bob schoos’ Post

We vote for and elect our Congresspeople with the intent of their representing us as they are responsible for managing our Government of the People, by the People, and for the People. … We expect our Congresspeople to honor their oath of office to defend our Constitution & uphold our laws. … That’s their job. ** Represent us, honor your oath of office, and make Government work for the Citizens of our United States of America. — We do not vote for and elect our Congresspeople with the intent of their shutting-down or paralyzing our Government which serves the American People. — We do not vote for and elect our Congresspeople with the intent that they would shut down the leadership of our US Military, blocking the promotion of 400 US Military Officers who would lead our Armed Forces as America has been threatened by Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, the Chinese Communist Party, North Korea, Iran, & Hamas, among others. ** Do your job. ** Work across party lines, communicate, negotiate, compromise, cooperate and manage our Government of the People, by the People, and for the People. Represent the people who voted for you and honor your oath of office to defend our Constitution & uphold our laws. ** Destroying our US Military, shutting down our Government, when the USA is being threatened with war by our geopolitical adversaries, is NOT your job. ** Do the job we elected you to do.

Reflecting on Service and Sacrifice This Memorial Day Weekend #VerdictAlert #Jurimatic As Memorial Day weekend begins, we pause to honor the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the United States Armed Forces. Their courage and dedication allow us to enjoy the freedoms we cherish today. As we honor the fallen this Memorial Day weekend, we're reminded of the complexities involved in shaping defense policies over time. The 1981 Supreme Court case Rostker v. Goldberg highlights this, upholding the male-only registration requirement for potential military conscription at that time.  While acknowledging women's contributions in the all-volunteer forces, the Court deferred to Congress's assessment that drafting women during mass conscription was impractical based on military necessity. However, dissenting voices advocated for gender equity in registration. The Rostker decision centered on Congress's authority over military affairs but allows us to reflect on the armed forces' continual evolution to uphold America's ideals of equal rights and inclusivity. From integration to expanding roles for women, our military perseveres to embody the values that so many have sacrificed to secure. Read the full verdict here : https://lnkd.in/gRmdMPUZ #MemorialDay #SupremeCourt #MilitaryService #Equality #DecorationDay #TributetoVeterans Cc: Exlitem | Expert Witness Profiler [EWP] | Ashish Arun

"Gove’s Dept for Levelling Up started a review of non-violent extremism in spring this year. A national cohesion and counter-extremism plan with the new definition is expected to be launched shortly Internal departmental documents marked “official – sensitive” say the proposed definition could “frame a new, unified response to extremism” It lists a number of organisations which it considers would be “captured” by the new definition Among them are the Muslim Council of Britain, Palestine Action and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), which has featured at some Conservative party conference fringe events & in 2021 provided evidence to parliamentary committees The documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.” Gove’s officials are understood to have been in talks with the Home Office & No 10 over the definition, which arrives during a particularly fraught period. Last week Suella Braverman, described pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London as “hate marches”, prompting dismay from many participants who consider themselves peace campaigners On Saturday during the latest pro-Palestinian march, thousands assembled in London’s Trafalgar Square with 11 arrests made Civil rights groups said introducing a wider definition of extremism would threaten freedom of speech Akiko Hart, at Liberty, said: “This proposed change would be a reckless and cynical move, threatening to significantly suppress freedom of expression “Expanding the definition so far beyond the current guidance risks further discouraging individuals and groups from legitimately exercising their right to free speech, while allowing the government to crack down on community groups, charities or faith groups they disagree with” Martin Bright, Index on Censorship, added: “This is an unwarranted attack on freedom of expression and would potentially criminalise every student radical and revolutionary dissident. It has never been the British way to arrest people for thought crime” Ilyas Nagdee, Amnesty International UK’s racial justice director, said: “This definition must not be accepted or implemented “The definition of extremism & its usage in counter-terrorism policies like [counter-terrorism strategy] Prevent is already being applied so broadly it seeks to effectively hinder people from organising & mobilising. The proposed definition takes this even further & could criminalise any dissent” Some officials are concerned the new definition could hamper the activities of legitimate political or environmental groups. It was reported in 2020 that at least 45 activists were referred to Prevent over environmental extremism between April 2016 and March 2019. At the time Amnesty International described the referrals as “deeply concerning” " https://lnkd.in/e5djZCGs

There are many ways to honor our heroes this #MemorialDay weekend. Please take a moment to honor the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. 🇺🇸 #WeRemember #dempseyweisser #weprotectdreams #dempseyweiss #wedothat #yourinsurancespecialists #yourhealthinsurancespecialists #yourwineryinsurancespecialists #yourbusinessinsurancespecialists

