Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Libertarian History: A Reading List | Libertarianism.org

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarian History: A Reading List | Libertarianism.org
Mar 232016
 

November 3, 2011 essays

A guide to books on the history of liberty and libertarianism.

The history of libertarianism is more than a series of scholarly statements on philosophy, economics, and the social sciences. It is the history of courageous men and women struggling to bring freedom to the lives of those living without it. The works on this list give important context to the ideas found on the others.

A History of Libertarianism by David Boaz

This essay, reprinted from Libertarianism: A Primer, covers the sweep of libertarian and pre-libertarian history, from Lao Tzu in the sixth century B.C. to the latest developments of the 21st century. Because its available for free on Libertarianism.org, the essay also includes numerous links to more information about major thinkers and their works. For a general sense of the rich history of the movement for liberty, this is easily the best place to start.

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn

Bernard Bailyns Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the ideas that influenced the American Revolution had a profound influence on our understanding of the republics origin by exposing its deeply libertarian foundations. Bailyn studied the many political pamphlets published between 1750 and 1776 and identified patterns of language, argument, and references to figures such as the radical Whigs and Cato the Younger. Because these were notions which men often saw little need to explain because they were so obvious, their understanding was assumed by the Founders and thus not immediately obvious to modern readers. When the Revolution is reexamined with Bailyns findings in mind, theres no way to escape the conclusion that America was always steeped in libertarian principles.

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty

The libertarian movement in America in the 20th century is the focus of this delightful history from Brian Dorhety. Radicals for Capitalism is more the story of the men and women who fought for freedom and limited government than it is an intellectual history of libertarian ideas. But it is an important story because it helps to place the contemporary debate about the place of libertarianism in American politics within the context of a major and long-lived social movement.

The Decline of American Liberalism by Arthur A. Ekirch Jr.

Ekirch traces the history of the liberal idea in the United States from the founding through World War II. He places the high point of true liberalism in the years immediately following the American Revolution, before the federal government began its long march of ever more centralized control over the country. And he shows how this shift has negatively impacted everything from global peace to the economy to individual autonomy.

Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade by Douglas A. Irwin

Ever since Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations appeared in 1776, the case for free tradeboth its economic benefits and its moral footingseemed settled. Yet in the ensuing two centuries, many have attempted to restrict freedom of trade with claims about its deleterious effects. Irwins Against the Tide traces the intellectual history of free trade from the early mercantilists, through Smith and the neoclassical economists, and to the present. He shows how free trade has withstood theoretical assaults from protectionists of all stripesand how it remains the most effective means for bringing prosperity and peace to people throughout the world.

The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedoms Greatest Champions by Jim Powell

If Radicals for Capitalism is the tale of the men and women who fought for liberty in the 20th century, Jim Powells The Triumph of Liberty fills in the backstory. The book is an exhaustive collection of biographical articles on 65 major figures, from Marcus Tullius Cicero to Martin Luther King, Jr., summarizing their lives, thought, and impact. While not all of them were strictly libertarian, every one of the people Powell covers was instrumental in making the world a freer. For a grand sweep of libertys history through the lives of those who struggled in its name, theres no better source than The Triumph of Liberty.

How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World by Nathan Rosenberg and L. E. Birdzell Jr.

The central question that How the West Grew Rich addresses is precisely what its title implies. For thousands of years, human beings lived in unrelieved misery: hunger, famine, illiteracy, superstition, ignorance, pestilence and worse have been their lot. How did things change? How did a relatively few peoplethose in what we call the Westescape from grinding poverty into sustained economic growth and material well-being when most other societies remained trapped in an endless cycle of birth, hardship, and death? This fascinating book tells that story. The explanations that many historians have offeredclaiming that it was all due to science, or luck, or natural resources, or exploitations or imperialismare refuted at the outset, in the books opening chapter. Rosenberg and Birdzell are then free to provide an explanation that makes much more sense.

The State by Franz Oppenheimer

Much political philosophy begins with a social concept theory of the state. Mankind originally existed in a state of nature, and the state only arose when people came together and agreed to give up some of their liberties in exchange for protection of others. Oppenheimer rejects this rosy picture and replaces it with his much more realistic conquest theory, which finds the genesis of states in roving bands of marauders who eventually settled down and turned to taxation when they realized it was easier than perpetual raiding. The State also features Oppenheimers influential distinction between the two means by which man can set about fulfilling his needs: I propose in the following discussion to call ones own labor and the equivalent exchange of ones own labor for the labor of others, the economic means for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the political means.

Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Cant Explain the Modern World by Deirdre McCloskey

In Bourgeois Dignity, McCloskey offers a different story of economic growth from the common one of capitalism and markets. The West grew rich, she argues, not simply because it embraced trade, but because its cultural ideas shifted, specifically in granting a sense of dignity to the bourgeoisie. It is that dignityand the rhetoric surrounding itthat sparked the Industrial Revolution and, in turn, lead to the modern world. Bourgeois Dignity traces the influence of these changing ideasand uses them to explain not just the rise of the West but also the recent, monumental growth of India and China. The book is the second in a four-volume series, The Bourgeois Era.

Aaron Ross Powell is a Cato Institute research fellow and founder and editor of Libertarianism.org, which presents introductory material as well as new scholarship related to libertarian philosophy, theory, and history. He is also co-host of Libertarianism.orgs popular podcast, Free Thoughts. His writing has appeared in Liberty and The Cato Journal. He earned a JD from the University of Denver.

Read more:
Libertarian History: A Reading List | Libertarianism.org

 Posted by at 10:40 pm  Tagged with:

BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger

 Eugenics  Comments Off on BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger
Mar 212016
 

(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)

How Planned Parenthood Duped America At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as “gospel”; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America’s family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as “social orthodoxy.”

Blaming Families Sanger’s obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that “I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families.” Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, “free-thinking” views of her father, whose “anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity” in a predominantly Irish community.

The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took as prima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the “ordeals of motherhood” had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother’s life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was “agonizing,” the mere memory of which Sanger described as “mental torture” more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor “to be reckoned with” in her zealous campaign for birth control.

From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the “unfit.” Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. To Sanger, the ebbing away of moral and religious codes over sexual conduct was a natural consequence of the worthlessness of such codes in the individual’s search for self-fulfillment. “Instead of laying down hard and fast rules of sexual conduct,” Sanger wrote in her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, “sex can be rendered effective and valuable only as it meets and satisfies the interests and demands of the pupil himself.” Her attitude is appropriately described as libertinism, but sex knowledge was not the same as individual liberty, as her writings on procreation emphasized.

The second edition of Sanger’s life story, An Autobiography, appeared in 1938. There Sanger described her first cross-country lecture tour in 1916. Her standard speech asserted seven conditions of life that “mandated” the use of birth control: the third was “when parents, though normal, had subnormal children”; the fourth, “when husband and wife were adolescent”; the fifth, “when the earning capacity of the father was inadequate.” No right existed to exercise sex knowledge to advance procreation. Sanger described the fact that “anyone, no matter how ignorant, how diseased mentally or physically, how lacking in all knowledge of children, seemed to consider he or she had the right to become a parent.”

Religious Bigotry In the 1910’s and 1920’s, the entire social orderreligion, law, politics, medicine, and the mediawas arrayed against the idea and practice of birth control. This opposition began in 1873 when an overwhelmingly Protestant Congress passed, and a Protestant president signed into law, a bill that became known as the Comstock Law, named after its main proponent, Anthony Comstock. The U.S. Congress classified obscene writing, along with drugs, and devices and articles that prevented conception or caused abortion, under the same net of criminality and forbade their importation or mailing.

Sanger set out to have such legislation abolished or amended. Her initial efforts were directed at the Congress with the opening of a Washington, D.C., office of her American Birth Control League in 1926. Sanger wanted to amend section 211 of the U.S. criminal code to allow the interstate shipment and mailing of contraceptives among physicians, druggists and drug manufacturers.

Continue to page 2

Go to page: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5

Visit link:
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger

Parsing the Second Amendment – CBS News

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Parsing the Second Amendment – CBS News
Mar 192016
 

Any discussion of the right to bear arms has to take note of the Second Amendment. Here’s Anthony Mason:

At the heart of the debate over guns in America is a single, inscrutable sentence: The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, whose wording is unusual.

Simon & Schuster

“The Second Amendment says, ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ What does that mean?”

The most-disputed clause in the Constitution is the phrase about militias, which were a great concern when the Bill of Rights was written in 1792.

“At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there was a very big controversy about how to allocate military power,” said Nelson Lund, professor of constitutional law at George Mason University. He says the states feared the new government would try to disarm the 13 state militias, which required every white male over 16 to own a musket.

“The anti-Federalists were very worried that the states would be deprived of their power to resist federal tyranny,” Lund said.

“The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety,” Patrick Henry argued. “We can have no security without it.”

While guns were commonplace then, so were gun regulations. New York and Boston prohibited the firing of guns within city limits.

And in the notes for the Constitutional Convention, Waldman says, “There’s literally not a word about it protecting an individual right for gun ownership for self-protection, hunting, or any of the other things we think about now.”

