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

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:

The Second Amendment Is a Gun-Control Amendment

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on The Second Amendment Is a Gun-Control Amendment
Oct 032015
 

Participants consoling each other during a candlelight vigil for the nine people who were killed in a shooting at Umpqua Community College, in Roseburg, Oregon, on Thursday. The gunman also was killed. Credit photograph by Rich Pedroncelli/AP

The tragedy happensyesterday at a school in Oregon, and then as it will againexactly as predicted, and uniquely here. It hardly seems worth the energy to once again make the same essential point that the Presidenthis growing exasperation and disbelief moving, if not effective, as he serves as national mournerhas now made again: we know how to fix this. Gun control ends gun violence as surely an antibiotics end bacterial infections, as surely as vaccines end childhood measlesnot perfectly and in every case, but overwhelmingly and everywhere that its been taken seriously and tried at length. These lives can be saved. Kids continue to die en masse because one political party wont allow that to change, and the partywont allow it to change because of the irrational and often paranoid fixations that make the massacre of students and children an acceptable cost of fetishizing guns.

In the course of todays conversation, two issues may come up, treated in what is now called a trolling tonepretending to show concern but actually standing in the way of real argument. One is the issue of mental health and this particular killers apparent religious bigotry. Everyone crazy enough to pick up a gun and kill many people is crazy enough to have an ideology to attach to the act. The pointthe only pointis that, everywhere else, that person rants in isolation or on his keyboard; only in America do we cheerfully supply him with military-style weapons to express his rage. As the otherwise reliably Republican (but still Canadian-raised) David Frum wisely writes: Every mass shooter has his own hateful motive. They all use the same tool.

More standard, and seemingly more significant, is the claimoften made by those who say they recognize the tragedy of mass shootings and pretend, at least, that they would like to see gun sanity reign in Americathat the Second Amendment acts as a barrier to anything like the gun laws, passed after mass shootings, that have saved so many lives in Canada and Australia. Like it or not, according to this argument, the Constitution limits our ability to control the number and kinds of guns in private hands. Even the great Jim Jeffries, in his memorable standup on American madness, says, Why cant you change the Second Amendment? Its an amendment!as though further amending it were necessary to escape it.

In point of historical and constitutional fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the only amendment necessary for gun legislation, on the local or national level, is the Second Amendment itself, properly understood, as it was for two hundred years in its plain original sense. This sense can be summed up in a sentence: if the Founders hadnt wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase well regulated in the amendment. (A quick thought experiment: What if those words were not in the preamble to the amendment and a gun-sanity group wanted to insert them? Would the National Rifle Association be for or against this change? Its obvious, isnt it?)

The confusion is contemporary. (And, let us hope, temporary.) It rises from the younger-than-springtime decision D.C. v. Heller, from 2008, when Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a 54 majority, insisted that, whether he wanted it to or not, the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a weapon. (A certain disingenuous show of disinterestedness is typical of his opinions.)

This was an astounding constitutional reading, or misreading, as original as Citizens United, and as idiosyncratic as the reasoning in Bush v. Gore, which found a conclusive principle designed to be instantly discardedor, for that matter, as the readiness among the courts right wing to overturn a health-care law passed by a supermajority of the legislature over a typo. Anyone who wants to both grasp that decisions radicalism and get a calm, instructive view of what the Second Amendment does say, and was intended to say, and was always before been understood to say, should read Justice John Paul Stevenss brilliant, persuasive dissent in that case. Every person who despairs of the sanity of the country should read it, at least once, not just for its calm and irrefutable case-making but as a reminder of what sanity sounds like.

Stevens, a Republican judge appointed by a Republican President, brilliantly analyzes the history of the amendment, making it plain that for Scalia, et al., to arrive at their view, they have to reference not the deliberations that produced the amendment but, rather, bring in British common law and lean on interpretations that arose long after the amendment was passed. Both keep arms and bear arms, he demonstrates, were, in the writers day, military terms used in military contexts. (Gary Wills has usefully illuminated this truth in the New York Review of Books.) The intent of the Second Amendment, Stevens explains, was obviously to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. The one seemingly sound argument in the Scalia decisionthat the people in the Second Amendment ought to be the same people referenced in the other amendments, that is, everybodyis exactly the interpretation that the preamble was meant to guard against.

Stevenss dissent should be read in full, but his conclusion in particular is clear and ringing:

The right the Court announces [in Heller] was not enshrined in the Second Amendment by the Framers; it is the product of todays law-changing decision. . . . Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Courts announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding . . .

