Category Archives: Government Oppression

We believe in the Constitution. It is the bedrock of our freedom and the supreme law of the land. No person great or small is above it not the president, not any of us. It establishes order the three branches of government and their functions and powers and it protects us lest the government overreach and try to take away our liberties.

We, and our Constitution, face two significant perils today: political parties have become more important to our leaders than serving all the citizens, and the First Amendment is under attack. I am trying to be nonpartisan, but let me give just one example. Vice President Pence, when he was chosen, described himself as a Christian, a father and a Republican in that order. What about being a citizen? What about serving all of the people, not just those on ones own team? Democrats are no better. If the Republicans want it, they are against it.

We have to start listening to each other. Each of us, regardless of education or economic status, knows where our individual shoe pinches and that is the genius of democracy: that each person has something to contribute. The great patriot of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine addressed this issue: He that would make his own liberty must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. What goes around comes around and if we Democrats and Republicans can think of nothing but beating each other up, our government will continue to be dysfunctional and our democracy flawed.

Here comes the civics quiz: What five freedoms does the First Amendment protect? No fair looking ahead. Here are the most important 46 words in the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First, religion. The government cant make you pray. Belief is off-limits for the government. It can neither favor nor persecute any religion, and that includes Islam. You can worship as you please or not at all. A uniform ban of people of a particular religion would seem to offend both ends of the religion clause.

Speech, press, petition and assembly. These four freedoms are how we avoid violent revolution. They give us the machinery to change and a democratic form of government is always in the process of becoming. The notion that there are alternative facts (namely, that if you believe something, it must be true) is totally contrary to the marketplace of ideas upon which the First Amendment is based (put all of the information out there and the truth will emerge). The founders protected the press because the people have to have accurate and timely information to govern themselves.

Petition and assembly are the other two ways we speak to power. We gather; we discuss. We march; we protest. But the government has to listen for this to work. A government with a closed and armored mind one that can not abide criticism is immune to the petitions of its citizens and is, therefore, undemocratic by definition.

My wish for us all is that we listen to each other with patience and good humor, and that we protect each others right to speak and try to persuade with facts and logic. After all, the Constitution is just paper unless it lives in the hearts and minds of citizens. So here is an exercise we can all try: each day engage a stranger on a topic you care about and actually listen to what that person says. Who knows. We might learn something.

John Frohnmayer was chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts during the first Bush administration.

See the rest here:

As I See It: The perils facing the Constitution - Corvallis Gazette Times

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The UMass Amherst Sanctuary Campus Movements Facebook page states that students will not attend class on February 17 and instead will hold a meeting at the student union to demand a sanctuary campus policy.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The UMass Amherst Sanctuary Campus Movement aims to have UMass declare itself a Sanctuary Campus system, the groups Facebook page reads. We define Sanctuary as a space that actively cultivates immigration equality as well as economic, racial, gender, and sexual equality.

The sanctuary campus group also lists three major demands from the University:

The group has asked students not to support the University of Massachusetts financially until it enacts a sanctuary campus policy, as MassLive reported.

In a week, the UMass Student Government Association will vote on a resolution to demand Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy make the university a sanctuary.

Subbaswamy has signaled potential support for the policy in a statement where is says the University will remain committed to the welfare and success of all members of our community, whether they be student, faculty or staff, and (pledges) to do everything within our legal and moral authority to protect them, no matter their national origin, race, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual identity, disability or immigration status, according to MassLive.

John Binder is a contributor for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at@JxhnBinder.

Original post:

U. Mass Students Plot Strike Against 'Oppression' of Migrants - Breitbart News

Prior to last years election, supporters of Hillary Clinton worried that Donald Trump and his supporters might not accept Hillary Clintons victory as legitimate. It never occurred to them that the shoe might soon be on the other foot.

Shortly after it became apparent that there would be no Clinton victory party, many of her supporters instantly switched gears and began to question the legitimacy of Trumps victory.

No matter how much it angers some people, though, Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. Still, there is a much more fundamental question about the legitimacy of the government he leads. Its has nothing to do with who won the election.

Over the past four decades, American government has been completely transformed by the growth of the Regulatory State. Most governing decisions are now made by distant bureaucrats with little input from Congress. Courts rarely provide any checks and balances giving executive branch officials free reign to interpret laws according to their own preferences and agendas.

An unaccountable government, insulated from the public and their elected representatives, threatens the very legitimacy of a democratic political system, according to Yale Universitys Jonathan G.S. Koppell. The Regulatory State is not merely unconstitutional; it is anti-constitutional, adds Boston University Law Professor Gary Lawson. The Constitution was designed specifically to prevent the emergence of [these] kinds of institutions.

