Mediaboss Marketing

If you paid attention, you knew it was coming. Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have completely revamped a key committee that advises the government on Canadas gun laws.

Gone are the people that actually know about firearms and in are the people that fear them and dont want you to have them.

But of course the Liberals telegraphed this by promising to do it in their 2015 election platform:

modify the membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to include knowledgeable law enforcement officers, public health advocates, representatives from womens groups, and members of the legal community;

Then at the beginning of February they announced John Major, the retired Supreme Court justice as chair of the new committee. He has a reputation of being a fair and reasonable man, not a huge record on gun rulings, so not bad.

The two vice-chairs I didnt know but the government seemed to be sending a message; one was an Olympic shooter, the other an advocate for more control, so a split.

Watch as I tell you who makes up the rest of the committee. If you just glance at it and dont pay attention, it doesnt tell you much and you might even think its not a bad list, right?

Wrong.

This is a well-stacked committee struck with the sole intention of advising the government to bring in tougher and more expensive gun control, which we know is the Liberal goal.

They were upfront in their election platform with promises on background checks, a proposal for a gun registry in all but name, their support for implementing the International Arms Trade Treaty which effectively requires a gun registry, and a proposal that would drive up costs and make many firearms so much more expensive, maybe even stop some companies from doing business in Canada.

I think we all know where were heading with this.

Its going to be an interesting couple of years ahead for gun owners, but like I always say, elections have consequences.

More here:
Gun control advocates are firmly in charge with Trudeau Liberals at the helm - The Rebel

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Florida already has a Stand Your Ground law, which removes any requirement that a citizen attempt to flee a life or death attack before using lethal force to stop the aggression. To use the law in court, defendants must prove at a pretrial hearing that they reasonably believed that they were threatened with grave bodily harm.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

State GOP lawmakers want to take the law one step further, shielding the right to armed self-defense by putting the onus on the state and forcing prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendants claim to self-defense was not valid.

The NYTalready opposes Stand Your Ground and believes the defects of the law were seen in the example of George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin in self-defense. The paper suggests the proposed changes to the law only make itworse.

According to NYT:

Under the proposed change, prosecutors would essentially have to try a case twice, at a hearing and then at the trial, while making it easier for defendants to claims a right to shoot first (or stab or club or otherwise attack someone) and argue against prosecution on the basis of their fears.

NYT points to an American Bar Association study which concluded that the passage of Stand Your Ground in Florida has been followed by an increase in homicides, diminished victims rights and heightened racial injustice in enforcement.

A couple of points need to be made: First, Zimmermans defense was based on a claim that he acted in self-defense, not on an appeal to Stand Your Ground. It follows that he was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, not Stand Your Ground.

Secondly, far from increasing racial injustice, Crime Prevention Research Centers John Lott has shown that Stand Your Ground greatly benefits blacks in Florida. In his latest book, The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies, Lott writes, From 2005 through October 1, 2014, blacks made up 16.7 percent of Floridas population and 34 percent of the defendants who invoked Stand Your Ground. He added, Black defendants who invoke this statute are actually acquitted four percentage points more frequently than white who use this very same defense.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Excerpt from:
NYT Lambastes Florida GOP for Shielding Citizens' Right to Armed Self-Defense - Breitbart News

Talk to most people about social networks inside their company, and the immediate thought will be people wasting time on Facebook. But look beyond the internet and the technical, and all businesses are driven by old-fashioned social networks.

These are the networks that your employees interact through, driving your business, and creating new and surprisingly different ways of doing things. Fostering these networks and the people at the heart of them can help transform your organisation and find new ways of doing things. In particular, it's when people from across your company mix with other people outside their division or team, that the most benefits can be gained.

"When is a company more than the sum of its parts? When its once-siloed business units find a way to harvest innovations in the white space between them," writes Rob Cross in A Practical Guide to Social Networks.

The issue for many companies is that formal job descriptions and organisational charts encourage people to work within the confines of their teams. But it's when knowledge is shared, and different teams mix that real changes start to happen.

Informal networks and, in particular, specific people, tend to break through these walls, benefiting you company. It's the coming together of different expertise that can change how you do things and can even help you find new areas to expand into.

It's when knowledge is shared, and different teams mix that real changes start to happen

Every company should be looking at how it can break down silos and bring together its employees, strengthening the networks that exist and creating new ones.

The first trick is to identify the networks that currently exist and the people that support and grow them. Social network analysis, such as through employee surveys, workflow analysis and conversations with key managers, can help you work out what's going on. From this research, you'll be able to find out what the networks are inside your company, and the people that are most influential and work in the most networks.

It's likely that the results will surprise you. In addition to the more formal, company-controlled networks, such as through working groups, there are more informal networks. Most large organisations have many, possibly even hundreds, of informal social networks that you don't necessarily know about. All of this information is likely to show that your company works in a completely different way to how your organisational charts depict it.

Understanding how your company works is a good first step, but it's important to get into the social networks you've discovered, particularly the informal ones, and work out the ways of making them work harder for you.