Justice Stevens and his colleagues were not saying, a mere seven years ago, that the gun-control legislation in dispute in Heller alone was constitutional within the confines of the Second Amendment. They were asserting that essentially every kind of legislation concerning guns in the hands of individuals was compatible with the Second Amendmentindeed, that regulating guns in individual hands was one of the purposes for which the amendment was offered.

So there is no need to amend the Constitution, or to alter the historical understanding of what the Second Amendment meant. No new reasoning or tortured rereading is needed to reconcile the Constitution with common sense. All that is necessary for sanity to rule again, on the question of guns, is to restore the amendment to its commonly understood meaning as it was articulated by this wise Republican judge a scant few years ago. And all you need for that is one saner and, in the true sense, conservative Supreme Court vote. One Presidential election could make that happen.

Sign up for the daily newsletter.Sign up for the daily newsletter: the best of The New Yorker every day.

Read the rest here:
The Second Amendment Is a Gun-Control Amendment

Fort Lauderdale Beaches | Beaches in the Fort Lauderdale Area

 Beaches  Comments Off on Fort Lauderdale Beaches | Beaches in the Fort Lauderdale Area
Oct 022015
 

deals

live beach cam

67

beach hotels

beach pix

beach quiz

sea turtles

turtle programs

waterways

8

watersports

scenic highway

Susan Orleans The Orchid Thief

John Grogan Marley and Me

John MacDonald Travis McGee series The Deep Blue Goodbye

Elmore Leonard Gold Coast

Carl Hiaasen Strip Tease Tourist Season Skinny Dip Hoot Downhill Lie

Paul Levine Flesh and Bones

Tim Dorsey Nuclear Jellyfish

Larry Shames Welcome to Paradise

Barbara Parker The Dark of Day

Stuart Woods Orchid Beach

James Hall Mean High Tide

Charles Willeford The Way We Die Now

The Beatles Here Comes the Sun

Sheryl Crow Soak Up the Sun

Coldplay Paradise

Train Mermaid

The Eagles Tequila Sunrise

Katrina & The Waves Walking on Sunshine

The Kinks Sunny Afternoon

Smashmouth Walking on the Sun

Beach Boys Keepin’ the Summer Alive

Celine Dion Sunshine in the Heart

David Lee Roth Just Like Paradise

George Michael Ray of Sunshine

Don Henley Boys of Summer

Frank Sinatra Let’s Get Away From It All

Stevie Wonder You are the Sunshine of My life

ZZ Top Cheap Sunglasses

The moment you take your socks off, you’re free. Warm your toes in Greater Fort Lauderdale’s 23 miles of sunkissedbeaches – an easy walk from many hotels, restaurants and activities. Experience a sunny state of mind.

Enjoy clean, safe, user-friendly Florida beaches. Hollywood, Dania Beach, Deerfield Beach, Pompano Beach, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, and Fort Lauderdale, are proud to have been continuously certified as Blue Wave Beaches by the Clean Beaches Council of Washington DC since 1999.

Enjoy the sunrise on beautiful Deerfield Beach, Greater Fort Lauderdales northern most award-winning, cove-like beaches and the destinations family playground. For the more adventurous family, a day can be spent at Ski Rixen, one of America’s first cable water ski parks. This innovative water skiing system pulls you silently over glassy smooth water without a boat! Or, take a trip to the beach for sandcastle building, volleyball, dining at open-air eateries or fishing off the Deerfield Pier. Click for Deerfield beach hotels.

Need to unwind with a tranquil, relaxing day? Hillsboro Beach is Greater Fort Lauderdale’s Quiet Escape. Enjoy views of the Hillsboro Lighthouse and remember to watch your step, as the beach is popular with nature lovers who come to see the turtle nesting. Right next to the Lighthouse, the Hillsboro Inlet, where yachts enter, is home to the stone statue dedicated to the Barefoot Mailman. From 1885 until 1892 a mail carrier would make a seven-day journey, walking 68 miles from Palm Beach, through what is now Broward County to Miami. The weeklong trip was spent mostly barefoot walking on the hard-packed sand along the ocean – hence the name. Click for Hillsboro Beach hotels.