By placing its faith in unaccountable government officials to pick winners and losers, the Regulatory State is a rejection of the core American values of freedom, equality and self-governance. This hostile takeover of Americas government did not happen by accident or misunderstanding. Its architects did not misunderstand the Constitution, explains Lawson. They understood it perfectly well. They just didnt like it.

Lacking Constitutional authority, the Regulatory State might conceivably claim legitimacy by appealing to the higher values expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But that great document says clearly that governments can derive just authority only from the consent of the governed.

The Regulatory State fails on that front as well. During the entire four decades of its existence, there has never been a time when a majority of Americans trusted the federal government (other than a brief blip immediately following 9/11). The longer that people have lived under the regulatory regime, the less they support it. Over the past decade, the number trusting the federal government to do the right thing most of the time has fallen to 25 percent or less.

The Regulatory State, therefore, can claim no legitimacy from either the Constitution or the Declaration. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office and who controls Congress, it is an illegitimate form of government. It gives far too much power to the president, a fact that instills tremendous fear of oppression among those who support the losing candidate.

Its time to re-establish a legitimate government in America and restore our national commitment to freedom, equality, and self-governance.

That means forcing the bureaucracy to live within our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Its the only way to ensure a bright future for our nation. Its also the only way to ensure that, regardless of who wins an election, all Americans can enjoy the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

When Pope Francis visited America in 2015, one topic that seemed mandatory to address was the old scandal over ...

WASHINGTON Tight labor markets shrink income inequality by causing employers to bid up the price of scarce ...

WASHINGTON Donald Trump seems to think hes still on his reality TV show shouting, Youre fired! ...

At the National Prayer Breakfast recently, President Trump promised to totally destroy the so-called ...

If President Donald Trump is a budding authoritarian, as his critics allege, one of the safeguards is Judge Neil ...

After successfully delivering the secret knock and password, a beleaguered, unshaven older man walks into the ...

Original post:

Do we have a legitimate government? - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

By Gisela Salomon, The Associated Press

MIAMI Cuban-American lawmakers from Florida helped shape U.S. relations with the island for years until they found themselves on the outside during a historic thaw in relations.

But they could be getting the upper hand on Cuba policy again under President Donald Trump with a possible return to an earlier, more hard-line U.S. stance toward relations with Cuba's government.

"We have had more conversations with high-level Trump officials than we had in eight years of the Obama administration," said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, one of a handful of Republican members of Congress from Florida who long had an outsized role on U.S. foreign policy related to Cuba.

What Diaz-Balart and other Cuban-American lawmakers hope is that their renewed access to the U.S. government under Trump's leadership will help them reverse the steps taken by President Barack Obama and President Raul Castro to normalize relations between the two countries.

"Everything is going to be very different," predicted Rep. Carlos Curbelo, another Miami-area Republican who said he felt shut out under Obama.

The congressional delegation from South Florida, home to the largest number of Cuban-Americans in the nation, was long able to help craft U.S. policy toward the island. They had hoped to continue isolating the Castro government and both Democrat and Republican politicians went along, at least in part.

Diaz-Balart recalled that under President George W. Bush he and other Cuban-Americans persuaded the administration to grant travel visas and asylum to Cuban doctors working overseas, helping drive a brain drain from the island.

"When something came up, we could call and they responded to us immediately," he said.

But that changed under Obama, who Diaz-Balart said refused to meet with him as the administration used executive orders to lift some restrictions on travel, trade and investment and ended the so-called "wet-foot, dry foot" policy that allowed Cubans to stay and apply for legal residency if they reached U.S. soil.

Diaz-Balart and other Cuban-American lawmakers want U.S. policy to return to where things were before December 2014, citing what he says is the Castro government's "brutal oppression." Curbelo agrees about the return to earlier policies but does not oppose the easing of restrictions on travel that allow Cuban-Americans to more easily visit family back home.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, another Florida delegation member, declined to speak to The Associated Press but recently forwarded a letter to the Trump administration calling for a policy focused on "freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights" that enforces sanctions written into U.S. law. Sen. Marco Rubio, who also declined an interview request, has criticized what he calls Obama's "failed Cuba policy," and recently said he expected Trump would reverse the previous administration's order halting the asylum program for doctors.