“There’s one side that believes that this amendment refers specifically and only to militias,” said Mason.

“Well, I know people say that, but it just can’t be true,” replied Lund. “If you look at what the words say, it says ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms.’ It does not say, ‘The right of the states’ or ‘The right of the militias.’ It says ‘the right of the people.'”

The debate over the Second Amendment came to a head at the Supreme Court in 2008, in a case filed over the Capital’s gun laws, called District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 vote, the court affirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, striking down D.C.’s ban on handguns in the home.

‘The inherent right of self-defense,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, “has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

But, Scalia added, “The right … is not unlimited,” also leaving room for gun regulation.

Lund said, “It is absolutely a continuing grey area.”

Another grey area is how the court might rule on future Second Amendment issues after the sudden death of Justice Scalia in February.

“So, you know, a lot depends on who replaces Justice Scalia,” said Lund.

For more info:

More from “Guns and America”:

2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Read the rest here:
Parsing the Second Amendment – CBS News

 Posted by at 8:41 pm  Tagged with:

The Rutherford Institute :: Free Speech

 Free Speech  Comments Off on The Rutherford Institute :: Free Speech
Feb 212016
 

Defending this fundamental right of free expression is a central theme of The Rutherford Institutes work because we believe that all other liberties spring forth from this right.

The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the opportunity to freely express themselves. This fundamental freedom includes the right to distribute literature and discuss a multitude of viewseven views distasteful to most people. It also protects the right of the people to engage in lawful picketing and the right to peaceably assemble. It is critical that a free society value and honor a free marketplace of ideas, a diversity of opinion, and free expression. Without free expression, no democratic society would be possible.

It is for these reasons that The Rutherford Institute is dedicated to preserving these fundamental rights for all Americans. The Institute responds to hundreds of complaints of free speech violations each year. From environmental activists peaceably protesting on public property to preachers relaying their message in a public forum, The Rutherford Institute believes that all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, are entitled to speak freely.

Free Speech Double Standard: Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Declare Unconstitutional Its Own Ban on Expressive Activity on Plaza

First Amendment Victory: Appeals Court Rejects Government Attempt to Deny Trademarks for Names That Might Cause Offense, e.g., ‘The Slants’

Rutherford Responds: City Officials, Police Ask Federal Court to Dismiss First Amendment Lawsuit Over Violation of Street Preachers Free Speech Rights

‘Government Cannot Discriminate Against Offensive Speech’: Rutherford Institute Argues for First Amendment Protection for Redskins’ Name

Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Reconsider Decision Upholding 60-Year-Old Ban on Expressive Activity on U.S. Supreme Court Plaza

The Rutherford Institutes petition for review in Clary v. Virginia DMV

Rutherford Institute Challenges Virginia Over Its Cancellation, Revocation and Recall of License Plates Displaying the Confederate Flag

The Right to Tell the Government to Go to Hell: Free Speech in an Age of Government Bullies, Corporate Censors and Compliant Citizens

Fear of the Walking Dead: The American Police State Takes Aim

Sheep Led to the Slaughter: The Muzzling of Free Speech in America

The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech

Free Speech, Facebook and the NSA: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

An Unbearable and Choking Hell: The Loss of Our Freedoms in the Wake of 9/11

Free Speech, RIP: A Relic of the American Past

Voter ID Laws: Silencing the American People

Criminalizing Free Speech: Is This What Democracy Looks Like?

Read more here:
The Rutherford Institute :: Free Speech

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …
Feb 182016
 

Created on December 15, 1791, the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that establishes the right of citizens to possess firearms for lawful purposes.[a] It says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”[2]

When America was being colonized by European countries, firearms were very important to colonists.[3] When Europeans came here they brought with them the idea of land ownership by an individual.[4] They received this right from their king through land grants.[4] This was completely foreign to Native Americans who considered a particular territory belonged to the tribe.[4] Colonists defended their claims against Native Americans and other Europeans whose king may have granted them the same lands.[3] They also needed firearms for hunting. In many towns and villages, men were required to own firearms for the defense of the community. Most colonists coming to America in the 17th century had no experience as soldiers.[5] The British kept few soldiers in the colonies and colonists soon found they needed to establish militias.[5]

Colonies had militia laws that required every able-bodied man to be available for militia duty and to provide his own arms.[5] In 1774 and 1775, the British government, which now had a larger presence, attempted to disarm American colonists. This caused the formation of private militias independent of any control by the governors appointed by the British government.[5] The Minutemen who opposed the British Army at the Battles of Lexington and Concord were an independent militia.[5] After the American Revolutionary War, the framers of the Constitution, like most Americans of the time, distrusted standing armies and trusted militias.[5] After the Revolutionary war, state militias were trusted to defend the country. The Articles of Confederation, the new nation’s first constitution, called for each state to maintain a well-armed militia. Congress could only form a standing army by approval of nine of the thirteen states. This was one of the weaknesses that led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a new constitution. This gave Congress the power to call up the militias to defend the country against any foreign power. In the 18th century, the word “army” meant mercenaries.[5] Americans distrusted standing armies and were afraid they could be used to take over the country.[6]Oliver Cromwell and his military dictatorship of England was still well-remembered.[6]

Virginia was one of the first colonies to adopt a state constitution. They included the words: “a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.”[3] Other states followed with similar wording in their own constitutions. Pennsylvania declared: the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”[3] In 1781 the Continental Congress approved the Articles of Confederation. This recognized the thirteen original states had the power to govern themselves. They acted collectively to have a congress, but did not provide any money to run it. There was no president and no court system. This confederation of states proved to be a very poor form of central government.

The Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from May 25 to September 17, 1787.[7] The purpose of the Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation. But it became clear that the intention many of its members, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the Convention. They eventually agreed on agreed on Madison’s Virginia Plan and began to make changes. The result was the Constitution of the United States and the present form of government.[7]

The constitution debate at Philadelphia caused two groups to form, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central government. The anti-federalists wanted the state governments to have the authority. The vote on the new Constitution was passed on a promise by federalists to support a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution.[8] Originally 12 amendments were considered. But in their final form, 10 amendments to the Constitution were agreed on. The Bill of Rights, as the first 10 amendments came to be called, originally applied to the national government rather than to states.[8] Many states already had their own Bill of Rights.[8] The Bill of Rights were ratified and went into effect in 1791.

The second amendment was a result of several proposals being combined together and simplified into just 27 words.[9] This simplification has caused many debates over gun ownership and individual rights. Historians, judges and others have repeatedly looked for the intended meaning by the 18th century writers of this amendment. [9] Different interpretations of the Second Amendment still cause public debates concerning firearm regulations and gun control.[9]

The case of District of Columbia v. Heller brought before the Supreme Court was based on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman.[10] The decision made the ban on guns by the District of Columbia invalid.[10] The decision was based on the second comma (after the word “state”) as proof that the Second Amendment allows individuals the right to carry a gun.[10] This is in addition to the right of states to maintain militias.[10]

The Second Amendment ratified by the States and approved by the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, said:

The version passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington (but never ratified by the States) said:

More here:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …

 Posted by at 10:43 am  Tagged with:

Warner Robins, Georgia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Islands  Comments Off on Warner Robins, Georgia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feb 142016
 

Warner Robins is a city in the US state of Georgia, located in Houston County. As of the 2010 census, the city had a total population of 66,588. From 2000 to 2010, the Warner Robins city population growth percentage was 36.4% (or from 48,804 people to 66,588 people). Warner Robins is a part of the larger Macon-Warner Robins Combined Statistical Area with a population of 417,473.

Warner Robins was founded in 1942 from the community of Wellston. It was named for General Augustine Warner Robins of the United States Air Force. It was incorporated as a town in 1943 and as a city in 1956.[3]

The 1940 census shows that the community of Wellston was sparsely populated and inhabited primarily by farmers and their families. Its most notable landmark was a stop on the railroad line. Wellston also had a small sawmill and a grocery store. Peach orchards covered parts of the surrounding land.

World War II would soon change this. The War Department made plans to build an air depot in the Southeast. With the assistance of influential U.S. Congressman Carl Vinson, Wellston community leader Charles Bostic Boss Watson worked with officials in Macon to make a bid to locate this air depot in Houston County. In June 1941, the U.S. government accepted this offer which included 3,108 acres of land.[4]

This air base was initially called Wellston Army Air Depot when it opened in 1942. The first commander was Colonel Charles E. Thomas. He wanted to name this depot in honor of his mentor Augustine Warner Robins, who was called by his middle name Warner. Regulations prevented him from doing this, which required the base to be named after the nearest town. Not deterred by this, Colonel Thomas persuaded Boss Watson and the other community leaders to rename Wellston. So on September 1, 1942, the town was given the new name of Warner Robins.[5] Soon thereafter on October 14, 1942, the base was renamed to become Warner Robins Army Air Depot. So the city of Warner Robins has a unique name that no other town in America has.

Robins Air Force Base is not within the actual city limits of the town. But only U.S. Highway 129 (Georgia state highway 247) separates the base from the city.