"Canada currently has about 100 active white supremacist groups, according to University of Ontario Institute of Technology professor Barbara Perry, one of the world's leading scholars on hate crime. It would be foolish to assume that they've disappeared just because we don't hear from them for a while. Indeed, when the situation gets bad for them — that is, significant gains are made in the realms of multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity — they'll make their presence known again." Why are there only 3-4 white supremacist hate groups on Canada's terrorist list? Is this terrorist list designed primarily for extremist "Muslims" and radical racialized groups? Where are all the hateful Neo-Nazi groups? Why is Putin not on this list? The term "Terrorist" has been whitewashed and used to dehumanize the racialized "other". It is racist and rooted in white supremacy. #whitesupremacy #racism #terrorism #hategroups #canada

Comparing the reproductive policies Israel applies to the Israeli population with those, on the other hand, reserved for the Palestinian population highlights how reproductive violence is not merely a side effect of the military campaign that began in October, but rather should be read through the lens of settler colonialism. At the link below you can find the English version of my analysis, originally written in Italian and published by MUN Magazine.

It's truly disheartening to see the recent actions taken by the House to tack on culture war amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The House Armed Services Committee dedicated significant time and effort to address crucial quality of life issues affecting our servicemembers. They listened to senior enlisted leaders from each service, aiming to improve the lives of those who defend our nation. Instead of respecting this bipartisan effort, some House members chose to derail the measure with amendments that have nothing to do with national security. These amendments, which aim to deny medical care and dismantle offices dedicated to fighting discrimination, are a slap in the face to those who have put their lives on the line for this country. Military service has always been a pathway for marginalized and disadvantaged communities to prove themselves and earn their way into the middle class. Now, Republicans are working to shut these doors of opportunity, hurting those who serve our nation with honor and courage. It doesn't matter if you agree with someone's lifestyle. If they've served in the military, they've earned the right to live their life as they see fit. It's disgraceful that politicians are using the NDAA to push a divisive agenda that undermines the very people who make our freedoms possible. These servicemembers deserve our respect, our support, and the resources they need to thrive. They should not be pawns in a political game. As a country, we stand for liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s appalling to see political points scored at the expense of servicemembers, veterans, and military families. This behavior is not only shameful but a betrayal of our national values.

There are many ways to honor our heroes this #MemorialDay weekend. Please take a moment to honor the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. 🇺🇸 #WeRemember #dempseyweisser #weprotectdreams #dempseyweiss #wedothat #yourinsurancespecialists #yourhealthinsurancespecialists #yourwineryinsurancespecialists #yourbusinessinsurancespecialists

An investigation by the Observer has revealed controversial new proposals to broaden the government’s definition of extremism to include anyone who “creates a permissive environment for radicalisation, hate crime and terrorism”. This has met with fierce criticism from civil rights groups who fear it represents “an unwarranted attack on free speech”. Prepared by civil servants working for cabinet minister Michael Gove, the new definition features in internal departmental documents which state that the proposed definition could “frame a new, unified response to extremism”. The existing, non-statutory definition of extremism, which underpins the government’s Prevent counter-extremism programme and has been in place since 2011, states that extremism is: "Vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs." Under the proposed new definition, by contrast, the existing definition is effectively recapitulated before an additional, much broader clause is added. Extremism thus becomes: "[T]he promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalisation, hate crime and terrorism." Some Whitehall insiders are now concerned that this broader definition “could be used against legitimate organisations fiercely opposed to certain government institutions or calling for their abolition”. Martin Bright, editor-at-large at Index on Censorship, is also warning that this “unwarranted attack on #freedomofexpression” could “potentially criminalise every student radical and revolutionary dissident”. Is it also a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Speaking to The Telegraph, Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the police were making insufficient use of existing laws that are perfectly capable of tackling extremists. The FSU’s case files include multiple examples of ordinary members of the public being branded extremist for their entirely reasonable, perfectly lawful opposition to elements of the new woke orthodoxy. For instance, we once went to bat for Kellie-Jay Keen after her petition on Change,org asking the Oxford English Dictionary to retain its definition of a woman as an “adult human female” was removed on the grounds that defining a woman in that way is ‘hate speech’. As that anecdote demonstrates, the concept of ‘hate speech’ is incredibly nebulous and ill-defined, and, as a result, susceptible to subjective, highly partisan interpretation. Should we really trust politicians to determine what is and what isn’t ‘hate speech’ – or ‘extremist’ – without weaponising it to advance their own political agenda? https://lnkd.in/e-7NKzsn