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

Sep 192014



FREE BitCoin
FREE BitCoin.

By:

Originally posted here:
FREE BitCoin – Video

Changing dates may have been a blessing in disguise for Hampdenfest, as organizers announced Thursday that Future Islands, an up-and-coming band that is gaining national notice, will headline the free festival.

It didn’t look good for Hampdenfest in July, when organizers canceled the annual neighborhood festival after the Baltimore City government said it couldn’t provide support services for both Hampdenfest on Sept. 13 and the city’s week-long Sailabration extravaganza at the same time.

Organizers agreed to change the date to Sept. 20 at the urging of community leaders and city officials, but worried that the festival would lose many of its vendors and rock bands that were already booked elsewhere on the new date.

“I probably lost a half dozen bands,” said co-organizer Benn Ray, who books the bands for Hampdenfest each year.

But now, Hampdenfest is back in business with most of its original vendors and a full lineup of local bands for its three separate stages, including the hottest Baltimore band of all.

Synthpop band Future Islands, which climbed to No. 40 on the Billboard Top 200 album charts with its fourth album, Singles, is booked for Hampdenfest. The band will play on The Avenue Stage, starting at 6 p.m..

“Future Islands had always wanted to play Hampdenfest,” said Ray, who knows several of the band members. He said Future Islands was already booked to play a festival in Washington on the original Hampdenfest date.

“Once we changed the date, I reached out to them,” Ray said. “They were super happy to help. They had heard about (the conflict with) Sailabration.”

The band could not be reached for comment for this story.

Ray, who is president of the Hampden Village Merchants Association, owner of Atomic Books and a Hampden neighborhood columnist for the Baltimore Messenger, said he expects the “skyrocketing” band’s appearance to boost attendance at the fall festival, which takes over West 36th Street, The Avenue, as well as Chestnut Avenue for the popular Toilet Races. This year’s festival will also debutthe Hampden Fashion Show,a runway of clothes and looks by local Hampden boutiques and salons.

Read more:
The 'Future' looks bright for Hampdenfest



Free Speech in a Globalized World
14 April 2010: Salman Rushdie, David Ignatius, Michael Schudson, and Lee C. Bollinger spoke on issues related to President Bollinger's recent book, “Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free…

By: Heyman Center for the Humanities

Read more here:
Free Speech in a Globalized World – Video

WE ARE, as it always seems, “at a pivotal moment in American history.” At least that’s what Sens. Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders maintained in a melodramatic Politico op-ed last week as they explained their efforts to repeal the First Amendment.

Let me retort in their language:

It’s true that building the United States has been long, arduous and rife with setbacks. But throughout the years, the American people have repelled efforts to weaken or dismantle the First Amendment. We have weathered the Sedition Act of 1918, a law that led to the imprisonment of innocent Americans who opposed the war or the draft. Since then, we have withstood numerous efforts to hamper, chill and undermine basic free expression in the name of “patriotism.” We have, however, allowed elected officials to treat citizens as if they were children by arbitrarily imposing strict limits on their free speech in the name of “fairness.”

But nowadays, after five members of the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and treated all political speech equally, liberal activists and Democrats in the Senate would have us return to a time when government dispensed speech to favored institutions–as if it were the government’s to give.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to more political activism and more grass-roots engagement than ever before. In the 2012 presidential election, we quickly saw the results. More Americans voted than in any election; more minorities voted; more Americans engaged in more debate and had more information in their hands than ever before. More than 60 percent of all those super PAC funds came from just 159 donors, each of whom gave more than $1 million. And still, every vote held the same sway. You may be persuaded by someone, but no one can buy your vote. I wish the same could be said for your senators.

View post:
The Constitution protects the rich, too

In the fall of 1964, UC Berkeley administrators told students that they could no longer engage in political organizing at the entrance to campus. This directive sparked a massive backlash from student activists who refused to stop organizing and ultimately staged a sit-in on campus, launching what became known as the Free Speech Movement.

Lynne Hollander, then a UC Berkeley senior, remembers certain moments well including the time a group of arrested students attempted to sing “We Shall Overcome” inside Santa Rita Jail. In a recent interview, Hollander, now 73, recalled the fear students experienced behind bars. “We were no longer facing this sort of liberal UC administration. We were facing cops with guns. That has a very different effect upon on you.”