Warner Robins is located at 323631N 833817W / 32.60861N 83.63806W / 32.60861; -83.63806 (32.608720, 83.638027).[6]

Warner Robins is approximately 100 miles south of Atlanta.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 35.4 square miles (92km2), of which, 35.1 square miles (91km2) is land and 0.3 square miles (0.78km2) (0.82%) is water.

As of the census[1] of 2010, there were 66,588 people, 19,550 households, and 13,078 families residing in the city. The population density was 2,143.9 inhabitants per square mile (827.8/km2) . There were 29,084 housing units at an average density of 952.7 per square mile (367.8/km2). The racial makeup of the city included 50.00% White, 36.60% African American, 0.30% Native American, 2.60% Asian, 0.07% Pacific Islander, .10% from other races, and 2.60% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 15.60% of the population.

There were 19,550 households out of which 34.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 46.3% were married couples living together, 16.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 33.1% were non-families. 28.1% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.48 and the average family size was 3.03.

In the city the population was spread out with 28.0% under the age of 18, 9.6% from 18 to 24, 31.9% from 25 to 44, 20.2% from 45 to 64, and 10.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33 years. For every 100 females there were 94.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.1 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $38,401, and the median income for a family was $44,217. Males had a median income of $33,030 versus $24,855 for females. The per capita income for the city was $18,121. About 11.0% of families and 13.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 20.5% of those under age 18 and 8.6% of those age 65 or over.

In 2009, Business Week magazine named Warner Robins the best place in Georgia in which to raise a family.[9] The ranking was bestowed once again for 2010.[10] The Warner Robins Area Chamber was named one of the top three chambers of commerce in the U.S. for a chamber in its division in 2009 by the American Chamber of Commerce Executives Association[citation needed]. In 2012, CNN Money named Warner Robins No. 7 on its Best Places To Live list for America’s best small cities.[11]

Warner Robins has a humid subtropical climate (Kppen Cfa). It experiences hot, humid summers and generally mild winters, with average high temperatures ranging from 92.0F (33.3C) in the summer to 58.0F (14.4C) high during winter. Snowfall is an extremely rare event. Warner Robins-area historical tornado activity is slightly above Georgia state average. It is 86% greater than the overall U.S. average.[12]

Warner Robins is home to the Museum of Aviation honoring the history of military aviation. It is located next to the air force base. The museum contains exhibits on military memorabilia, airplanes and ground vehicles, the Tuskegee Airmen and Operation Desert Storm. It is the second-largest aviation museum in the country.[citation needed] It is also the largest tourist attraction outside of Atlanta in the state of Georgia.

Warner Robins residents claim that in 1958, Claude Lewis, director of the Warner Robins Recreation Department, invented the game of tee-ball. The first game was played in March of that year with 20 children participating. Lewis wrote rules for the new game and sent rule books out to recreation departments all over the country.[citation needed] In 2006, a field was dedicated and named for Lewis, “The Father of Tee-Ball”, at the Warner Robins American Little League complex.[citation needed]

Warner Robins Little League won the 2007 Little League World Series 32 against Tokyo, Japan.[14]

On December 9, 2008 the Little League International Board of Directors unanimously voted for Warner Robins to become the new Southeast Region Headquarters of Little League Baseball and Softball. Games began to be played in Warner Robins in 2010.[15]

The Warner Robins American Little League girls softball team won the 2009 Little League Softball World Series, by defeating Crawford, Texas, making Warner Robins the only Little League to have won both a baseball and a softball Little League title.[16]

The Warner Robins American Little League girls softball team defended their 2009 championship by defeating Burbank, California in the 2010 Little League Softball World Series. By doing so, Warner Robins became only the fourth Little League program to produce back-to-back championship teams and the first since Waco, Texas in 20032004.[17]

The official motto of Warner Robins is EDIMGIAFAD, which is an acronym for “Every Day In Middle Georgia Is Armed Forces Appreciation Day”. (Originally: Every Day In Middle Georgia Is Air Force Appreciation Day). The coining of this phrase is attributed to Dr. Dan Callahan, a local civic leader.[18] In 2010, Dr. Callahan and a group of community leaders launched an effort to change the acronym to “EDIUSAIAFAD”, as part of a movement to take the sentiment national: “Every Day in the USA is Armed Forces Appreciation Day”.[19]

Robins Air Force Base is one of the largest employers in the state of Georgia and directly contributes over 25,000 military, civil service, and contractor jobs to the local economy.[20] It has provided economic stability for Warner Robins that has benefited the entire Middle Georgia community.

The city of Warner Robins is working on redeveloping and renewing areas that have suffered from urban decay and/or abandonment through neglect and city growth. The city’s plans include development of a centralized downtown area to include shopping, entertainment and restaurants. They want to increase amenities and attract more commercial business to the area.[citation needed]

In May 2009 Warner Robins was listed by the Adversity Index as one of four Georgia metro areas that have had less than nine months of recession over the past fifteen years and have only recently been affected by the Global Financial Crisis of 20082009.[citation needed]

In June 2011, Warner Robins was listed in Wired Magazine as one of 12 small cities that are driving the “Knowledge Economy”. Georgia was the only Southeastern state listed and Warner Robins was one of two Georgia cities ranked (the other one being Hinesville-Ft. Stewart). The rankings featured small cities that are luring knowledge workers and entrepreneurs and who have both a relatively high median family income and a relatively high percentage of creative workers who drive the economy.

Houston County Hospital was dedicated on July 2, 1960 with 50 beds. The hospital was renamed Houston Medical Center in 1986 after renovations. The patient rooms were converted at this time from semi-private to private with 186 beds available.

A new five-story northwest addition was completed in 2009 making a total of 237 beds.

Houston Medical Center is part of the Houston Healthcare system, which serves over 300,000 people annually.[21]

High school football has long been a storied and celebrated pastime in Warner Robins with the city laying claim to state championships, national championships, college stars and NFL players.

The annual Northside vs Warner Robins game draws an estimated 21,000 fans and was named the #3 rivalry in the country by USA Today in 2006.

Warner Robins High School won two National Championships in 1976 and 1981. They have also won four State Championships in 1976, 1981, 1988 and 2004.

Northside High School was crowned State Champion in 2006, 2007 and 2014.

The Warner Robins Little Theatre was established in 1962 as a non-profit community theatre. Just thirty years later, this organization owned their theatre playhouse debt-free.

The theatre continues to thrive. There are five main shows produced every year. Occasionally there are workshops and other special events held for the Middle Georgia community.[22]

The bands Rehab, Stillwater, Doc Holliday Sugar Creek and Luke’s Cabbage Store are based in Warner Robins.

Warner Robins Law Enforcement Center

Nola Brantley Memorial Library

Southeastern Region Little League Stadium

Little League World Series display

Sacred Heart Catholic Church on Davis Drive

State Court of Houston County

The portion of Warner Robins in Houston County is served by the Houston County School System. The portion of the city in Peach County is served by Peach County School District.[citation needed]

On April 30, 1953 a F4 tornado with winds over 200mph hit the city and portions of Robins Air Force Base and killed 18 people and injured 300 more.

Read the original:
Warner Robins, Georgia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singularity – definition of singularity by The Free Dictionary

 The Singularity  Comments Off on Singularity – definition of singularity by The Free Dictionary
Feb 102016
 

Nor was she entitled to complain of any remarkable singularity in her fate; for, in the town of her nativity, we might point to several little shops of a similar description, some of them in houses as ancient as that of the Seven Gables; and one or two, it may be, where a decayed gentlewoman stands behind the counter, as grim an image of family pride as Miss Hepzibah Pyncheon herself. The singularity lay in the hostile feelings with which the child regarded all these offsprings of her own heart and mind. I know not how significant it is, or how far it is an evidence of singularity, that an individual should thus consent in his pettiest walk with the general movement of the race; but I know that something akin to the migratory instinct in birds and quadrupeds–which, in some instances, is known to have affected the squirrel tribe, impelling them to a general and mysterious movement, in which they were seen, say some, crossing the broadest rivers, each on its particular chip, with its tail raised for a sail, and bridging narrower streams with their dead–that something like the furor which affects the domestic cattle in the spring, and which is referred to a worm in their tails,–affects both nations and individuals, either perennially or from time to time. But the last singularity explains the first, as I intimated once before: you, with your gravity, considerateness, and caution were made to be the recipient of secrets. My attention was so attracted by the singularity of his fixed look at me, that the words died away on my tongue. Some were wrapped in the countess’s shawls, others wore the trappings of horses and muddy saddlecloths, or masses of rags from which the hoar-frost hung; some had a boot on one leg and a shoe on the other; in fact, there were none whose costume did not present some laughable singularity. We could not complain, and, indeed, the singularity of our fate reserved such wonderful compensation for us that we had no right to accuse it as yet. Even had it been under commonplace circumstances, it would have made me a trifle thoughtful; but in the first place was the singularity of an educated man living on this unknown little island, and coupled with that the extraordinary nature of his luggage. Do you know, my dear Villefort,” cried the Comte de Salvieux, “that is exactly what I myself said the other day at the Tuileries, when questioned by his majesty’s principal chamberlain touching the singularity of an alliance between the son of a Girondin and the daughter of an officer of the Duc de Conde; and I assure you he seemed fully to comprehend that this mode of reconciling political differences was based upon sound and excellent principles. The bride and most of her company had been too much occupied with the bustle of entrance to hear the first boding stroke of the bell, or at least to reflect on the singularity of such a welcome to the altar. What the disguise of her lover would be, Julia could not imagine–probably, that of a wandering harper: but then she remembered that there were no harpers in America, and the very singularity might betray his secret. The singularity of his conduct, however, only roused my desire to discover who this remarkable personage might be, who now engrossed the attention of every one.