During the presidential campaign, Trump was critical of the opening with the Castro government and said Obama wasn't paying enough attention to human rights on the island. He promised to re-evaluate the agreements with Cuba and cancel those he doesn't think serve U.S. interests. He named several anti-Castro Cuban-Americans to his transition team, but has not yet said publicly whether he intends to reverse specific policies of his predecessor.

Some supporters of the opening with Cuba see reason for optimism. James Williams, head of Engage Cuba, a corporate-backed bipartisan group that supports improving ties to the island, said Trump may not want to reverse what he sees as the "positive progress" of the past three years.

"We have seen more positive progress in Cuba over the last two years than the last 55 years combined," said Williams, adding that a thorough review of current policy should show the Trump administration the advantages of moving toward normalization.

Diaz-Balart and Curbelo said the meetings they and others have had with officials from the new administration, as well as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearings, have given them hope that Obama's executive orders restoring relations with Cuba would be reversed. "Without a doubt, the days of those orders are numbered," Diaz-Balart said.

Even though Ros-Lehtinen and Curbelo did not endorse Trump, some think they, like Diaz-Balart and Curbelo, will have significant influence on the new administration.

"They are going to be the guides of the policy toward Cuba," said Sebastian Arcos, associate director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University.

Frank Mora, who was deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Western Hemisphere under Obama, agreed: "Trump is going to go back to handing the foreign policy of the U.S. toward Cuba to the Cuban-American legislators."

Read the original:

Anti-Castro Cuban-American lawmakers see a champion in Trump - The Ledger

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lvin recently attackedU.S. President Donald J. Trump for having men in his top team. However, when her colleagues visited Iran they refused to take a stand against legally enforced female subjugation.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

There were 11 women on thetripled by Prime Minister Stefan Lofven this weekend, according to Expressen, and they were all photographed in headscarves almost all of the time, apart from at events in the Swedish Embassy.

It is illegal for women to go out in public without wearing headscarves in Iran, where thousands of undercover agents and morality police patrol the streets to check for violations. Women found to have their hair or bodies inadequately covered can be publicly admonished, fined, or even arrested.

The veil is a symbol of the oppression of women in Iran, and it is not only customary, but legislated oppression of women, Swedish Liberals Party leader Jan Bjrklund told Aftonbladet.

It is very unfortunate that the Swedish ministers are appearing in pictures, now in circulation, with the veil on.

However, Ann Linde, the Minister for European Union Affairs and Trade from the Social Democrat party, defended the move, arguing they could not violate Iranian law.

Its their law, unlike in Saudi Arabia where it is not required by law to wear a veil. I will go to Saudi Arabia next month and then I will of course not to wear the veil, she said.

Masih Alinejad, an Iranian journalist and writer, attacked the Swedish government for double standards, posting the image of the female ministers mocking President Trump alongside the picture of them wearing veils in Iran on Facebook.

Women in the Swedish government should have condemned an equally unfair situation in Iran, she wrote.

By not showing any opposition to the law of compulsory veiling when visiting Iran, she added, the Swedish government show[s] the Iranian leader that men are more equal and more important!

Follow this link:

Sweden's 'Feminist' Government Defends Veiling in Iran After Attacking Trump - Breitbart News

It must be tough being a Democrat in Boulder County this year. Friends and acquaintances I've known for years show signs of stress in most conversations expecting I guess that sooner or later the "T" name will be dropped, triggering their launch into attack mode.

The Democratic Party and congressional representatives certainly don't help much. Every move made by the new POTUS is labeled unconstitutional; the White House office's occupancy is declared to be illegitimate; the smallest decision is based on a nefarious plot on the planet and all its correct thinking inhabitants; and every cabinet candidate is not only bad but in fact is the worst deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you just name it. Yep, Republithugs are unredeemable.

Going back to a more reasonable time when President Obama was first elected, he had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week. Trump had two. Five of the past six presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama had nearly their entire Cabinet installed by their second week in the White House. President George H.W. Bush faced delays, but he had the advantage of retaining three of Reagan's Cabinet secretaries. So, Sen. Schumer, let's get on with it. I mean thanks to Sen. Harry Reed (D) inventing the nuclear option, Republicans really don't need Democrats to approve appointments any more. If it's good for the goose ...

Another thing, I think President Obama had a clear message when dealing with Republicans griping and hassling him about carrying out his agenda. First it was the stimulus package in 2009. Then it was the debt ceiling in 2013. His message: Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it.

OK, it's a paraphrase. Here's the full Obama quote:

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

So Democrat friends, you're better than this. You had faith in President Obama; listen to his advice. President Trump won, your candidate lost. Get over yourselves. The people of the United States voted for change, not an echo of the past eight years of failed policies. If they were successful, Hillary would be in office. She's not and could not even muster a concession speech. That's called arrogance. It's not very attractive, and neither are those waiving signs with epithets regarding neighbors they disagree with.