In an upcoming theatrical production commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, Hollander will revisit the events of 1964 in a way she never has before through the eyes of a UC Berkeley official whom students were up against decades earlier. Hollander will inhabit the role of then-Vice Chancellor Alex Sherriffs. Stagebridge, an Oakland-based nonprofit arts organization, is producing the musical production, called FSM, with performances at the Brava Theater Center in San Francisco this weekend and at Berkeley Repertory Theatre’s Thrust Stage the following weekend.

“If we do it well, it brings it all to life again,” said Hollander, an associate producer and historical consultant for the musical, and the widow of Mario Savio, a central leader in the protests. Even in the first workshops of the production, she said, “You had that same sense of standing up for this cause that you deeply believed in and feeling very triumphant.”

Stagebridge, a theater company that offers classes and performance opportunities for senior citizens, has been working on FSM for more than a year, developing the project in collaboration with Berkeley Rep and the Bay Area Playwrights Foundation. The co-composers and co-lyricists of the show are Daniel Savio, Mario Savio’s son, and Hollander, and Bruce Barthol, a Berkeley native who participated in the protests as a sixteen-year-old freshman.

The production features a cast of sixteen actors a mix of older performers who lived through the events in some capacity and younger performers playing the parts of student activists. The story primarily takes place in the 1960s, but also includes scenes in the present day, featuring Free Speech alumni fifty years later. Actors take on multiple roles. Hollander, a Stagebridge company member, also plays a present-day graduate student activist, for example.

The show features a diverse musical score, which includes folk and rock music reminiscent of the era as well as more traditional musical theater-style songs, in a similar vein as Kurt Weill’s Threepenny Opera, said Daniel Savio.

With the production reaching Bay Area audiences exactly fifty years after the protests first erupted, FSM is a unique way to honor the legacy of the free speech movement through a project guided by people who lived through the historic events, said Stagebridge executive director Marge Betley.

“It’s such a part of the identity of this region,” she said. “I hope that what audiences will get out of it is in some ways similar to what our participants get out of it. For people who were coming of age at that time, it’s a great way to look back … and for people who are younger, I think it will give them an insight into [the protests] that is richer and more complex than some of the stereotypes they may think of when they think of the Free Speech Movement.”

The story centers on real players in the conflict including Mario Savio and then-UC president Clark Kerr as well as composite and fictional characters. FSM playwright Joan Holden, a longtime writer with the San Francisco Mime Troupe, said she drew inspiration from focus groups she held with former student protesters. “The thing people said over and over again was, ‘We grew up.’ It was about busting loose from the university’s parental authority.”

Read the original post:
Relive the Famous Youth Rebellion of the 1960s

WE ARE, as it always seems, at a pivotal moment in American history. At least thats what Sens. Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders maintained in a melodramatic Politico column recently as they explained their efforts to repeal the First Amendment.

Let me retort in their language:Its true that building the United States has been long, arduous and rife with setbacks. But throughout the years, the American people have repelled efforts to weaken or dismantle the First Amendment. We have weathered the Sedition Act of 1918, a law that led to the imprisonment of innocent Americans who opposed the war or the draft. Since then, we have withstood many efforts to hamper, chill and undermine basic free expression in the name of patriotism. We have, however, allowed elected officials to treat citizens as if they were children by arbitrarily imposing strict limits on their free speech in the name of fairness.But nowadays, after five members of the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and treated all political speech equally, liberal activists and Democrats in the Senate would have us return to a time when government dispensed speech to favored institutions as if it were the governments to give.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to more political activism and more grass-roots engagement than ever before. In the 2012 presidential election, we quickly saw the results.

More Americans voted than in any election; more minorities voted; more Americans engaged in more debate and had more information in their hands than ever before. More than 60 percent of all those super PAC funds came from just 159 donors, each of whom gave more than $1 million. And still, every vote held the same sway. You may be convinced by someone, but no one can buy your vote. I wish the same could be said for your senators.

Even less worrisome is the propaganda surrounding scary-sounding dark money dollars spent by groups that do not have to disclose their funding sources. The 2012 elections saw almost $300 million spent on engagement in our democratic institutions, and the 2014 midterm elections could see as much as $1 billion invested in political debate. That means more democratization of media and more challenges to a media infrastructure that once managed what news we were allowed to consume. Still, no one can buy your vote.

No single issue is more important to the needs of average Americans than upholding the Constitution over the vagaries of contemporary political life. The people elected to office should be responsive to the needs of their constituents. They should also be prepared to be challenged. But mostly, they should uphold their oath to protect the Constitution rather than find ways to undermine it.