Read the rest here:
Singularity – definition of singularity by The Free Dictionary

 Posted by at 9:44 am  Tagged with:

Florida Beaches – Best Beaches in Florida

 Beaches  Comments Off on Florida Beaches – Best Beaches in Florida
Feb 032016
 

As the only state with two coasts, the Florida beaches are a dime a dozen. A beach in Florida can be a bit of heaven. Many who visit Florida and Miami Beach travel to enjoy the azure surf and palm beaches that are like nowhere else on earth. From Americas #1 Beach to a nude beach favorite of supermodels, the top beaches here have it all.

Best Florida Beaches

Some of the best beaches in Florida are on the East side of the state as Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Daytona Beach are located there. Known for its open and uncluttered beaches, Fort Lauderdale offers a beach community that is great for those who love to stroll on the beach or lay on the sand. The map of Florida beaches shows the great array of places to relax during a trip to the Sunshine State.

Miami Beaches

The heart of Florida tourism is Miami Beachs trendy South Beach. Supermodels and celebrities who visit Florida sunbathe at Lummus Park Beach, a swath of star-studded white sands from the citys 5th to 15th Street. The 12th Street stretch is a very popular gay and muscle beach area. To get an all-over tan, head further north to the clothing-optional Haulover Beach.

Florida Beaches

Key to Paradise

In Miamis Key Biscayne youll find the key to paradise at Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park, rated as one of Americas top swimming beaches, with over a mile of beautiful sandy beach, nature trails, and a historic lighthouse. The lighthouse has a cultural complex that offers guided tours and other activities for visitors.

Shoreline fishing from the seawall requires a Florida license. Shaded picnicking is available under covered pavilions, and you can moor your boat overnight. Pets are restricted in some areas.

Nearby Virginia key is another secluded gem, a deserted key where you can get away from it all.

However, don’t dismiss the West Florida beaches. The Florida Keys beaches are frequented by travelers around the world and don’t forget Clearwater.

Best Beach in Florida and America

Dr. Stephen Leatherman, otherwise known as “Dr. Beach” authors an annual list of Americas Best Beaches, and at the top is North Beach at St. Petersburgs Fort DeSoto Park. This natural jewel is a long, wide, sugar sand beach with great shelling and thriving natural dunes.

Along with being a wonderful place to swim, there’s fishing, boating, canoeing, kayaking, bird watching, biking, walking, and even a dog park. The beach offers modern changing rooms and restrooms and plenty of parking.

The free park, located on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay on the Gulf of Mexico, is made up of five islands with a total of over 7 miles of beaches, 4 miles of trails, a 2.25-mile canoe trail, and a 900-acre bird, animal, and plant sanctuary.

Its namesake 105-year-old Spanish-American War-era fort is listed on National Register of Historic Places, and has a museum that’s open daily from 9am to 4pm. Park rangers conduct nature and history tours. You can also rent canoes and kayaks to explore the winding mangrove channels along the bay side. The park’s campground sites beside Tampa Bay are some of the most lovely in Florida.

Clearly Marvelous

North of Clearwater, Caladesi Island State Park is on a 3.5-mile islet, accessible only by ferry. The park is made up of soft sand dunes covered in sea oats and palmettos, and is brimming with wildlife. Offshore dolphins and sea turtles swim offshore. On shore, where pets are restricted, youll find shore birds, rabbits, raccoons, snakes, and armadillos from the parks nature trail.

This is among the best beaches in Florida and an ideal spot for bird watching, shell collecting, and saltwater fishing. Amenities include picnic pavilions, bathhouses, refreshment concessions, and an overnight marina.

Read the original post:
Florida Beaches – Best Beaches in Florida

 Posted by at 6:41 pm  Tagged with:

1st Amendment – Revolutionary War and Beyond!

 First Amendment  Comments Off on 1st Amendment – Revolutionary War and Beyond!
Jan 232016
 

We are considering offers for the sale of this website. Use the contact form in the left column to contact us for more information.

The 1st Amendment is the most well known to Americans of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights. It contains some of the most familiar phrases in political discussion, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The 1st Amendment reads like this:

“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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The 1st Amendment protects your right to believe and practice whatever religious principles you choose and your right to say what you believe, even if it is unpopular or against the will of elected officials.

It also protects your right to publish any information you want, join together with whomever you want and ask the government to correct its own errors.

What exactly does the 1st Amendment mean and how does it apply to people today? Does it have relevance to you today? It sure does. In fact, it affects just about everything you do.

The 1st Amendment has seven clauses. This page has a brief description of each clause with links to more detailed information about the history and purpose of each section.

The Opening Phrase of the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law.” This opening phrase immediately tells exactly who this amendment is aimed at… and that entity is Congress. So the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from making laws interfering with the rights mentioned in the amendment.

It does not however, prohibit the states from making such laws, nor does it prohibit individuals from restricting these rights to those who may be under their authority, such as a parent and child or an employer and an employee.

For one hundred years the 1st Amendment was understood to only apply to the federal government, but after the Civil War and the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, courts began to forbid the states to interfere with these rights as well due to an idea called “due process of law.”

Learn more about the Opening Phrase of the 1st Amendment here.

The Establishment Clause is the part of the 1st Amendment that says Congress shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This is a very crucial part of the American Constitution. It prohibits the government from establishing a state religion or denomination and from directing people in what they must believe.

Without the Establishment Clause, the government could choose a state religion and force everyone to participate in it. It could also punish anyone who didn’t adhere to its chosen faith.

This clause has been the focus of much debate in the last half century. Some Americans believe that whenever the government is involved, absolutely all religious expression must be forbidden in order to comply with the Establishment Clause.

For example, they might say a public school football team should not pray at a football game because the school is a government funded school.

Other Americans believe the government must make certain allowances for religious expressions in public events and buildings because Americans are a very religious people. They belive a high school football team prayer or a government employee displaying a cross at work does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is simply a personal expression and not an expression endorsed by the state.

Indeed, in the minds of some, banning expressions of religious faith like this is a violation of another clause of the 1st Amendment – the Free Exercise Clause, because it seeks to control the religious expressions of citizens.

Learn more about the history and purpose of the Establishment Clause here.

The Free Exercise Clause is the part of the 1st Amendment that says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or “the free exercise thereof.” This phrase deals with the restriction on Congress to regulate anyone’s religious practices.

In general, Congress cannot tell people how they can or cannot express their religious beliefs. Such things as telling people when or how to pray, when they should go to church or to whom they should pray, are off limits to lawmakers.

In general, this is the case, but sometimes, minority religious groups may want to practice something that is not generally accepted or that the state has a very strong interest in regulating. For example, polygamy, ritual sacrifice and drug usage have been banned at times, because there is a compelling public interest in eliminating these behaviors.

In such cases, the Supreme Court has often ruled that the Free Exercise Clause does not apply. In other words, the Free Exercise Clause does not give free license to any behavior that someone says is their religious belief.

You can learn all about the Free Exercise Clause here.

The Freedom of Speech Clause is the part of the 1st Amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”

British history contained a long string of suppression by those in authority of those with whom they disagreed. Many British subjects had been thrown in prison for voicing their religious and political beliefs. The Americans intended to prevent this from ever happening in their newly formed republic.

This is one of the protections in the Constitution that Americans hold most dear. They value it because it allows them to speak out against government policies they don’t like. It also allows them to express the religious beliefs of their choosing.

Negatively speaking, many people abuse this right by slandering people they disagree with, or using ugly and offensive language, racial epithets or hateful language about people who are different than they are.

Generally, freedom of speech is considered to be not only the words people speak, but any type of expression that is used to convey an idea. Such things as picketing, wearing symbols or burning the flag are considered protected forms of speech because they are expressing the ideas of the people participating in them.

You can learn more about the Freedom of Speech Clause by clicking here.

The Freedom of the Press Clause states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom… of the press.”

This was a very important principle to the Founding Fathers of America because of the importance the press played during the Revolutionary War.

Without the press, the Founding Fathers would have found it very difficult to distribute their views to people in other parts of the country. The press turned out to be a very important instigation in getting Americans to consolidate their views against England and in spreading the concepts that would justify a break with England.

English history contained no freedoms for the press whatsoever. All publications were subject to governmental review before publication. Criticisms of the government were strictly prosecuted as sedition. All Americans wanted the right to criticize their government freely as well as to discuss other topics whenever they chose.