For those that think life is always a game, Pompano Beach offers sports of all sorts. Named for the saltwater fish found exclusively in area waters and home to the annual Pompano Seafood festival and Fishing Rodeo, the water on this stretch of coastline is some of the warmest and clearest in South Florida due to a bend in the Gulf Stream. Want to get off the beach? You can tee-it-up for a round of championship golf or place your bets and enjoy harness horseracing.Click for Pompano Beach hotels. Watch video here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yxFwFIFUmU

With a reputation as a low-key getaway, Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, is a 1/2 mile wide hamlet which has that old fashioned, charming “beach village” vibe. This town is one of the only locations in Florida where the three-tier natural coral reef system is close enough for visitors to swim out for snorkeling or diving. Friday nights the one street that runs through this sleepy town is blocked off, a stage is erected and live music is enjoyed. Your new favorite spot will be the Ice Cream Shop (yup, that’s the name), where they tend to know everyone on a first-name basis. Click for Lauderdale-By-The-Sea beach hotels.

With itsmakeover from a college student Mecca to a tonier clientele complete, Fort Lauderdale has been transformed into a beach chic destination. From Lauderdale luxe properties dotting the beachfront skyline to Las Olas Boulevard for casually chic shopping and dining scene, Fort Lauderdale Beach has some of the best people-watching in South Florida. And don’t forget to stroll, jog, or blade along the palm tree-fringed, brick-lined beachfront promenade. Click for Fort Lauderdale beach hotels.

As the hidden gem of the area, Dania Beach is home to some of the prettiest and least crowded stretches of ocean in Greater Fort Lauderdale. Dania Beach Ocean Park has an impressive fishing pier where you can dine and enjoy panoramic views and scrumptious seafood caught just out of the ocean. Close by, John U. Lloyd Beach State Park is also a favorite destination for kayaking, swimming, picnicking or just cloud watching. Watch a Good Morning America feature on John U. Lloyd State Park.

Retro cool Hollywood is home to the Broadwalk which runs 2 miles along sun-kissed beach. Bike or stroll and find an outdoor caf to wile away the hours. Play with “man’s best friend” in the area’s dog beach. (Where part of the movie Marley & Me was filmed.) Hop aboard the trolley and head to Arts Park in Young Circle, the epicenter of Hollywood culture and cuisine. Take an art class during the day, stay for dinner and drinks, and then party the night away at Seminole Hard Rock Casino. Live Hollywood Beach cam. Watch a Florida Travel & Life video about Hollywood. Click for Hollywood beach hotels.

At the southern end of Greater Fort Lauderdale, Hallandale Beach is the perfect place for a guy’s getaway with a wide array of outdoor sports from golf and swimming to boating and salt-water fishing. Visitors can enjoy beautiful stretches of beach and exciting nightlife. Two of South Florida’s premier “racinos” are located in Hallandale Beach – Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, home of the sport of kings, thoroughbred horseracing and the Florida Derby, and the Mardi Gras Racetrack and Gaming Center. Click for Hallandale Beach hotels.

Continued here:
Fort Lauderdale Beaches | Beaches in the Fort Lauderdale Area

 Posted by at 2:42 am  Tagged with:

History of Gun Rights – a Timeline of the 2nd Amendment

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on History of Gun Rights – a Timeline of the 2nd Amendment
Sep 262015
 

After going virtually unchallenged for more than one hundred years, Americans right to own guns was one of the hottest political topics of the second half of the 20th Century. The issue has calmed somewhat in the early days of the 21st Century, but if history is our guide, the debate is going nowhere until an inevitable and definitive ruling is handed down by the nations courts: does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens?

1791: The Second Amendment is Ratified

The ink had hardly dried on the ratification papers of the Constitution before a political movement was undertaken to amend the framing document to declare gun ownership as a right.

A select committee assembled to review amendments proposed by James Madison authored the language that would become the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights: 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.

1871: NRA Founded

The National Rifle Association was founded by a pair of Union soldiers in 1871, not as a political lobby but as an effort to promote the shooting of rifles. However, the organization would grow to become the face of America’s pro-gun lobby in the 20th Century.

1822: Bliss v. Commonwealth Brings Individual Right Into Question

The Second Amendments intent for individual Americans first came into question in 1822, in Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court case arose in Kentucky after a man was indicted for carrying a sword concealed in a cane.

He was convicted and fined $100.

Bliss appealed the conviction, citing a provision in the Commonwealths constitution that states: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned.

In a majority vote with just one judge dissenting, the court overturned the conviction against Bliss and ruled the law unconstitutional and void.

1856: Dred Scott v. Sandford Upholds Individual Right

The Second Amendment as an individual right was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856. With the rights of slaves in question, the nations highest court opined on the intent of the Second Amendment for the first time, writing that affording slaves full rights of American citizenship would include the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

1934: National Firearms Act Brings About First Major Gun Control

The first major effort to eliminate private ownership of firearms came with the National Firearms Act of 1934. A direct response of the rise of gangster violence in general, and the Saint Valentines Day massacre in particular, the National Firearms Act sought to circumvent the Second Amendment by controlling firearms through a tax excise ($200 for each gun sale).

