it comes to religious institutions its questionable whether or not the 501(c)(3) rules apply at all because it is the First Amendment itself that arguably prohibits the taxation of churches because religion-suppressing taxation has always been as formidable an enemy of religious freedom throughout history as religion-supporting taxation has, as the Supreme Court points out and as the Founders went to great pains to avoid.

Religiously motivated speech is a constitutionally protected aspect of religious liberty that cannot be suppressed by the threat of anti-religious, anti-free-speech government taxation. This includes the freedom of both ministers and others to preach in favor of or against any political party or candidate or any other matter that they believe would either threaten or support their rights to religious freedom.

Read the original:

Taxing Religious Freedom - Daily Caller

The U.S. Navy sent an aircraft carrier and guided-missile destroyer to patrol the South China Sea over the weekend, for the first time since President Trump took office, military officials confirmed.

TILLERSON HOLDS FIRST SET OF TALKS WITH CHINESE COUNTERPART

The USS Carl Vinson carrier was joined by the USS Wayne E. Meyer and aircraft from Carrier Air Wing 2. Navy officials said the previously scheduled operations, which got underway Saturday, were routine.

In January, during his confirmation hearing for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson said China should be denied access to its man-made islands in the South China Sea, where China has installed runways on three islands and bunkers to house fighter jets and bombers. The Pentagon is closely monitoring to see if China deployssurface-to-air missilesnext, which could affect U.S. Navy flight operations in the region.

VIDEO SHOWING APPARENT POISONING OF KIM JONG UN'S HALF-BROTHER SURFACES

China has issued stark warnings to the U.S. and other nations to tread carefully.China respects and upholds the freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea, which countries enjoy under international law, but firmly opposes any countrys attempt to undermine Chinas sovereignty and security in the name of the freedom of navigation and overflight, foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said.

The ships were likely to sail within the 12 nautical miles of Chinas artificial islands, theNavy Times reportedlast week.

Navy warships have deliberately sailed close to Chinese-occupied features four times since October 2015. The first three missions challenged China's requirement for ships to obtain permission prior to transit, while the last one challenged China's sovereignty over waters encompassing the Paracels.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said recently that such operations would continue while also ruling out any military escalation.

"Any miscalculation from either side may escalate tensions, which could spin out of control," Zhiqun Zhu, who heads The China Institute at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, told the Navy Times. "China is unlikely to cave in no matter what the U.S. military does in the South China Sea. Cooler heads are needed from both sides, not moves to unnecessarily provoke the other side."

China dispatched its own fleet for scheduled drills.

The missile destroyers Changsha and Haikou and the supply ship Luomahu wrapped up weeklong exercises on Friday. The fleet includes three helicopters and marines on board.

According to the official Xinhua News Agency, the drills involved naval aviation forces and military garrisons from the Spratlys and the Paracels, as well as elements of the Beihai and Donghai fleets. They practiced air defense, escorting, anti-terror, anti-piracy and defensive operations under real combat conditions, Xinhua said.

Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more from the original source:

US Navy sends warships on freedom of navigation operation through South China Sea - Fox News

The question is a smart onerepealing Obamacare and killing the Medicaid expansion, turning it into a block grantwould be devastating to rural hospitals that rely on that funding. Jordan not only refuses to answer that question, he says that "defunding Planned Parenthood would free up money for them," as Weigel paraphrases.

No. Just no. Defunding Planned Parenthood means taking away their Medicaid reimbursements (that's where a big chunk of federal funding for Planned Parenthood comes from). Which means taking Medicaid away from the people who use Planned Parenthood. But basically, it's cutting Medicaid! The people who use it to go to Planned Parenthood also use it for treatment at hospitals and they're not going to have it go there, either.

Weigel pressed Jordan on this, and he "acknowledged that more stuff would have to be cut to cover the funding." More stuff wouldn't have to be cut if Medicaid funding was maintained and if all the states expanded it! That's how this stuff works! Which Jordan either completely doesn't know (which wouldn't be too much of a surprise) or is completely willing to lie about (which also wouldn't be much of a surprise).

But at least he was willing to talk to voters and lie directly to their faces. That's more than can be said of most of his counterparts.

