Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a 1939 false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by the Nazis to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners...

...For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.

The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland.

Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a 1939 false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by the Nazis to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners...

...For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.

The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland.

Newton, MA, 05/14/2019- Today The Liberal Gun Club issued an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners in the case of new York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. The City of New York and the New York City Police Department- License Division, which challenges a law that unconstitutionally restricts when and where New York City residents can transport their firearms. New York City’s transport ban fails all heightened scrutiny and substantially burdens the lawful conduct of citizens.

As has been found in a recent case regarding safe and legal abortions, laws that restrict the rights of citizens must be narrowly tailored to be the least intrusive means of serving the governments interest. In the current case before the court the law has been used as a bludgeon rather than as a scalpel, resulting in the inability of NYC Citizens to transport their firearms in any manner, whether it be to their second home or training class, putting them at unnecessary risk and unable to gain levels of proficiency that all other states, including those that have heavy regulation, are available to them.

This law also prevents the citizens of New York City from carrying their firearm in the other 38 states that they could otherwise carry in, if not for this law, applying their laws nationally, regardless of local regulations.

In addition, although it’s not found in the brief, this law misses addressing the root causes of violence by a mile. Rather than working on the real issues behind violence such as toxic masculinity, the generational oppression of minorities, and a lack of universal healthcare, including mental health care, this law is used as a way to substantially impact those gun owners who abide by the law.

Controversy has erupted at the University of Massachusetts Amherst over a planned panel discussion about Palestinian human rights, with three Jewish students going so far as to file a lawsuit in an effort to have the event moved off campus, arguing it is anti-Semitic...

...The panel in question at UMass is set for Saturday evening. It is organized and funded by Media Education Foundation, a Northampton organization headed by Sut Jhally, a UMass Amherst communications professor...

...UMass officials have said they will allow the panel to take place.

“UMass Amherst is committed to fostering a community of dignity and respect and rejects all forms of bigotry. The campus is also firmly committed to the principles of free speech and academic freedom. As such, and as is required of a public institution under the First Amendment, UMass Amherst applies a content-neutral standard when making facilities available to outside organizations for the purpose of holding events,” the university said in a statement.