The National Firearms Act targeted fully-automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, pen and cane guns, and other firearms defined as gangster weapons.

1938: Federal Firearms Act Requires License for Dealers

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 required anyone selling or shipping firearms to be licensed through the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Federal Firearms License (FFL) stipulated that guns could not be sold to persons convicted of certain crimes and required sellers to log the names and addresses of anyone they sold guns to.

1968: Gun Control Act Ushers In New Regulations

Thirty years after Americas first sweeping reform of gun laws, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy helped to usher in new federal legislation with wide-ranging implications. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited mail order sales of rifles and shotguns, increased license requirements for sellers and broadened the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm to include convicted felons, drug users and the mentally incompetent.

1994: Brady Act and Assault Weapons Ban

Two new federal laws passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994 became the hallmark of gun control efforts of the latter 20th Century.

The first, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, required a five-day waiting period and background check for the sale of handguns, while also requiring a National Instant Criminal Background Check System to be created. The second, the Assault Weapons Ban (officially entitled the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) banned a number of rifles defined as assault weapons, including many semi-automatic, military-style rifles such as the AK-47 and SKS.

2004: Assault Weapons Ban Sunsets

A Republican-controlled Congress refused to pass a reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, allowing the ban to expire. President George W. Bush was criticized by gun control supporters for not actively pressuring Congress to renew the ban, while gun rights supporters criticized him for indicating that he would sign a reauthorization if Congress passed it.

2008: D.C. v. Heller is a Major Setback for Gun Control

Gun rights proponents were thrilled in 2008 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment extends gun ownership rights to individuals. The decision affirmed an earlier decision by a lower appeals court and struck down handgun bans in Washington D.C. as unconstitutional.

The case was lauded as the first Supreme Court case to affirm the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment. However, the ruling applied only to federal enclaves, such as the District of Columbia. Justices did not opine on the Second Amendments application to the states.

2010: Gun Owners Score Another Victory in McDonald v. Chicago

Gun rights supporters scored their second major Supreme Court victory in 2010, when the high court affirmed the individual right to own guns in McDonald v. Chicago.

The ruling, which was an inevitable follow-up to D.C. v. Heller, marked the first time that the Supreme Court ruled the provisions of the Second Amendment extend to the states. The ruling overturned an earlier decision by a lower court in a legal challenge to Chicagos ordinance banning the possession of handguns by its citizens.

See the original post:
History of Gun Rights – a Timeline of the 2nd Amendment

 Posted by at 12:42 am  Tagged with:

Articles about Second Amendment – latimes

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Articles about Second Amendment – latimes
Sep 262015
 

CALIFORNIA | LOCAL

July 2, 2000 | LINDA ASHTON, ASSOCIATED PRESS

They lock the gate to Canada at 5 p.m. But in this woodsy corner of northeastern Washington, no one really seems to mind the wait until it reopens promptly at 9 the next morning. In an emergency, there’s a border crossing open until midnight about 10 miles to the west. “This part of the country is still kind of backward. I like it that way.

NEWS

May 13, 2000 | RICHARD SIMON, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Their counterdemonstration in support of gun rights will be smaller than the Million Mom March. But the gun-owning women who make up the Second Amendment Sisters feel just as passionately about their cause. “The anti-gun factions constantly say that if it saves one life, it’s worth it,” said Debra Collins, who once used a 12-gauge shotgun to defend herself from an attack by her ex-husband at 4 o’clock in the morning. “Well, my firearm saved one life–mine.”

NEWS

July 22, 1999 | MICHAEL HARRIS, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

Like many another old-timer, Leon Uris looks at America and doesn’t like what he sees. Gun manufacturers peddling ever more lethal weaponry under the cover of the Second Amendment. Media grown hysterical and trivial. Racial sores left to fester. The nation’s “social agenda” abandoned in favor of corporate greed. A general falling-off of virtue, so that the heroic Marines of World War II he wrote about in his first novel, “Battle Cry,” are grotesquely parodied by right-wing militiamen.

CALIFORNIA | LOCAL

May 31, 1994

Your editorial “Fear of Gun Crime: Deeper Than Any Set of Statistics” (May 22) hits very wide of the bull’s-eye. Though criminal usage of firearms is up, so is successful civilian usage in justified self-defense, to over 2 million per annum. Regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment, you’re only half right. The constitutional framers were rightly afraid of a dictatorial central government; however, the Second Amendment does in fact confirm an individual right to own arms.