When the Supreme Court finds, for purposes of the First Amendment, that corporations are people, that writing checks from the companys bank account is constitutionally protected speech and that attempts to impose coercive restrictions on political debate are unconstitutional, we realize that we live in a republic that isnt always fair but is, for the most part, always free.

Americans right to free speech should not be proportionate to their political power. This is why its vital to stop senators from imposing capricious limits on Americans.

It is true that 16 states and the District of Columbia, along with more than 500 cities and towns, have passed resolutions calling on Congress to reinstitute restriction on free speech. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support the abolishment of super PACs. So its important to remember that one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers offered us the Constitution was to offer a bulwark against democracy. Senators may have an unhealthy obsession with the democratic process, and Supreme Court justices are on the bench for life for that very reason.

Last week, Democrats offered an amendment to repeal the First Amendment in an attempt to protect their own political power. Whiny senators most of them patrons to corporate power and special interests engaged in one of the most cynical abuses of their power in recent memory. Those who treat Americans as if they were hapless proles unable to withstand the power of a television commercial are the ones who fear speech. Thats not what the American republic is all about.

Read this article:
David Harsanyi The senators who really threaten America

Like my co-blogger Will Baude, I was very interested in the Ninth Circuits recent case, United States v. Dreyer, suppressing evidence as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. I think the case is interesting because it demonstrates a view of the exclusionary rule that I havent seen in a while.

First, some history. Back in the the middle of the 20th Century, the federal courts often found ways to impose an exclusionary rule for statutory violations in federal court. For example, in Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379 (1937) (Nardone I) and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (Nardone II), the Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of the Communications Act. In McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), the Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court had a rather free-form approach to the exclusionary rule at the time, in part because suppression was seen as the judiciarys domain. The federal courts had an inherent power to control evidence in their own cases, so the Court could be creative in fashioning what evidence could come in to deter bad conduct. If the government did something really bad, the federal courts had the power to keep the evidence out to deter violations and maintain the integrity of the courts.

By the 1980s, after Warren Court revolution, the Supreme Court had a different view of the exclusionary rule. The scope of the rule had expanded dramatically when it was incorporated and applied to the states. But as a kind of tradeoff for that expansion, the Court cut back on the free-form approach outside core constitutional violations. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts saw suppression as a doctrine that had to be rooted in deterrence of constitutional violations and not just something that courts didnt like or found offensive.

In his post, Will points out a passage from Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon to that effect. And I would add the earlier case of United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), in which investigators had intentionally violated one persons Fourth Amendment rights to get evidence they were holding of the suspects crimes. The Sixth Circuit had suppressed the evidence on the basis of the federal courts supervisory power to punish the blatant abuse even though the suspect did not have Fourth Amendment standing to object to the violation. The Supreme Court reversed, blocking courts from using the supervisory power as an end-run around the limits of Fourth Amendment doctrine.

The new Ninth Circuit case, Dreyer, strikes me as a vestige of the mid-20th century free-form view of the exclusionary rule. The lower courts in the 1960s and 1970s had a few areas where they rejected suppression outside of constitutional law but recognized the hypothetical possibility that they might suppress evidence if the facts were particularly egregious. For example, a bunch of circuits held that the Fourth Amendment does not regulate evidence collection by foreign governments not acting in coordination with the U.S., but that they would suppress evidence if the foreign government conduct shocked the conscience. See, e.g., Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775, 782 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 712 n. 10 (2d Cir. 1975). But see United States v. Mount, 757 F.2d 1315, 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Bork, J., concurring) (arguing based on Payner that lower courts lack supervisory powers to impose an exclusionary rule for searches by foreign governments). The caselaw was never reviewed in the Supreme Court, however, perhaps because those egregious circumstances were not found and the evidence wasnt actually suppressed.

Violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the issue in the new decision, provides another example. The history seems to run like this. First, in the 1970s, a few courts applied the free-form approach to the exclusionary rule and left open the possibility that violations of the Posse Comitatus Act could lead to exclusion if it were necessary to deter violations. See, e.g.,United States v. Walden, 490 F.2d 372, 37677 (4th Cir. 1974); State v. Danko, 219 Kan. 490 (1976). When the Ninth Circuit reached the issue in 1986, the panel did not focus on the Supreme Courts then-new more skeptical approach to the exclusionary rule. Instead, the Ninth Circuit expanded on the 1970s lower-court cases, indicating that the exclusionary rule would be necessary for violations of the Act if a need to deter future violations is demonstrated. United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986). Again, though, this was just a possibility, and the issue was never reviewed.