If you would like to learn more about the Freedom of the Press Clause, please click here.

The Freedom of Assembly Clause is the part of the First Amendment that reads like this: “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” This clause is also sometimes referred to as the Freedom of Association Clause. This clause protects the right to assemble in peace to all Americans.

The Freedom of Assembly was very important to early Americans because without the right to assemble, they could not coordinate their opposition to the British government. The Freedom of Assembly was recognized to be of utmost importance if the Americans were to be successful in establishing a government of the people.

The Freedom of Assembly Clause has been relied upon by many groups in American history, such as civil rights groups, women’s suffrage groups and labor unions. Government officials in each case tried to restrict the speech of these groups and prevent them from meeting, organizing and getting their message out. The Freedom of Assembly proved to be an important factor that allowed these groups to prosper and see their visions fulfilled.

You can learn more about the history and importance of the Freedom of Assembly Clause here.

Click to enlarge

King George III

by Allan Ramsay

The Freedom of Petition Clause of the 1st Amendment reads like this:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom… of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The freedom to petition the government was very important to early Americans because of their experience with trying to get King George III and Parliament to respond to their grievances. The colonists were so angry about the Monarchy’s refusal to acknowledge their grievances that they mentioned this fact in the Declaration of Independence.

The freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances has come to include the right to do such things as picketing, protesting, conducting peaceful sitins or boycotts and addressing government officials through any media available.

You can read more about the history and meaning of the Freedom of Petition Clause here.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights Learn about the 1st Amendment here. Learn about the 2nd Amendment here. Learn about the 3rd Amendment here. Learn about the 4th Amendment here. Learn about the 5th Amendment here. Learn about the 6th Amendment here. Learn about the 7th Amendment here. Learn about the 8th Amendment here. Learn about the 9th Amendment here. Learn about the 10th Amendment here.

Read the Bill of Rights here.

Learn more about the Bill of Rights with the following articles:

Last updated 8/7/12

Return to top of 1st Amendment

Revolutionary War and Beyond Home

See more here:
1st Amendment – Revolutionary War and Beyond!

Freedom America, Inc.

 Freedom  Comments Off on Freedom America, Inc.
Jan 142016
 

Freedom AMERICA Inc. | Call us at 813-600-5314 (Brandon, FL), 863-682-6381 (Lakeland, FL)

We understand how important it is for you to be able to trust your advisor, particularly in the wake of recent highly publicized corporate failures and investment management misdeeds. Regardless of the direction the stock market and interest rates it’s important to have a trusted advisor to look after your best interests. That trusted advisor is Jonathan Jackson. He isexperienced, responsive and understands your need for integrity and transparency.

RETIREMENT PLANNING: People can no longer rely on Social Security to cover all their retirement needs. Individuals are living longer, health costs are rising, non-traditional retirement plans are being eliminated and the cost of living is constantly increasing. Freedom America Inc. can help you start planning today to safeguard your future retirement needs. At Freedom America Inc., our advisors are thoroughly trained to help our clients avoid unnecessary risks during or before their retirement years. We will help you protect your hard-earned retirement assets in diverse markets and provide you with the lifetime income you will need (while potentially reducing your tax liabilities).

Our goal is to help you not worry about your money while you try to experience complete enjoyment during your retirement years. To schedule a FREE no-obligation consultation, please call us at: 813-600-5314 (Brandon office) 863-682-6381 (Lakeland office)

Double Click Logos To View Profiles

Jonathan Jackson, president of Freedom America Inc. was recently featured on RETIREMENT NEWS TODAY. Click the videos tab to view these informative videos.

TAX PLANNING

Protecting What’s Important to You

Contact Us To Attend One Of Our Informative Workshops

For a married couple, the difference between a good Social Security election decision and a poor one is often well over $100,000! What’s At Stake For You?

To Be On The List For Tax Preparation, Please CLICK HERE

See the rest here:
Freedom America, Inc.

 Posted by at 10:46 pm  Tagged with:

Jeep Liberty Review – Research New & Used Jeep Liberty …

 Liberty  Comments Off on Jeep Liberty Review – Research New & Used Jeep Liberty …
Jan 142016
 

To appraise a vehicle, please select a model below:

Sold from 2002-’12, the Jeep Liberty was the successor to one of America’s original compact SUVs, the Cherokee (which returned in 2014). True to its tough, capable Jeep lineage, the Liberty has considerable off-road capability, thanks to steep approach and departure angles and exceptional suspension travel and articulation. The Liberty was also rated to tow up to 5,000 pounds, a robust figure for its class. These are qualities not found in most other small utility vehicles from this time period, which saw the rise of crossover SUVs optimized for the suburban lifestyle.

Demerits for the Jeep Liberty include a weak engine lineup, with sluggish acceleration and dismal fuel economy from both the four-cylinder and V6 engines offered over the years (the first generation’s briefly optional diesel engine is impressively fuel-efficient, however). Interior quality and comfort are also lacking, and by today’s standards, the Liberty’s general lack of refinement leaves much to be desired.

If you are looking for older years, visit our used Jeep Liberty page.

Link:
Jeep Liberty Review – Research New & Used Jeep Liberty …

History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University

 Eugenics  Comments Off on History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University
Jan 112016
 

In the same era, the idea of Social Darwinism became popular and was used to explain these social inequalities. Social Darwinism utilizes the concept of natural selection from Charles Darwin and applies it to society. Social Darwinism explains survival of the fittest in terms of the capability of an individual to survive within a competitive environment. This explains social inequalities by explaining that the wealthy are better individuals and therefore better suited to survive in the uncertain economy. In terms of survival of the fittest the wealthy are more likely to survive and produce more offspring than the poor.

Early Eugenicists

Eugenicists believed genetics were the cause of problems for the human gene pool. Eugenics stated that society already had paid enough to support these degenerates and the use of sterilization would save money. The eugenicists used quantitative facts to produce scientific evidence. They believed that charity and welfare only treated the symptoms, eugenic sought to eliminate the disease. The following traits were seen as degenerative to the human gene pool to which the eugenicists were determined to eliminate: poverty, feeble-mindedness-including manic depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, rebelliousness, criminality, nomadness, prostitution.

Before eugenics became internationally recognized in WWII, it was a very popular movement in the United States. In fact the American Eugenics Society set up pavilions and “Fitter Families Contest” to popularize eugenics at state fairs. The average family advocated for the utilization of eugenics while educational systems embraced eugenics, which was presented as science fact by the majority biology texts. In fact, eugenics became so popular that eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported study in 1911, to report the best practical means for eliminating defective genes in the Human Population. Although the eighth of the 18 solutions was euthanasia, the researchers believed it was too early to implement this solution. The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a lethal chamber, or gas chamber. Instead, the main solution was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as increased marriage restrictions. However, not everybody was in favor of eugenics, Punnett at the first international congress for Eugenics in 1911 stated, Except in very few cases, our knowledge of heredity in man at present is far to slight and far too uncertain to base legislation upon.

Sterilization and Marriage Laws

Although in 1942 the Supreme Court made a law allowing the involuntary sterilization of criminals, it never reversed the general concept of eugenic sterilization. In 2001, the Virginia General Assembly acknowledged that the sterilization law was based on faulty science and expressed its “profound regret over the Commonwealth’s role in the eugenics movement in this country and over the damage done in the name of eugenics. On May 2, 2002 a marker was erected to honor Carrie Buck in her hometown of Charlottesville.

This information was taken from http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/

This information was taken from http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a371ea64170ce.html and http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp

Visit link:
History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University

 Posted by at 7:46 am  Tagged with:

Adoption History: Eugenics – University of Oregon

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Adoption History: Eugenics – University of Oregon
Jan 112016
 

Worries about the bad blood of children available for adoption were a prominent feature of the adoption landscape during the first four decades of the twentieth century. They help to explain why most child welfare professionals favored family preservation over adoption. At the time, a vigorous eugenics movement sought to control the reproduction of genetically inferior people through sterilization (called negative eugenics) and encourage the reproduction of genetically superior people (called positive eugenics). The movement drew support from Americans of all political persuasions. Henry Chapin, a famous pediatrician whose wife, Alice, founded one of the first specialized adoption agencies, claimed that the divergent fertility rates of rich and poor were fueling the demand for adoptable babies because citizens with better genetic endowment were more likely to suffer from infertility. For Chapin, eugenic factors always mattered in adoption. Not babies merely, but better babies, are wanted.

Fears about childrens quality or stock were shared by ordinary people as well as professionals and policy-makers. In 1928, one couple wrote to the U.S. Childrens Bureau, We are very anxious to adopt a baby but would like to get one that we know about its parentage. Are there any homes or orphanages where a person can find out whether there is insanity, fits, or other hereditary diseases in its ancestors? We would like to have one from Christian parentage. In addition to religious preferences, specifications for gender, racial, ethnic, and national qualities in children illustrated popular ideas about heredity. Physical health, mental health, criminality, educability, sexual morality, intelligence, and temperament were all associated with blood.