CALIFORNIA | LOCAL

May 24, 1994

I was especially intrigued by the last paragraph of “Handgun Crime Soaring in U.S., Report Says,” May 17. I quote, “The survey also found that 38% of the victims who were armed attacked the individuals seeking to harm them. One-fifth of those attempting to protect themselves with a firearm were injured, compared to almost half who used other weapons or had no weapon at all.” I guess it comes as no surprise that the notoriously anti-gun Times would bury this intriguing bit of news at the very end. SAM BRUNSTEIN Glendale By now everyone knows the position of the National Rifle Assn.

NEWS

May 8, 1994

In Paula Poundstone’s piece (“The Good Old Days? Somebody Stole ‘Em,” Laugh Lines, April 25) she makes the false statement regarding the Old West that “they didn’t have the evil NRA then because nobody was against guns to begin with.” In fact, the National Rifle Assn. was incorporated in 1871 during the relatively brief period between the Civil War and the turn of the century that we think of as the “Wild West” period. It was during this era that attempts were made to disenfranchise and leave defenseless newly freed blacks by not allowing them to possess firearms as all other Americans could.

Read more:
Articles about Second Amendment – latimes

Its Hip! Its Cool! Its Libertarianism! – By Connor …

 Misc  Comments Off on Its Hip! Its Cool! Its Libertarianism! – By Connor …
Sep 232015
 

Calling yourself a libertarian today is a lot like wearing a mullet back in the nineteen eighties. It sends a clear signal: business up front, party in the back.

You know, those guys who call themselves socially liberal but fiscally conservative? Yeah. Its for them.

Today, the ruling class knows that theyve lost the culture wars. And unlike with our parents, they cant count on weeping eagles and the stars n bars to get us to fall in line. So libertarianism is their last ditch effort to ensure a succession to the throne.

Republicans freak you out but think the Democrats are wimps? You must be a libertarian! Want to sound smart and thoughtful in front of your boss without alienating your socially liberal buds? Just say the L-word, pass the coke and everyones happy!

Just look at how they play it up as the cool alternative to traditional conservatism. Its pathetic. George Will wore the bowtie. But Reason magazines Nick Gillespie wears an ironic D.A.R.E. t-shirt. And dont forget the rest of his all-black wardrobe, complete with leather jacket. What a totally with-it badass.

***

With such a bleak economic forecast for the Millennials, it shouldnt surprise anyone that our elites want to make libertarianism shorthand for political disaffection. Now theres a demographic with some growth potential. And its inspired a lot of poorly-sourced, speculative babble about how the kids have all gone Galt, almost always through the personal anecdotes of young white men.

A couple of months ago, after Harvard released a poll on the political views of Millennials, libertarians took to the internet to tell the world how the youth of America was little more than a giant anarcho-capitalist sleeper cellready to overthrow the state and privatize the air supply at a moments notice. So I took a look at the poll numbers. And you know what? Its utter horseshit.

Right off the bat, were told that 79% of Millennials dont consider themselves politically-engaged at all so, uh, keep that in mind.

Much is made of the fact that less than half of the survey respondents thought the government should provide free health care to those who cant afford it. What they dont mention is that that number (44 percent) is twice the percentage who say they stand against (22 percent) such hand outs. Nearly a third didnt think one way or the other.

Then we hear that the poll proves kids dont care about climate change. But they dont mention that slightly more Millennials wanted the government to do more on that front than theyre doing noweven if it hurt economic growth. Nearly half, you guessed it, neither agree nor disagree. (Come on kids, Rock the Vote!)

More Millennials identify as liberals than conservatives. Hardly any of them (10 percent) support the libertarian-embraced Tea Party. About three-quarters say they despise congressional Republicans.

Nearly two-thirds voted for Obama in 2008. Slightly over half approve of him now. Nearly three-quarters of Millennials hate congressional Republicans. 55% trust in the U.S. military, one of the largest state-socialist programs in the entire world, also responsible for, you know, those wars that libertarians supposedly hate.

Over a quarter put their faith in the federal government all or most of the time, and 55% some of the time. Only 17% answered never. And despite all their supposed Ron Paul love, they trust the globalist United Nations even more than they do the feds.

A little nibble here with only 36% approving of Obamas handling of the budget deficit, but then again, thats actually better than his rating on the deficit with Americans of all ages. Plus, worrying about the budget deficit is how dumb people have tried to sound smart since the days of FDR. And most people are dumb.