Let's talk about and work on the issues we agree on.

We all agree that we want clean air and water; a reasonable amount of open space between cities; a good education of our choosing for our children; freedom to worship the God we choose; and the right to choose our life, have liberty from government oppression and regulation, and pursue our happiness with no intention of forcing the unwilling to participate.

Russ Boehm is a 49-year Longmont resident and retired IBM engineer.

Read the original here:

Russ Boehm: This year, it's tough being a Boulder County Democrat - Longmont Times-Call

gnes Keleti. (Wikimedia Commons)

Agnes Keleti, 96, who hid from Nazi oppression during the 1940s and went on to win Olympic medals in Helsinki and Melbourne during the 1950s, has been awarded the Israel Prize for Sport and Physical Culture.

Keleti, who was born in Hungary and would have been expected to compete for Hungary in the 1940 Olympics had war not intervened, immigrated to Israel in 1957 for the Maccabiah games.

The committee stated in its recommendation that Keleti is a special, powerful, and brilliant woman. A trailblazer, leader, and paragon for all of her pupils in Israel and worldwide, who has made history and lives among us - highly respected in the world of sport and still considered one of the greatest gymnasts in history.

Not content with being a fierce competitor on her own part she collected 10 Olympic medals for gymnastics she has also shared her gift with others, training gymnasts and guiding generations of athletes and coaches.

See the article here:

Israeli government awards the Israel Prize to 96-year-old retired Olympic gymnast and Holocaust survivor gnes Keleti. - Jewish Chronicle

Uncategorized

Feb 13, 2017

Prior to last years election, supporters of Hillary Clinton worried that Donald Trump and his supporters might not accept Hillary Clintons victory as legitimate. It never occurred to them that the shoe might soon be on the other foot. Shortly after it became apparent that there would be no Clinton victory party, many of her supporters instantly switched gears and began to question the legitimacy of Trumps victory.

No matter how much it angers some people, though, Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. Still, there is a much more fundamental question about the legitimacy of the government he leads. Its has nothing to do with who won the election.

Over the past four decades, American government has been completely transformed by the growth of the Regulatory State. Most governing decisions are now made by distant bureaucrats with little input from Congress. Courts rarely provide any checks and balances giving executive branch officials free reign to interpret laws according to their own preferences and agendas.

An unaccountable government, insulated from the public and their elected representatives, threatens the very legitimacy of a democratic political system, according to Yale Universitys Jonathan G.S. Koppell. The Regulatory State is not merely unconstitutional; it is anti-constitutional, adds Boston University Law Professor Gary Lawson. The Constitution was designed specifically to prevent the emergence of [these] kinds of institutions.

By placing its faith in unaccountable government officials to pick winners and losers, the Regulatory State is a rejection of the core American values of freedom, equality and self-governance. This hostile takeover of Americas government did not happen by accident or misunderstanding. Its architects did not misunderstand the Constitution, explains Lawson. They understood it perfectly well. They just didnt like it.

Lacking Constitutional authority, the Regulatory State might conceivably claim legitimacy by appealing to the higher values expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But that great document says clearly that governments can derive just authority only from the consent of the governed.

The Regulatory State fails on that front as well. During the entire four decades of its existence, there has never been a time when a majority of Americans trusted the federal government (other than a brief blip immediately following 9/11). The longer that people have lived under the regulatory regime, the less they support it. Over the past decade, the number trusting the federal government to do the right thing most of the time has fallen to 25 percent or less.

The Regulatory State, therefore, can claim no legitimacy from either the Constitution or the Declaration. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office and who controls Congress, it is an illegitimate form of government. It gives far too much power to the president, a fact that instills tremendous fear of oppression among those who support the losing candidate.

Its time to re-establish a legitimate government in America and restore our national commitment to freedom, equality, and self-governance. That means forcing the bureaucracy to live within our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Its the only way to ensure a bright future for our nation. Its also the only way to ensure that, regardless of who wins an election, all Americans can enjoy the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

See more here:

Do we have a legitimate government? - Altoona Mirror

The government of Sweden has been accused of hypocrisy for attacking Donald Trumps stance on womens rights but rolling over for the oppressive regime in Iran.

Female ministers in Sweden who claim to run a feminist government gloried in viral fame earlier this month for Trump over his executive order restricting funds to pro-abortion groups.