Before 1940, eugenic concerns were expressed frequently and bluntly. Henry Herbert Goddard, a national authority on feeble-minded children, insisted that compassion for needy children was shortsighted because adoption was a crime against those yet unborn. The eugenic threat adoption posed, according to Goddard, was directly tied to illegitimacy. Unmarried mothers were likely to be feeble-minded themselves and have feeble-minded children whose adoptions would contaminate the gene pool by reproducing future generations of defectives. Goddard advocated segregating these children and adults in benevolent institutions, where their dangerous sexuality could be contained.

Even professionals who believed in making adoption work believed that it was a social crime to place inferior children with parents who expectedand deservednormal children. Agencies sometimes required parents to return children if and when abnormal characteristics appeared and laws, such as the Minnesota Adoption Law of 1917, treated feeble-mindedness as cause for annulment. Medical writers in the popular press warned parents to be careful whom you adopt. Adopters faced frightening risks because children unlucky enough to need new parents were also unlucky enough to be genetic lemons.

Tragic stories of unregulated adoptions which ignored or overlooked the hard facts of bad heredity were publicized by reformers determined to institute minimum standards and protect couples from their own foolish desires to adopt newborns and infants. Professionals used mental tests and other assessment techniques to reveal hard-to-detect problems. Elaborate genealogies, extending well beyond parents to grandparents and other natal relatives, were considered evidence of thoroughness in child placement. Case records showed that many social workers expected anti-social behavior of all kinds to be passed intergenerationally from birth parents to children. Nature-nurture studies often reflected eugenic convictions about the heritability of intelligence and tried to establish scientifically the maximum tolerable gap between hereditary background and adoptive home.

Many people believe that eugenics disappeared in America after the specter of Nazism made eugenics synonymous with racism and genocide. While public discussion of taint and degeneration certainly decreased after World War II, blood and biology remained central themes in adoption history. Anxieties about miscegenation in transracial adoptions and international adoptions, as well as strenuous efforts to make racial predictions and offer genetic counseling in cases of mixed-race infants illustrate that eugenics did not disappear so much as change into a less aggressive, more polite form.

Go here to read the rest:
Adoption History: Eugenics – University of Oregon

Mississippi Vacation – Mississippi Travel

 Beaches  Comments Off on Mississippi Vacation – Mississippi Travel
Dec 252015
 

Each season in Mississippi has its pluses and minuses just as most destinations do. Your own interests and hopes for a vacation away from home will help to determine when to take your Mississippi vacation. Autumn is a really nice time for Mississippi travel and many areas along the river will boast wonderful colors, abundant wildlife and plenty of activities. When planning to travel during the Thanksgiving holiday or Labor Day it’s best to make travel arrangements ahead of time, especially for transportation and also hotel accommodation.

When To Go

Both Fall and spring in Natchez are especially fun as this is when the Natchez Pilgrimage Tours happen. The Fall Pilgrimage of Homes includes affluent mansions, historic plantations and beautiful southern belles which exemplify America’s deep south and Civil War era history. Most of the striking homes that take part in the tour are private homes that only open up to the public during the pilgrimages which begin in September and run for a month. Book Natchez hotels well ahead of time and consider a Mississippi tour along the river to round out a trip.

The winter months are the best time for a Mississippi fishing trip and Red Fish and Crappies are the best catches. Forget any ideas of ice fishing! The Mississippi winter months are a temperate time of year making a trip on the water extremely pleasant. When fishing in saltwater the Redfish swim along the shallow parts of the shoreline looking for a meal of shrimp, crabs and small minnows. A Mississippi River vacation is ideal for fishing as well. The low levels of water running down to the Gulf Coast create excellent opportunities for a good catch.

A popular Mississippi river vacation choice is a houseboat rental which can be had anytime of year. Catering to both anglers and non-anglers this type of holiday provides something for everyone including sightseeing, swimming, fishing and more. If your Mississippi River vacation destination is anywhere near Natchez don’t miss The Great Mississippi River Balloon Race which happens every year at the end of October and features colorful hot air balloon races.

A Mississippi fishing trip can be taken anywhere along the Mississippi River or in the south along the Gulf Coast for saltwater fishing. A saltwater trip can see you catching the likes of Shark, Red Snapper, Trout, King Mackerel and more. When discovering the Gulf Coast during the winter pair your Mississippi fishing trip with a tour of the coastal highway. Head to Biloxi and try your hand at gaming. Biloxi casinos are some of the best in the state and offer the most up-to-date machines and table games along with world-class accommodations and dining.

Spring is a beautiful time for Mississippi travel and sees less action from the masses. The temperatures are pleasant and the Gulf Coast normally sees higher temperatures than the rest of the state year-round. If your Mississippi vacation is during the spring one of the best places to head to is Tupelo. The annual festivals and events in Tupelo create a fun backdrop to any trip. Though small in size the town is big on excitement during this time of year where the small-town festivals offer excellent southern hospitality. For car-lovers the Big Suede Cruise kicks off at the beginning of May with plenty of exceptional classic cars, entertainment great southern fare.

Summer is the best time to enjoy the Gulf Islands National Seashore or any place along the Gulf Coast. This is the best time of year to explore the coastal Mississippi beaches or a trip to Ship Island. Temperatures get extremely hot and many opt for waterpark adventures to cool off during Mississippi travel in the summer. Both Geyser Falls Waterpark northeast of Jackson and Gulf Island Waterpark between Gulfport and Biloxi offer a huge amount of wild water fun for the entire family.

Mississippi’s climate is defined by warm months with the absence of any extreme cold temperatures. Summer months can be extremely hot yet it’s still the most popular time of year for a Mississippi vacation. A Mississippi River vacation is ideal in the summer and perfect for cooling off when away from the Gulf Coast waters. Be sure to find out about the many exciting events and festivals happening all over the state and head on over to experience local hospitality at its best.

Go here to see the original:
Mississippi Vacation – Mississippi Travel

 Posted by at 12:41 pm  Tagged with:

Free Speech – Shmoop

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Free Speech – Shmoop
Oct 262015
 

In a Nutshell

The courts have been largely responsible for protecting and extending this right of speech. Over the past two centuries they have explored the protection owed all sorts of expression, including sedition, “fighting words,” “dangerous” speech, and obscenity, and all sorts of persons, including political radicals, Ku Klux Klansmen, and even students. But in doing so, the courts have also operated under the premise that a portion of the British legacy was correct: the right to speech is not absolute. As a result, the legal history of the First Amendment could be summarized as a balancing actan attempt to protect and extend free speech guarantees but also define the limits of this right in a manner consistent with the equally compelling rights of the community.

Freedom of speech would be easy if words did not have power. Guaranteeing people the right to say and print whatever they wanted would be easy if we believed that words had no real effect.

But Americans tend to believe that words do have powerthat they can anger and inspire, cause people to rise up and act out. Americans celebrate speakers like James Otis, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., whose words inspired people to fight for independence, advance the American experiment in republican government, and dream of a more just society.

Freedom of speech would be easy if all people could be trusted to be rational discerners of truthif everyone could be trusted to sort out good ideas from bad ideas and recognize the ideologies and policies that were truly aimed at the best interests of the community.

But history has proven that people do not always recognize and reject bad ideas. The past is filled with examples of peoples and nations swayed by destructive ideas.

Freedom of speech would be easy if we just said that the right was absolute, that there were no limitations on what a person could say or print and no legal consequences for any expression no matter how false, slanderous, libelous, or obscene.

But as a nation, we have always held that there are limits to the right of speech, that certain forms of expression are not protected by the First Amendment.

The bottom line: freedom of speech is not easy. Words are powerful, which means that they can be dangerous. Humans are fallible, which means that they can make bad choices. And the right of speech is not absolute, which means that the boundaries of protected speech have to be constantly assessed.

All of these facts complicate America’s commitment to free speech, but they also make this commitment courageous. In addition, they leave the legal system with a difficult challenge. On the one hand, the courts are entrusted with protecting this right to free expression, which is so central to our national experience. On the other hand, they are charged with identifying the often blurry edges of this freedom.

Read on, and see if the courts have appropriately met both of these responsibilities.

Excerpt from:
Free Speech – Shmoop

 Posted by at 1:41 am  Tagged with:

Top 12 tax havens for US companies RT Business

 Tax Havens  Comments Off on Top 12 tax havens for US companies RT Business
Oct 232015
 

US corporations are making record profits in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Some of the profits exceed the GDP of the host country, with Bermudas offshore profits 1643% of total economic output.

As a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), profits from subsidiary US companies operating in the Netherlands are more than 100 percent of the countrys annual economic output, according to a new study by Citizens for Tax Justice, published Tuesday.

In Bermuda, US companies reported $94 billion in profit, but the islands GDP is only $6 billion. The report draws on data collected by the US International Revenue Service from subsidiaries reporting profits outside of the US in 2010.

Clearly, American corporations are using various tax gimmicks to shift profits actually earned in the US and other countries where they actually do business into their subsidiaries in these tiny countries, the report says.