And when we finally get down to a hypothetical libertarian match-up between Obama and Ron Paul41 percent pick Obama and only 27 percent pick Paul.

Oh, but the kiddies are cool with gay marriage and tired of bombing brown people overseas? No shit. That just makes them normal people living in the 21st century. Im for single-payer health care and cant stand Barney Frank. Does that mean I sip the Kool-Aid at the Lyndon LaRouche compound?

None of this should be too surprising. For almost two decades, roughly two-thirds of the American public have supported what wed call a moderate European welfare stateputting the average U.S. citizen significantly to the left of the Democratic party, a center/center-right organization saddled, much to their dismay, with a perpetually-disappointed center-left constituency.

But hey, our ruling class would shit a brick if any of that wealth redistribution stuff happened over here. Which is why this is a center-right nation has been a favorite Fox News talking point for over ten years. Its only nowafter Occupy Wall Street forced their handthat the media is finally willing to admit that it might be bullshit.

But libertarianism? Our ruling class is totally fine with that. Smoke your reefer and sodomize whomever you please, just keep your mouth shut and hand over your Social Security account.

***

Never trust a hippietarian

I get the appeal. The states been sticking it to working folks for decades. It seems almost unimaginable that Big Government could ever be run by us and not the One Percent.

But child labor laws, the Civil Rights act, federal income tax, minimum wage laws, Social Security, Medicare, food safetylibertarians have accused all of them as infringements upon the free market that would lead to economic ruin. And over and over again, theyve been proven wrong. Life goes ona little less gruesomelyand society prospers.

There is no such thing as a free-market, economist Ha-Joon Chang has said repeatedly. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them.

In other words, markets are social institutions, just as much under the thumb of politics and government as everything else. Which means theyre subject to democratic pressures, as they should be.

And what you earn from said markets? Chang: All our wages are, at root, politically determined. Despite what Ron Pauls trolls might have you believe, gold Krugerrands dont spray out your asshole every time you type up a spreadsheet or pour a Grande mochachino for your next customer.

Capitalism has always been a product of Big Government. Ever since the railroads of the nineteenth century, to Silicon Valley, Big Pharma and the banks, the Nanny State has been there all along, passing subsidies and tax breaks, and eating the costs the private sector doesnt want.

So whenever a libertarian says that capitalism is at odds with the state, laugh at him. Its like saying that the NFL is at war with football fields. To be a libertarian is to say that God or the universe marked up that field, squirted out the pigskins from the bowels of the earth and handed down the playbooks from Mt. Sinai.

***

When a Red like me wants to argue for something like universal health care or free college tuition, we can point to dozens of wealthy democratic societies doing just that. The Stalinist left is nothing more than a faint memory. But where are the libertarian Utopias?

General Pinochets Chile was a longtime favorite. But seeing as how it relied on a fascist coupwith a big assist from Nixon and KissingerChiles lost a bit of that Cold War luster. So these days, for the slightly more with-it libertarian, we get Singapore as the model of choice.

Hey, isnt that where the Facebook guy lives these days? Thats pretty hip!

Ah, Singapore: a city-state near the very top in the world when it comes to number of police and execution rate per capita. Its a charming little one-party state where soft-core pornography is outlawed, labor rights are almost nonexistent and gay sex is banned. Expect a caning if you break a window. And death for a baggie of cocaine.

But hey: no capital gains tax! (Freedom!)

Singapore: Libertarian Paradise

Its not like any of this will make it through the glassy eyes of the true-believers. Ludwig von Mises, another libertarian pin-up boy, wrote in 1927 that, Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization.

Lately, Ron Pauls economic advisor has been claiming that Communist Party-ruled China has a freer market than the U.S.s.

***

So lets talk a little about this freedom theyre always going on about. Or, to paraphrase Lenin, the libertarians ultimate nemesis: freedom for who to do what?

Most American adults spend about half their waking hours at a job. And during that time, libertarians do not give a flying fuck about your liberty. Instead, they condone the most brutal of tyrannies all in the name of a private employers freedom.

Racial discrimination, verbal abuse, random drug testing, body-searches, sexual harassment, illegal termination, email monitoring, union busting, even withholding piss-breaksask any libertarian how they feel about workplace unfreedom and theyll tell you: Hey man, if you dont like it, you have the freedom to get another job. If folks are hiring. But with four-and-a-half applicants for every job, theyre probably not.

Heres another thing libertarians always forget to mention: a free-market capitalist society has never and by definition can never lead to full-employment. It has to be made to byyou guessed itthe Nanny State. Free market capitalism actually requires a huge mass of the unemployedits not just a side effect.