After Trump was slammed for signing the order surrounded by men, Swedish officials staged an all-women photo as a smug rebuke to the White House.

However, just weeks later they have been accused of double standards for sucking up to Iran when they demanded government visitors wear the hijab a symbol of female oppression during a trade visit.

Swedish trade minister Ann Linde was photographed in a veil in Tehran, alongside female officials and journalists, who all had to do the same thanks to Irans Islamic modesty laws.

Activists in the country said the incident shows that Sweden is happy to put economic advantage ahead of womens rights when it suits them.

The My Stealthy Freedom campaign which records how Iranian women are arrested and beaten upby police for wearing the wrong clothes released a statement condemning the Swedish authorities:

The criticism was taken up by Swedish politicians, who attacked their government for abandoning its principles.

Amineh Kakabaveh, a Swedish MP of Iranian descent, said: Iranian women are fighting to not wear the veil. Then the feminist government representatives go and put on the veil instead taking a stand.

An article by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladetreported that the dress of Swedish female visitors was closely policed when they came on the visit.

It said: During the visit President Hassan Rouhanis staff went round the female journalists and ensured that they wore a tightly concealing shawl.

Even women from the Swedish government received instructions.

View original post here:

Anti-Trump Swedish Government Accused of Hypocrisy for Kowtowing to Iran - Heat Street

Commentary by Danya Zituni |

February 12, 2017

Minneapolis protest against Trump's Muslim ban. (Fight Back! News/staff)

Tampa, FL - On Jan. 27, President Trump signed an executive order titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States which bars entry of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries regardless of whether they have valid visas, green cards or refugee status.

This is a racist attack that specifically targets the people of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These same countries in the Middle East and Africa have been subjected to the terror of U.S. wars, bombings and economic sanctions for decades. With military bases in foreign lands, armed personnel in 130 countries, and a military budget larger than the next ten governments combined, the U.S. ruling class maintain a worldwide empire of oppression that is constantly at war.

Sovereign governments that dare not bow to U.S. political and economic domination are punished with crippling sanctions as a form of collective punishment against civilians, and are targeted for brutal overthrow through direct invasion or proxy groups. Sanctions on Iran alone have resulted in massive inflation and 40% of the entire population in poverty, while the total death toll from ten years of the U.S.-led War on Terror is estimated at 2 million lives, according to a study from Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Trumps executive order calls for a review of the visa and refugee programs arguing numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since Sept. 11, 2001. But why should people perceive foreign-born terrorists as grave domestic threats when the FBI continually manufactures its own plots? In 2012, Petra Bartosiewicz in The Nation reviewed the post-9/11 body of terrorism cases and concluded that nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. Many informants are incentivized by money, and can be paid as much as $100,000 per assignment. The U.S. government provides the weapons, suggests the targets, and entraps Muslims to justify their War on Terror.

The billions invested yearly by the U.S. government into racist state repression and genocidal wars for corporate profit could instead be used to finance and improve education, health care, people's rights and welfare. However, it is not in the interests of bank-bailing and investor-driven politicians to make such radical changes a reality. Only through organizing independent of the political establishment controlled by and built for the rich can oppressed people harness and exercise our collective power as a conscious and united force to demand change. Through coordinated action we are saying that there can be no business as usual until our demands are met, and that the ruling class who own everything in society cant actually produce anything or make schools run without subservient students or workers.

A federal judge issued a temporary halt on Feb. 4 against the Muslim ban after tens of thousands of people protested in airports, communities and campuses across the country. Around 1000 Yemini owned stores closed for eight hours on Feb. 2 in the city of New York. Grassroots, mass-based organizations such as Arab American Action Network (AAAN) and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) have continued to organize and raise demands for sanctuary campuses and cities. The Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR) has engaged in a legal battle with the Trump administration over the ban.

Additionally, one of the biggest victories for Muslim communities recently was the dismantling of a long existent bi-partisan Muslim registry called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). NSEERS devastated our communities, alongside aggressive FBI surveillance and vicious entrapment. Thousands of families were torn apart, jobs were lost; some communities never fully recovered. Only after 14 years of almost constant organizing by groups such as Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM) was it successfully dismantled.

The lesson of our recent victories, and nearly every historic struggle that won people's basic rights under this system, is that we need to build organizational power opposed to both parties of the capitalist 1% and their oppressive policies. Organizing paves the way for people to learn through struggle the necessity of organization as a means to protect their rights and welfare, a lesson we must consistently summate when educating our communities about their rights.

Read the rest here:

Organize to defeat Trump's Muslim ban - Fight Back! Newspaper