Dreyer picks up that 28-year-old invitation and concludes that the need has finally been demonstrated and that the exclusionary rule therefore must be applied. Dreyer cites Roberts, which in turn cited Walden. So on its face, the court is at least drawing on precedent.

But it seems to me that Dreyer is very vulnerable if DOJ thinks it is worth challenging in the Supreme Court. Dreyer appears to rely on a line of thinking about the exclusionary rule that the Supreme Court has long ago rejected. Of course, we can debate the normative question of how the Justices should approach the exclusionary rule, either in the context of constitutional violations or statutory violations. But just as a predictive matter, I suspect that todays Court would have a different view of the question than the circuit court cases from the 1970s on which the Ninth Circuits Dreyer decision ultimately relies.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

Go here to see the original:
Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule

Another week, another ultimately meaningless free speech controversy on an American college campus. Should Ayaan Hirsi Ali be allowed to speak at Yale? If only there were some simple way of settling these nonstop arguments.

Colleges invite prominent people to give speeches. These prominent people are too conservative, or too liberal, or too foreign, or too fascist, or too counterrevolutionary for some student faction or other. Students protest. They petition. They wave signs and send letters and yell and maybe occupy a building. The college withdraws its invitation to the speaker under pressure. The speaker is mad. The students are triumphant, but mad. The college is cowed, and looks stupid, as well as cowardly. Then all of America’s most boring pundits wring their hands over tolerance and diversity and The Kids These Days. Nobody wins in this process: not the schools, not the students, not the grownups who wanted to talk to the students, and certainly not the average reader of the average pundit, who is forced to listen to moralist pontificating that is undoubtedly more unbearable than any fascist imperialist political idea that the worst campus speaker could ever put forward.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali says mean things about Islam sometimes. She’s already been invited and disinvited as Brandeis University’s commencement speaker this year. Now she has been invited to speak at Yale. Oh no! Protests! Upsetness! Much hand-wringing! Whatever shall be done? Inside Higher Ed quotes a statement from Yale’s Muslim Student Association:

“We sympathize with the unfortunate circumstances that Ms. Hirsi Ali faced in her Muslim household as a child and we recognize that such experiences do exist in many countries, including Muslim-majority ones,” the group wrote. “Our concern is that Ms. Hirsi Ali is being invited to speak as an authority on Islam despite the fact that she does not hold the credentials to do so.”

Naturally, the calls for rejecting her invitation to speak, or for adding speakers to the program who will say the opposite of what she says, drew their own objections.

Since this sort of thing will continue to happen forever, allow us to suggest:

A SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK FOR FREE SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

1) People who have controversial, objectionable, or even wrong opinions will be allowed to speak on college campuses.

2) Those who disagree with these people will be allowed to wave signs and yell and protest them and put on their own events with their own speakers with different views.

Read the original here:
Easy Rules for Free Speech on Campus



ISIS Agenda 21 – Illuminati Is Using America President to Create WW3 New World Order – Sunday Law
SPREAD THIS VIDEO FAST DOWNLOAD or SEND LINK for FREE, SHARE

By: theMARKofTHEbeastYES

Go here to see the original:
ISIS Agenda 21 – Illuminati Is Using America President to Create WW3 New World Order – Sunday Law – Video



9/11 Protesters Rights Put In A Cage
Lee Ann McAdoo on the scene in NY City at the 9/11 Memorial reveals how peoples rights to free speech have now been put into a little cage called the free speech zone far away from the eyes…

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

Read more from the original source:
9/11 Protesters Rights Put In A Cage – Video



Namecoin: OpenBazaar – Bitcoin Marketplace with Namecoin Identity [Presentation]
OpenBazaar, the free open source decentralized marketplace for the digital age – with Bitcoin as currency and Namecoin for Identity – get your Namecoin id/ today. No censhorship, no fees….