And make no mistake: corporate America loves a high unemployment rate.

When most everyone has a job, workers are less likely to take shit. They do nutty things like join unions, demand better wages and refuse to work off-the-clock. They start to stand up to real power: not to the EPA, and not the King of England, but to their bosses.

But with a real unemployment rate close to 20 percent, that aint happening. Well, fuck. Better sign up for that Big Government welfare state theyre always whining about. Hey, dont worry. You could always sell a little crack and turn a few tricks. Libertarians totally support that.

After all, thats your freedom, dude!

***

Libertarianism isnt some cutting-edge political philosophy that somehow transcends the traditional left to right spectrum. Its a radical, hard-right economic doctrine promoted by wealthy people who always end up backing Republican candidates, no matter how often they talk about civil liberties, ending the wars and legalizing pot. Funny how that works.

Its the third way for a society in which turning against capitalism or even taking your foot off the pedal is not an option. Thanks to our shitty constitution and the most violent labor history in the West, we never even got a social-democratic party like the rest of the developed world.

So what do we get? The libertarian line: No, no: the problem isnt that were too capitalist. Its that were not capitalist enough!

Genius.

At a time in which our society has never been more interdependent in every possible way, libertarians think theyre John fucking Wayne looking out over his ranch with an Apache scalp in his belt, or John fucking Galt doingwhatever it is he does. (Collect vintage desk toys from the Sharper Image?)

Their whole ideology is like a big game of Dungeons & Dragons. Its all make-believe, except for the chain-mailthey brought that from home. Elves, dwarves and fair maidens for capital. Even with the supposedly good onesanti-war libertarianswere still talking about people who think Medicares going to lead to Stalinism.

So my advice is to call them out.

Ask them what their beef really is with the welfare state. First, theyll talk about the deficit and say we just cant afford entitlement programs. Well, thats obviously a joke, so move on. Then theyll say that it gives the government tyrannical power. Okay. Let me know when the Danes open a Guantnamo Bay in Greenland.

Heres the real reason libertarians hate the idea. The welfare state is a check against servility towards the rich. A strong welfare state would give us the power to say Fuck You to our bossesthis is the power to say Im gonna work odd jobs for twenty hours a week while I work on my driftwood sculptures and play keyboards in my chillwave band. And Ill still be able to go to the doctor and make rent.

Sounds like freedom to me.

Connor Kilpatrick is the managing editor of Jacobin magazine.

Would you like to know more? Read Thirty More Years of Hell and Silent Majority Millennials by Connor Kilpatrick.

Read more: child labor laws, deficit, democratic party, fascism, fdr, george will, ha-joon chang, libertarian, ludwig von mises, lyndon larouche, medicare, millennials, nick gillespie, pinochet, reason, ron paul, Singapore, social security, socialism, Tea Party, Connor Kilpatrick, Class War For Idiots, Libertards

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

Read the original:
Its Hip! Its Cool! Its Libertarianism! – By Connor …

Statue of Liberty – New Jersey

 Liberty  Comments Off on Statue of Liberty – New Jersey
Sep 222015
 

A Symbol of Friendship

Located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, the statue commemorates the friendship between the United States and France that began during the American Revolution. Her official name is “Liberty Enlightening the World.”

The statue – also known as “Lady Liberty” – has many symbolic features. Her torch represents liberty. In Roman numbers, her tablet reads “July 4, 1776,” America’s independence day.

Her crown has 25 windows, recognizing the gemstones found on the earth and the heaven’s rays shining over the world. The rays of her crown symbolize the seven continents and seven seas. At her feet are chains, representing the tyranny of colonial rule from which America escaped.

Building the Statue

In 1876 French sculptor Frederic Auguste Bartholdi began designing the statue. Alexandre Gustave Eiffel, the designer of the Eiffel Tower, worked with him. While Bartholdi developed the look of the statue, Eiffel worked on the framework. Bartholdi made the statue out of copper sheets, and Eiffel made the framework of steel. In July 1884, the statue was completed in France.

Richard Morris Hunt, designer of New York City’s first apartment building, designed the pedestal. The construction of the pedestal was completed in April 1886.

In addition to the architectural challenges of building the statue and pedestal, both countries faced challenges in getting money for the project. The French charged public fees, held fundraising events, and used money from a lottery to finance the statue.

In America, boxing matches, plays, art exhibitions, and auctions were used to raise money with limited success. Joseph Pulitzer, founder of the Pulitzer Prize, was able to more successfully motivate Americans with critical editorials in his newspaper, The World, and financing was completed in 1885.