US companies filed the largest profits in the Netherlands, Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Singapore, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, the Netherlands Antilles, and Barbados. But none of these finances are factored into the GDP of the host countries.

When filing US income taxes, a foreign corporation is defined if its US shareholders control more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock.

Offshore wealth money that is kept abroad for tax purposes- is a popular tactic for American companies to avoid paying high taxes in the US. Google, Apple, and other hi-tech companies have all been accused of sheltering money abroad and not contributing enough to the American tax system, which is their main market.

Many US companies use a loophole called repatriation in order to delay paying the US government taxes. Under US tax law, companies with offshore subsidiaries can wait until their company is repatriated, or returned to the US, until they pay taxes. This tool encourages US companies to report profits outside of the US, where they are safe from high taxes.

Other countries can offer very attractive corporate tax rates compared to the required 40 percent in America. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and the Bahamas for example, have a rate of 0 percent.

Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent, Switzerland 17.92 percent, and Luxembourg a local rate of 29.22 percent, according to data from KMPG Global.

The only country where companies pay more taxes than in America is in the United Arab Emirates, which has a 55 percent corporate tax rate.

Countries, or tax havens, can provide opportunities for investors by lowering their corporate tax rates as well as income tax rates.

Low income tax rates can make investment more competitive and business climate more attractive for some investors looking for loopholes. An estimate by Boston Consulting Group pegs offshore wealth at $8.5 trillion. Other independent estimates peg it as high as $20 trillion.

With the G20 and OECD countries focused on curbing tax evasion and avoidance, several Caribbean countries Bermuda, Barbados and Cayman Islands would be subject to a tightening tax noose. These countries could face a deceleration in economic activity if international tax structures are to be dismantled.

Continue reading here:
Top 12 tax havens for US companies RT Business

 Posted by at 11:45 pm  Tagged with:

Orlando SEO Company | Orlando Search Engine Optimization

 SEO  Comments Off on Orlando SEO Company | Orlando Search Engine Optimization
Oct 222015
 

Orlando SEO Firm: Web Solutions of America is an Orlando based SEO Company that is proud to offer SEO services and consulting throughout Central Florida and all of the US.

Search engine optimization or SEO, is the process of increasing the visibility of a website through the identification of algorithmic conditions and then using that knowledge to influence the organic or natural search engine ranking for a particular keyword phrase. In other words, SEO is the practice of helping websites rank higher for specific, targeted keyword phrases. The higher a website ranks in the results for a relevant search, the more likely it is to be visited. The increase in qualified traffic will typically generate more conversions (sales, leads, etc.) for a website.

Your SEO plans shouldnt begin after your website has been built. It should be an integral part of the design process. Web Solutions has a web development team that works side by side with our SEO team to make sure every website we build is search engine friendly and readily accessible to every SE. After the initial design and build, well begin our optimization efforts to make sure your site appears for the most relevant results.

Web Solutions of America takes a multi-faceted approach to search engine optimization which includes customizing a plan for each client. This typically involves the research & identification of the best converting keyword phrases, creation of search engine friendly text, and finally any off-page optimization strategies we deem necessary. We specialize in organic search engine optimization or natural SEO which does not involve paying for placement or traffic.

We know there are several Orlando area SEO companies out there, however, we also believe there are only a few quality choices. Our team of SEO experts has a proven track record of experience and knowledge in the industry. This is something we have a passion for and we will often help others for free on SEO forums and other SEO related blogs. Our SEO team is led by Bob Gilmour, the highest respected member of the forums located at SEO Chat. With over 4k posts, he knows a little bit about the subject.

Anyone can say they are SEO experts, we can prove it (contact us, well show you). Successful search engine optimization is about demonstrating consistent results across a variety of industries and clients (in every major search engine). Our results and our referrals from previous clients speak for themselves.

The Orlando SEO team at Web Solutions of America is focused on the client first. By listening to our clients concerns and needs, we determine the best possible strategy for optimizing your site. We stay on top of the latest updates to the major search engines algorithms and determine the best way to get your site where you want it to be for the search terms you want. We know that having plenty of relevant content on your website is key to ranking high in search engines, and will write content for you if needed. Web Solutions understands the same strategy wont work for all websites; you need an SEO strategy custom tailored to you. It isnt just about getting traffic to your site, but qualified traffic. In other words, our Orlando SEO team will not only drive visitors to your site, we will drive visitors that have a good chance of converting.

At Web Solutions of America SEO is our specialty. We are a Florida SEO Company that provides SEO services throughout the state. Our goal is not only to increase your online visibility through search engine optimization, but to use our years of experience to convert this increased traffic to sales. SEO today, has become more than just rankings.

Interested in learning more about how our SEO Orlando services can improve your online visibility? Contact the SEO team at Web Solutions of America Orlandos Premier SEO Company.

Request More Info On SEO

Web Solutions of America works with attorneys, realtors, schools, local contractors, equipment manufacturers & suppliers, hotels, transportation firms, roofing contractors, golf courses and much more.

Wed love to have the opportunity to speak with you about your goals and how we can help you achieve them. Give us a call today for a free analysis of your web site or just to talk internet visibility.

Read this article:
Orlando SEO Company | Orlando Search Engine Optimization

Second Amendment – Conservapedia

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment – Conservapedia
Oct 192015
 

See also gun control.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:[1]

For several decades, the lower federal courts had interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting merely a collective right of state militias.[2] However, the U.S Supreme Court has always called it an individual right. The 2008 Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

In 1786, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Constitutional Convention was held with the idea of amending the Articles. When the convention ended with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they insured that a Bill of Rights would be made, which would provide constitutional guarantees against taking away certain rights.

One of those rights was the right to bear arms. This was intended to prevent the Federal Government from taking away the ability of the states to raise an army and defend itself and arguably to prevent them from taking away from individuals the ability to bear arms.

The meaning of this amendment is controversial with respect to gun control.

The National Rifle Association, which supports gun rights, has a stone plaque in front of its headquarters bearing the words “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The slogan means that individual citizens have the right to own and use guns.

American law has always said that the militia includes ordinary private citizens, and gun rights advocates say that the amendment means individuals have the right to own and use guns. Gun control advocates began in the late 20th century to say it means only that there is only some sort of collective or state-controlled right.

Supreme Court opinions have all been consistent with the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but the lower court opinions are mixed.

As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is Parker v District of Columbia, in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007 that the DC gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.

The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.””’

Quoted from: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

Down to the Last Second (Amendment)

Participants in the various debates on firearms, crime, and constitutional law may have noticed that the Second Amendment is often quoted differently by those involved. The two main variations differ in punctuation- specifically, in the number of commas used to separate those twenty-seven words. But which is the correct one? The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic. Therefore, a look into the progression of this declaratory and restrictive clause from its inception to its final form is in order.

Before beginning, one must note that common nouns, like “state” and “people,” were often capitalized in official and unofficial documents of the era. Also, an obsolete formation of the letter s used to indicate the long s sound was in common usage. The long ‘s’ is subject to confusion with the lower case ‘f’ ,therefore, Congress” is sometimes spelled as “Congrefs,” as is the case in the parchment copy of the Bill of Rights displayed by the National Archives. The quotations listed here are accurate. With the exception of the omission of quotations marks, versions of what is now known as the Second Amendment in boldface appear with the exact spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as the cited originals.

During ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.1

On July 21, John Vining of Delaware was appointed to chair a select committee of eleven to review, and make a report on, the subject of amendments to the Constitution. Each committeeman represented one of the eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution at that time), with James Madison representing Virginia. Unfortunately, no record of the committee’s proceedings is known to exist. Seven days later, Vining duly issued the report, one of the amendments reading:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. 2

In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people religiously scrupulous in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty. However, motions to strike the clause were not carried. On August 21, the House enumerated the Amendments as modified, with the fifth article listed as follows:

5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. 3

Finally, on August 24, the House of Representatives passed its proposals for amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the Senate for their consideration. The next day, the Senate entered the document into their official journal. The Senate Journal shows Article the Fifth as:

Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. 4

On September 4, the Senate debated the amendments proposed by the House, and the conscientious objector clause was quickly stricken. Sadly, these debates were held in secret, so records of them do not exist. The Senators agreed to accept Article the Fifth in this form:

…a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed. 5

In further debates on September 9, the Senate agreed to strike the words, “the best,” and replace them with, “necessary to the.” Since the third and fourth articles had been combined, the Senators also agreed to rename the amendment as Article the Fourth. The Senate Journal that day carried the article without the word, “best,” but also without the replacements, “necessary to.” Note that the extraneous commas have been omitted:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 6

With two-thirds of the Senate concurring on the proposed amendments, they were sent back to the House for the Representatives’ perusal. On September 21, the House notified the Senate that it agreed to some of their amendments, but not all of them. However, they agreed to Article the Fourth in its entirety:

Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth amendments… 7

By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 8

The above version is used almost exclusively today, but aside from the parchment copy, the author was unable to find any other official documents from that era which carry the amendment with the extra commas. In fact, in the appendix of the Senate Journal, Article the Fourth is entered as reading:

Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.9

Also, the Annals of Congress, formally called The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, show the proposed amendment as follows:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.10

Further, once two-thirds of both chambers of the Congress agreed to the proposed amendments, the House passed a resolve to request that the President send copies of them to the governors of the eleven states in the Union, and to those of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Senate concurred on September 26, as recorded in their journal:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the executives of the United States, which have ratified the constitution copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto; and like copies to the executives of the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.11

Fortunately, an original copy of the amendments proposed by the Congress, and sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, does survive. Certified as a true copy by Assembly Secretary Henry Ward, it reads in part:

Article the Fourth, –A well regulated Militia being neceffary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms fhall not be infringed. 12

And so, the proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification. When notifying the President that their legislatures or conventions had ratified some or all of the proposed amendments, some states attached certified copies of them. New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island notified the general government that they had ratified the fourth amendment in this form:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 13

Articles the First and Second were not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, but by December 15, 1791, the last ten articles were. These, of course, are now known as the Bill of Rights. Renumbering the amendments was required since the first two had not been ratified. The 1796 revision of The Federalist on the New Constitution reflects the change as such:

ARTICLE THE SECOND

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.14

This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley’s Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term “state” is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.15,16, 17

This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. 18

(The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a “literal print” of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)19

Thus, the correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word “state.” It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified.