By: Namecoin

Go here to see the original:
Namecoin: OpenBazaar – Bitcoin Marketplace with Namecoin Identity [Presentation] – Video



Illuminati In Australia
SPREAD THIS VIDEO FAST DOWNLOAD or SEND LINK for FREE, SHARE

By: MasonIlluminatiNWO

Original post:
Illuminati In Australia – Video



Truth behind ISIS – America Illuminati Are Using Isis to Complete ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
SPREAD THIS VIDEO FAST DOWNLOAD or SEND LINK for FREE, SHARE

By: SecretBarackNWO

Go here to see the original:
Truth behind ISIS – America & Illuminati Are Using Isis to Complete ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT – Video



Illuminati In America ILLUMINATI IN U.S.
SPREAD THIS VIDEO FAST DOWNLOAD or SEND LINK for FREE, SHARE

By: SecretBarackNWO

Read this article:
Illuminati In America ILLUMINATI IN U.S. – Video

U.C. Berkeleys Chancellor Nicholas Dirks has been kind enough to spice up the imminent Free Speech Movement reunion which starts next week. You can get all the information about the innumerable talks, movies, panels, dinners and especially the new play about the FSM (by Joan Holden with music by Bruce Barthol and Daniel Savio, Marios son) here.

Its a full plate of reminiscences and inspiration, but the part that the chancellor might enhance is the kickoff happy hour on Friday, September 26, from 5:30-6:30 at the Free Speech Movement Cafe Terrace. According to the published schedule: the new(ish) Chancellor, Nicholas Dirks will stop by for a few minutes.

Why might that be big fun, if hes not afraid to show up? Well, hes been catching a fair amount of flack online and in the press since September 5. The focus is a smarmy memo he emailed that day, reprinted here in full:

This Fall marks the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, which made the right to free expression of ideas a signature issue for our campus, and indeed for universities around the world. Free speech is the cornerstone of our nation and society which is precisely why the founders of the country made it the First Amendment to the Constitution. For a half century now, our University has been a symbol and embodiment of that ideal

As we honor this turning point in our history, it is important that we recognize the broader social context required in order for free speech to thrive. For free speech to have meaning it must not just be tolerated, it must also be heard, listened to, engaged and debated. Yet this is easier said than done, for the boundaries between protected and unprotected speech, between free speech and political advocacy, between the campus and the classroom, between debate and demagoguery, between freedom and responsibility, have never been fully settled. As a consequence, when issues are inherently divisive, controversial and capable of arousing strong feelings, the commitment to free speech and expression can lead to division and divisiveness that undermine a communitys foundation. This fall, like every fall, there will be no shortage of issues to animate and engage us all. Our capacity to maintain that delicate balance between communal interests and free expression, between openness of thought and the requirements and disciplines of academic knowledge, will be tested anew.

Specifically, we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so, and this in turn requires that people treat each other with civility. Simply put, courteousness and respect in words and deeds are basic preconditions to any meaningful exchange of ideas. In this sense, free speech and civility are two sides of a single coin the coin of open, democratic society.

Insofar as we wish to honor the ideal of Free Speech, therefore, we should do so by exercising it graciously. This is true not just of political speech on Sproul Plaza, but also in our everyday interactions with each other in the classroom, in the office, and in the lab. Sincerely…

Researching reaction to this pronouncement on the web has yielded a treasure trove of impassioned defenses of, yes, Free Speech, and a great variety of well-crafted explanations of just exactly how Dirks misses the point.

The favorite bte noire seems to be this paragraph:

Visit link:
Chancellor Dirks Upholds a Berkeley Free Speech Tradition

Dear Chancellor Dirks,

The Free Speech Movement Archives and the Organizing Committee for the FSM 50th Anniversary would like to thank you for generously supporting our efforts to commemorate the Free Speech Movement, and to keep the memory of those events alive. We look forward to seeing you at our reunion. In the spirit of civil discourse, we would like to bring to your attention some history regarding the question of what the Free Speech Movement was about, what we won, and what it means for the campus today.

In your letter to the campus community of Friday, September 5th you said, the boundaries between protected speech and unprotected speech, between free speech and political advocacy, between debate and demagoguery have never been fully settled. In fact, these questions were fully settled. On December 8th, 1964, the Berkeley Academic Senate adopted a resolution stating that: the content of speech or advocacy shall not be restricted by the University. This resolution was then reinforced by the Regents resolution of December 14th which stated: Henceforth University regulations will not go beyond the purview of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In celebrating the half century that the UC Berkeley campus has been a symbol and embodiment of the idea of free speech, you are proudly and properly referring to the outcome produced by the Free Speech Movement in the fall of 1964. Your statement seems to miss the central point. The struggle of the FSM was all about the right to political advocacy on campus. The UC Administration of that time insisted it would not permit speech on campus advocating student participation in off-campus demonstrations that might lead to arrests. The African-American civil rights movement was then at its height and students rejected these restrictions. This attempt to restrict our rights produced the Free Speech Movement.