On June 19, 1885, the French ship Isere arrived in New York Harbor with the Statue of Liberty. The statue was divided into 350 pieces held in 214 crates during the shipment. Over the next four months, a group of workers re-assembled Lady Liberty on the pedestal at Fort Wood on Bedloe Island, as Liberty Island was then known.

Thousands of people came to Fort Wood on October 28, 1886, as President Grover Cleveland officially accepted the statue.

Events in Statue History

In 1924, the statue became a national monument. Bedloe’s Island, home to Fort Wood and the statue, was renamed Liberty Island in 1956. That same year Ellis Island was included with Liberty Island to make up the Statue of Liberty National Monument. As the Lady Liberty’s 100th birthday neared, the country began working to restore the monument.

Starting in 1982, $87 million was raised for the restoration. When statue’s restoration began in 1984, the United Nations named it a World Heritage Site. The statue was re-opened on July 5, 1986, for her centennial celebration.

Visitors have not been able to enter the Statue of Liberty since September 11, 2001, but the island remains open. A fundraising drive is currently underway to make the necessary security and safety upgrades to re-open the statue itself.

Statue Statistics

More:
Statue of Liberty – New Jersey

 Posted by at 6:42 am  Tagged with:

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own …
Sep 192015
 

On blacks, immigrants and indigents: “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage: “This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable – these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill: In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery: A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex: “The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,” Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God’s view on the matter: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion: “Criminal’ abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women.” The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA: “…brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!”), The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church’s view of contraception: “…enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR.” The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood: “I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine.” What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep… for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.” (Luke 23:24)]

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world.

Her goal in life: Sanger admitted her entire life’s purpose was to promote birth control. An Autobiography, p. 194

Helped to establish the research bureau that financed “the pill,” she contributed toward the work of the German doctor who developed the IUD. “Ernst Graefenberg and His Ring,” Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine, July-Aug. 1975, p. 345, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, by Elasah Drogin

Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists — similar to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” — but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80

On mandatory sterilization of the poor: One of Sanger’s greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis, by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88

On eradicating ‘bad stocks’: The goal of eugenicists is “to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks,” wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to “restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate.”

Sanger featured in Life magazine, 1937, “Margaret Sanger celebrates Birth Control Victory.”

This page is under construction.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD TODAY

“We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity.” Faye Wattleton, President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 1986 _______

“If your parents are stupid enough to deny you access to birth control, and you are under 18, you can get it on your own. Call Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood advertisement, Dallas Observer, Jan. 30, 1986 _______

“There are only 2 basic kinds of sex: sex with victims and sex without. Sex with victims is always wrong. Sex without is ALWAYS right.” You’ve Changed The Combination,Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. _______

“The question of whether or not to sell ourselves to men is a false one: The real question is how to sell ourselves in the way that is least destructive to ourselves and our sisters. Prostitutes don’t need our condescension. What they need is our alliance. And we need theirs.” The New Our Bodies, Ourselves,Boston Women’s Health Collective, p 113 _______

“Sex is too important to glop up with sentiment. If you feel sexy, for heaven’s sake admit it to yourself. If the feeling and the tension bother you, you can masturbate. Masturbation cannot hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed.” The Perils of Puberty,Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. ______

“At Planned Parenthood you can also get birth control without the consent or knowledge of your parents. So, if you are 14, 15 or 16 and you come to Planned Parenthood, we won’t tell your parents you’ve been there. We swear we won’t tell your parents.” Planned Parenthood employee lecturing students of Ramona High School, Riverside, Calif., April 21-22, 1986

_________

FACTS on Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood on Adoption: Of 6,000 clinic visit records examined from a Texas PP clinic, only 3 referred for adoption. (Aborting Planned Parenthood, by Robert H. Ruff, New Vision Press, 1988)

Planned Parenthood’s on Homosexuality & Marital Rights: PP has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970) ______________

Planned Parenthood’s Goal: Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood’s purpose and planned course of action: “… to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these … feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy.” (Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953) .” (“Psycho-Sexual Development,” quoted in Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953, pg. 10) ________

Planned Parenthood on Pregnancy: PP has an unhealthy concept of pregnancy, as it views the state of gestation as an abnormal condition or disease. Speaking for the organization, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as “an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition … May be defined as an illness … Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents…”(“Is Pregnancy Really Normal?” Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)

Read the original post:
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own …

 Posted by at 2:44 am  Tagged with:



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