Read the original post:

Freedom Caucus maniac Jim Jordan forced to have town meeting when constituents show up - Daily Kos

If you live in Auckland, freedom campers may be headed to a street near you.

The Auckland City Council has set up 29 new locations across the city as part of a two-month trial to try ease pressure on busy hotspots.

Freedom campers have been a cause of consternation across New Zealand. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin

As part of a two-month pilot, touring visitors will be encouraged to park up in areas ranging from Wellsford in the north, Western Springs in central Auckland or south to Orere or Awhitu.

The tourism industry said it was ironic the council was offering more free accommodation at the same time as trying to increase rates on motels and hotels.

The council estimated 320 freedom camping vehicles were on the roads or parked in public places each day over summer.

Auckland councillor and head of its regulatory committee, Linda Cooper, said that put popular places like Piha under pressure.

"There was a burgeoning problem in some areas. Some areas were experiencing pretty unpleasant, inappropriate uses of sand dunes and parks where there weren't toilets available, so we want to encourage people to go where there are those facilities.

"Overcrowding, parking and access difficulties, and increasing rubbish at popular destinations is frustrating local communities and other park users."

During the pilot the council will have a team monitoring areas not coping with demand. It will have the ability to impose conditions such as reducing the length of stay or shut down sites if freedom campers become a nuisance.

Toilets and rubbish bin monitoring would increase.

Ms Cooper said the council was being proactive and encouraging people to spread themselves around to minimise the problem.

"I think it's worth doing it. If you ignore it the problem is only going to get worse. So it's best to actually take the bull by its horns, make sure we've got our facilities looked after properly, more frequently so that then freedom campers come but it's not causing a bad problem for locals."

The council's social policy and bylaws manager Michael Sinclair said it would work to move campers around the city.

"We'll be making good quality travel planning information more readily-available to campers, using social media and printed information about alternative paid and free camping sites," he said.

If things were not going well, sites could be shut down, he said.

"These places are being opened up specifically for the trial, we have no commitment to keeping them open at this point in time. If the local board decided they wanted to continue to keep these spaces open they could make that decision. But this is intended to be for research purposes over this two-month period and it's not intended to be the gateway to have all these sites open on an ongoing basis."

One of the new areas is at Margaret Griffen Park in Mount Roskill.

Local resident Susanne Young uses the park regularly and said in the past the presence of freedom campers deterred vandals from graffitiing local buildings.

She said parking and dropping children off for activities there became difficult.

"It'd be a good idea if it was restricted. I know people like to have somewhere in the city to stay, however if you have too many in one place it will end up causing problems for people who want to use the facilities and are local.

Each month campers bring an estimated $1.2 million into the economy during summer.

Freedom campers at Waitaki, Otago Photo: Supplied / Waitaki Disrict Council

Tourism Industry Aotearoa said opening up more free spots could take away valuable customers.

Chief executive Chris Roberts said it was ironic more free accommodation was being encouraged at a time the council wanted to make things more expensive for motels and hotels.

The council's annual budget for 2017/2018, which will be put forward for public consultation later this month, proposes higher rates for accommodation providers - approximately 4 percent of their revenue - to cover its spending on tourism promotion which is normally covered by the general public.

It estimated visitors could pay $6 to $10 more a night on an average hotel room.

"Usually we'd be quite supportive of a council doing something like this in terms of a pilot programme and trying to sort out the issue," Mr Roberts said.

"Our members find it a little hard to stomach given that they're facing enormous rate increases from their council and at the same time the council's providing more facilities for people to come and stay for free."

Mr Roberts said while some sort of freedom camping facilities are needed, people should be encouraged to stay at existing places.

Councillor Linda Cooper disagreed.

"They're not the same tourists are they? You will have people that for example they'll come to New Zealand, they'll borrow a caravan. They were never going to stay in hotels anyway. It's that kind of tourism.

"We've don't have enough accommodation anyway so it's not, I don't think, going to take away from hotels.

The pilot began this week and will last for two months.

A report will be presented to the council in about May to help develop freedom camping policies and regulations.

Go here to read the rest:

Auckland gets 29 new freedom camping spots - Radio New Zealand