It is precisely the right to speech on subjects that are divisive, controversial, and capable of arousing strong feelings that we fought for in 1964. . . From the roof of the police car blockaded in Sproul Plaza, we heard a song written by a UC graduate (BA, MA, PhD) Malvina Reynolds that summed up our feelings toward the UC Administration and others who were then trying to reign-in the civil rights movement. The song was titled, It Isnt Nice.

It isnt nice to block the doorways, it isnt nice to go to jail!/

There are nicer ways to do it, but the nice ways always fail./

It isnt nice, it isnt nice, you told us once you told us twice/

But if thats freedoms price, we dont mind.

We note that the charge of uncivility was used by Chancellor Phyllis Wise of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, to justify the discharge of Professor Steve Salaita. For this reason, many now read the call for civility in your letter as a potential threat.

Originally posted here:
An Open Letter About Free Speech to Chancellor Dirks



Revelation Has Come True! (WW3, Illuminati, Obama, Antichrist, Freemason, NWO)
SPREAD THIS VIDEO FAST – DOWNLOAD or SEND LINK for FREE — SHARE SPREAD THIS VIDEO FAST – DOWNLOAD or SEND LINK for FREE — SHARE SCARY !!! The signs are here, but until you learn how…

By: Actual NWO Reports

See more here:
Revelation Has Come True! (WW3, Illuminati, Obama, Antichrist, Freemason, NWO) – Video



##FREE Faroe Islands .vs.Finland .Live.Stream
HD LIVE STREAM ===^^=== http://goo.gl/gwxHbw LOW QUALITY LIVE STREAM ===^^=== http://goo.gl/gwxHbw GOALS HIGHLIGHTS ===^^=== http://goo.gl/gwxHbw Watch FINLAND vs FAROE ISLANDS Live Streaming…

By: Go Nawaz Go

Original post:
##FREE Faroe Islands .vs.Finland .Live.Stream – Video



FREE: Finland .vs.Faroe Islands .live.stream.International. European Championship Qualifying
HD LIVE STREAM ===^^=== http://goo.gl/gwxHbw LOW QUALITY LIVE STREAM ===^^=== http://goo.gl/gwxHbw GOALS HIGHLIGHTS ===^^=== http://goo.gl/gwxHbw Watch FINLAND vs FAROE ISLANDS Live Streaming…

By: Go Nawaz Go

See the original post here:
FREE: Finland .vs.Faroe Islands .live.stream.International. European Championship Qualifying – Video

Sep 092014

Several Senate Republicans joined Democrats on Monday to advance a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and the states greater power to regulate campaign finance.

But the bipartisanship ends there.

Many of the Republicans only voted for the bill to foul up Democrats pre-election messaging schedule, freezing precious Senate floor time for a measure that ultimately has no chance of securing the two-thirds support necessary in both the House and Senate to amend the Constitution.

The legislation needed 60 votes to advance and Democrats took a cynical view of the 79-18 tally. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the GOPs tactic was simply to stall because it would eat up limited floor time that Democrats are eyeing for votes aimed at encouraging gender pay equity and raising the minimum wage.

(McConnell for POLITICO Magazine: The Democrats’ assault on free speech)

They know were getting out of here fairly shortly and they want to prevent discussion on other very important issues, said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). I would love to be proven wrong. But if the end of this week, we end up getting 67 votes, you can tell me I was too cynical.

But campaign finance is not a debate that Senate Republicans are shying away from and their argument is being led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who penned an op-ed for POLITICO on Monday that portrayed Democrats as fixated on repealing the free speech protections the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans.

Not surprisingly, a proposal as bad as the one Senate Democrats are pushing wont even come close to garnering the votes it would need to pass. But to many Democrats, thats just the point. They want this proposal to fail because they think that somehow would help them on Election Day, McConnell wrote.

Democrats see electoral benefits in their proposal, pointing to Democratic-commissioned polls in battleground states that show bipartisan majorities in support of limiting big donors influence in politics and in opposition to Super PACs. Party leaders and aides believe their campaign finance proposal is popular and places the GOP on the wrong side of public opinion so some Democratic aides said they were happy for the debate to consume the Senate this week and still plan to hold votes on raising the minimum wage and pay equity before breaking for campaign season.

Theyre volunteering to defend the Koch brothers and a campaign finance system voters hate, said one Senate aide.

View original post here:
Constitutional amendment advances



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com