"These seemingly invisible webs have also become central to performance and execution of strategy," writes Cross. "Research shows that appropriate connectivity in well-managed networks within organisations can have a substantial impact on performance, learning, and innovation."

By changing the way that your company works to reinforce its networks, you can modify the way that information and knowledge flows around your business.

A good place to start is with the individuals that were key to the networks you discovered. These supporting individuals are natural leaders and the ones that break the mould, changing the way that work is done. By utilising them and their skills, you can get them to help you reorganise your business. It's their knowledge of other teams and departments that can help bring people together.

With their expertise and help, you can examine more formal ways of bringing people together and ways that you can create new networking groups. For example, you may want to introduce a brainstorming day or hackathon, bringing disparate parts of your business together to think of new opportunities for your company. From this kind of networking event, you introduce people that would not normally work together, and the flow of knowledge can open up new ways of working.

It's incredible how much knowledge can be unlocked

More formal technology can help, too. A good place to start is with corporate social networking products, such as Slack, which actively encourage collaboration. Through its dedicated channels, employees can post queries that other interested personnel throughout your business can see and interact with. It's incredible how much knowledge can be unlocked, and how individuals can break free from their day-to-day role to add value in different parts of the business.

Key to making these tools work are the people at the heart of your existing networks. These are the people that can inspire collaboration and push knowledge sharing, encouraging other employees to stop looking internally and start sharing.

While there are no quick and easy methods to improve sharing, there's a universal truth: formal structures silo knowledge, and you need to find a way to unlock and free it.

Read the original post:
The benefits of informal social networks in the workplace - Telegraph.co.uk

5526154

WASHINGTON Congresswants answers about the National Security Agencys expansion of powers in respect to sharing intercepted personal communications with 16 other federal agencies.

President Barack Obama amended an executive order last January that expanded the NSAs abilities to share intelligence.

So that was in the works for a long time. At this point I know that thats out there. Were asking questions about it. I dont think theres anything that that that issue would have to deal with the investigation, but weve asked questions about it, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Thursday night, adding that members on the floor had asked him about it as a result of the coverage of the issue in the news.

Other intelligence committee members in their respective chambers had little to say about the effect the new rule has had. Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro said he did not like to comment off the cuff on about intelligence security matters and the Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking member said he could not comment at the time.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, one of eight congressional leaders who receives exclusive intelligence information,would only say she did not believe the change in the NSAs powers caused recent leaks about sensitive information related to the Trump administration to occur.

I mean, I think that we all dont want everybody in pipeline, so were not having the benefit of information or intelligence to keep the American people safe. But I dont think that has anything to do with leaks, she said.

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert warned that reversing the NSAs expansion would be more difficult now.

Sure, that could be reversed. But its one of those things where youd be able to put you know that virus back into the little box or is it growing and spread too far, because you know its a legitimate question, Gohmert said.

He explained, Now that the intelligence community has seen what its like to spread what is supposed to be very private confidential classified wiretap information, and thats spread across 16 or 17 other federal agencies. I dont know if they would want to give that up. And even if they change the executive order, if that will be complied with.

Gohmert added, This is a very scary time for those of us who believe in a constitutional democratic republic.

Follow Kerry on Twitter

View post:
Congress Seek Answers On NSA's New Powers | The Daily Caller - Daily Caller

Why it matters to you

Are you curious to know just how many Americans are affected by the NSA's mass-surveillance programs. Well, the agency still isn't talking.

With the legislation that effectively legalizes the National Security Agency mass surveillance programs Prism and Upstream set to expire at the end of 2017, Congress is once again asking for numbers on how many Americans have been surveilled. Just as it has for the past six years, though, the NSA isnt playing ball.

Although most Americans only learned of the countrys large-scale spying operations after NSA whistleblowerEdward Snowden revealed them, Congress has been aware a little longer. Since 2011, several key members have been trying to find out how many Americans the NSA has collected personal information from, but theyvealways been denied, according to Ars Technica.

More:The NSA and GCHQ can see data from your phone when youre 10,000 feet in the air

The reason Congress is making a big case to have those numbers revealed this year is because, as during the Obama administration, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire on December 31. While the Trump administration is keen to see this legislation remain in place, according toThe Intercept, Congress wants the numbers to know just how effective it is and how much useless information is potentially collected from regular citizens.

The NSA says that it cant reveal them, even in top-secret briefings. Just as it did whenSen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) requested them in 2011, 2012 and 2014, it claims that by revealing how many Americans were affected, it would require identifying them. That, it claims, would mean destroying their anonymity as part of the data, thereby making their information more vulnerable.

That sort of circular logic isnt sitting well with senators, norwith privacy champion the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It is urging Congress to allow FISA to expire, thereby making the mass spying conducted by the NSA and other intelligence agencies illegal in the future.

As it stands, the NSA uses Prism to siphon mass data from popular online services like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, while Upstream lets it tap into the fiber cables that transmit the internet across the country and around the world.

Although the NSA and others argue that such technologies are vital in helping protect Americans, many have argued that mass surveillance breaches the Constitution and undermines the idea of a free and democratic society.

See the original post here:
Congress again pushing NSA to reveal number of Americans under surveillance - Digital Trends