Why the Commas are Important

It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous. These points will be demonstrated later in the Second Amendment Series.

Footnotes to Comment section:

1. Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm, 16 January 2000.

2. Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_scom.htm, 16 January 2000.

3. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 August 1789.

4. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 25 August 1789.

5. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 4 September 1789.

6. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 9 September 1789.

7. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 September 1789.

8. Bill of Rights. National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg, 22 January 2000.

9. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix.

10. Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix

11. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong. 1st sess., 26 September 1789.

12. A True Bill. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/billofrt.jpg, 27 January 2000.

13. U.S. House Journal, 1st Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix Note: Maryland and South Carolina capitalized the “m” in “Militia.”

14. The Federalist on the New Constitution, 1796. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/f16b1234.jpg, 17 February 2000.

15. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm, 18 February 2000.

16. Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html, 2 February 2000.

17. Statutes at Large 1845, 21.

18. Second Amendment–Bearing Arms. The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html, 18 February 2000.

19. Text of the Amendments (Literal Print). The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/conamt.html, 18 February 2000.

Liberals have made various efforts to subvert the Second Amendment by enacting unconstitutional gun laws which restrict the ability of individuals to protect themselves against the excesses of government. Examples include:

See also list of celebrities against Second Amendment

Bill of Rights: 1 – Freedom of speech, press, etc. 2 – Right to bear arms 3 – Quartering of soldiers 4 – Warrants 5 – Due process 6 – Right to a speedy trial 7 – Right by trial of a jury 8 – No cruel or unusual punishments 9 – Unenumerated rights 10 – Power to the people and states

11 – Immunity of states to foreign suits 12 – Revision of presidential election procedures 13 – Abolition of slavery 14 – Citizenship 15 – Racial suffrage 16 – Federal income tax 17 – Direct election to the United States Senate 18 – Prohibition of alcohol 19 – Women’s suffrage 20 – Terms of the presidency 21 – Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment 22 – Limits the president to two terms 23 – Electoral College 24 – Prohibition of poll taxes 25 – Presidential disabilities 26 – Voting age lowered to 18 27 – Variance of congressional compensation

See the article here:
Second Amendment – Conservapedia

 Posted by at 10:45 pm  Tagged with:

Bergen County NJ for Liberty (Hackensack, NJ) – Meetup

 Liberty  Comments Off on Bergen County NJ for Liberty (Hackensack, NJ) – Meetup
Oct 072015
 

Please note: we are no longer associated with Campaign for Liberty.

We are a grassroots group of local individuals who share a common bond, freedom and liberty!We strive to root ourselves in the principles of truth, freedom, and prosperity. The diversity among our members ranges from age, ethnic background, beliefs/religions, as well as political views (or lack thereof). The expression of sovereignty and self-ownership that radiates from our members is what makes our group unique.

Our group comprises many creative and productive members of society, including philosophers, engineers, activists, entrepreneurs, lawyers, educators, doctors, explorers, and other concerned members of the community. We aim to improve ourselves as individuals, and in turn, the world in which we live.

Since its inception, our group has been rooted in truth and freedom. We strongly support the principles of truth, individual liberty, personal success, self defense, non-aggression, and true free trade.

We have recognized a moral imperative to imbue the true meaning of individual sovereignty in the hearts and minds of others, to exercise our natural and inherent rights to freedom of expression, and to address issues commonly ignored. Our interests vary as individuals, but as a group we work to address some of, but not limited to, the following:

– INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY – financial & economic freedom – private barter systems – personal growth / self-improvement – natural living practices / healthy food – alternative energy technologies – consciousness / enlightenment

As a group wemaintain an equal level of respect for one another’s values and opinions, and we encourage participation by not having an online forum or message board on the site.

Therefore, if you want to share with the group, you have to come out to events and participate! We try to keep emails to the group at a minimum, we don’t want to intrude or flood your inbox, so you’ll know when you receive an email from us it will be an important one, regarding new meetups, updates, reminders, etc.

Sign up, keep checking the calendar, feel free to attend every event, or only the ones that capture your interest. The hardcore 24/7’ers are just as welcome as the weekend warriors. Join us, we look forward to meeting you!

——————————————————————————————

New Jersey Federal Representatives:

House:http://www.house.gov(top-right) Find your Rep by Zip

NJ Representatives:http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_nj

Senate:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=NJ

New Jersey Sate Assembly and Senate:

New Jersey:http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/municipalities.asp

Bergen County Representatives:

Freeholders:http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/Index.aspx?NID=470

Sheriff:http://www.bcsd.us/SitePages/message.aspx

Executive:http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/Index.aspx?NID=461

County Clerk:http://www.bergencountyclerk.org/

——————————————————————————————

Corporate Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

——————————————————————————————

Recommended Videos:

The American Dream(re: Federal Reserve / Economy – animated 29 mins)

America: Freedom to Fascism(112 mins)

Fabled Enemies(Re: War on Terror, 102 mins)

Fiat Empire(Re: Federal Reserve System, 59 mins)

Overview of America(30 mins)

Philosophy of Liberty(8 mins)

The War Machine by Joe Rogan(9 mins)

See original here:
Bergen County NJ for Liberty (Hackensack, NJ) – Meetup

Repeal the Second Amendment – Baltimore Sun

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Repeal the Second Amendment – Baltimore Sun
Oct 042015
 

In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a civilian’s right to keep a gun in his home. In 2010, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of state and local governments to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. The vote in each case was five-to-four not exactly a ringing endorsement of the court’s reasoning in either case. But for now, the law of the land with regard to easy access to guns is settled.

The Second Amendment is enthroned mistakenly, but as a matter of law as a fundamental dimension of individual freedom. The practical result is that we must live with carnage by firearms as a daily fact of American life.

Surely, the timid voices of reason and humanity whisper, there is some limit to the atrocities that Americans will tolerate. When Adam Lanza, with no prior criminal history nor treatment for mental illness, killed 26 people including 20 first-grade students at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on December 14, 2012, the nation was riveted and horrified. Something this unspeakable, this ghastly, this straight-out-of-hell, changed exactly nothing in federal law.

Then, in June of this year, a gunman killed nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C. Two months later, a Virginia TV news crew was slaughtered on air, and the deed posted almost immediately to social media by the killer. And Thursday, a gunman killed at least 9 people and wounded others on the campus of Oregon’s Umpqua Community College.

What will it take to shock us out of our torpor? Another dead president? Not likely half the country will applaud it. How about a dozen people inspired by ISIS slipping simultaneously into the Mall of America and unveiling the assault weapons they have obtained in perfectly legal ways? I cannot imagine what level of gun violence will serve more to horrify than to entertain.

It is certainly a respectable idea to accept the Second Amendment and treat death by firearms as a public health issue. It is doomed to fail, however, because it isn’t the criminal or the psychotic who produces the murder, it’s the easy means to act out one’s fantasies that produces the criminal and the psychotic. Millions of guns, thousands of gun deaths.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, the leading dissenter in Heller and McDonald, has published a wise little book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” He suggests five words be added to the Second Amendment so that it reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

I say, let’s get rid of the Second Amendment altogether. Let the states and Congress regulate firearms as they see fit. Some states, most of them without big-city violence, will retain laws that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms. Gang-ridden Chicago will try again to crack down on guns. Congress will reconsider universal background checks and the prohibition of assault weapons.

As Justice Stevens informs us in his book, “legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.”

And we’ve all already seen enough harm.

Hal Riedl retired from the Maryland Division of Correction in 2010, and from the office of the state’s attorney for Baltimore City in December 2014. His email is halriedl@msn.com.

Continued here:
Repeal the Second Amendment – Baltimore Sun

 Posted by at 9:44 pm  Tagged with:



Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism