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



John Paul Stevens: Change Second Amendment to Remove “Any Limits” on Government Power
ABC This Week, April 20, 2014.

By: National Review

Read the original here:
John Paul Stevens: Change Second Amendment to Remove "Any Limits" on Government Power – Video



How to Fix Health Care (with Michael F. Cannon)
Health care is really, really important. That's why we argue a lot about what role the government and the free market should have in providing care. Can't we…

By: Libertarianism.org

Excerpt from:
How to Fix Health Care (with Michael F. Cannon) – Video

Remember Karpal by standing up for JUSTICE, INTEGRITY & FREEDOM – Guan Eng

We mourn the untimely and unexpected passing of DAP National Chairman and Member of Parliament for Bukit Gelugor, Sdr Karpal Singh. Sdr Karpal is a 8-term Member of Parliament of Bukit Gelugor and Jelutong, as well as a 3 term state assemblyman in Penang, first elected in 1978.

For 40-years, Sdr Karpal dedicated his life to the legal profession, fighting for justice, upholding our constitutional rights of freedom and human rights. His landmark cases are textbook references for lawyers.

A devoted father and husband to his wife Gurmit, both of them brought up 5 children who are all successful practicing lawyers except for the youngest who is an accountant. The eldest Jagdeep is presently a Penang State EXCO member whilst the second eldest Gobind is a Member of Parliament for Puchong.

With his life suddenly cut short at 74 years following a tragic accident on 17 April 2014, Penang has lost an upstanding and outstanding leader and lawyer. The rakyat lost a fearless “tiger” with an indomitable spirit who stood up for the poor, weak, defenceless and dispossesed.

But it his fighting spirit that stands out. You can detain Karpal physically but you can never detain his spirit. I saw this myself whilst we were both detained without trial under the now repealed Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1988 in Kamunting Detention Camp. He suffered from severe spinal back pains but refused to yield.

This refusal to yield was evident after Karpal suffered an unfortunate accident in 2005 which paralysed him waist-down. Not only did he overcome this paralysis but he continued his brilliant legal and political career. Sdr Karpal became the first disabled person in Malaysia to be elected twice to Parliament, both times with huge majorities.

In seeking both rule of law and a better Malaysia, Sdr Karpal practiced what he preached refusing to charge for cases of gross injustices whether the famous VIPs like Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Sdr Lim Kit Siang or the poor Malay, Indian or Chinese.

His departure will leave an immense void not only in his family’s lives, but also in those of all Malaysians whose lives have been inspired by his principled cause.

To Sdr Karpals family, we share your grief in this time of bereavement with deepest sympathies and condolences. Thomas Jefferson said that when the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Throughout his life, Karpal showed us how not to fear the government.

See the original post here:
Remember Karpal by standing up for JUSTICE, INTEGRITY & FREEDOM – Guan Eng

The Pitkin County Republicans recently held a civics-writing contest for Aspen High School. The following essay earned first place and was written by Elizabeth de Wetter, who received $250 for her piece.

Freedom of speech The first and greatest amendment

Though all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights play an important role in our society, I value the First Amendment most highly. Not only does the freedom of speech protect our right to say what we want, but it also allows us to read, write, broadcast, and sing what we want.

While the other amendments also protect important rights, and will aid me at some point, they do not significantly affect my life. Since I have never been accused of a crime, sent to jail, or summoned to court, the Fourth and Eighth Amendments do not really apply to me at this point in my life. As I live with my parents, and our country is not currently involved in a war on U.S. soil, I do not feel the need to worry about housing troops, so the Third Amendment does not concern me. Finally, since I am under the age limit to own a gun, the Second Amendment is equally irrelevant. Even though all of the amendments are important, Because of the importance of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment, I believe it plays the most significant role in my life as an American.

Freedom of speech provides one of the most crucial forms of self-expression and can replace violence. We can easily see the effects of oppression in countries where violence occurs on a daily basis, and it makes sense. People want change, and without freedom to say or write what they want, violence sometimes seems like the only option. By protecting freedom of speech, our government allows everyone in the United States the opportunity to express their opinions in peaceful ways rather than resorting to violence.

Freedom of speech allows each of us to express opinions, persuade others, and ultimately change the world. As a female, I feel lucky to live in a county where I can show my face, go to school, get an education, and express my opinions on problems with which I disagree. I cannot imagine how frustrated I would feel if I could not change the reality of my life using words. When Malala Yousafzai spoke out, she was nearly killed by the Taliban, and this kind of oppression is the tragic reality of many women. Unlike oppressed women around the world, in the U.S., our words can create change without backlashing in the form of violence.

Simple, every-day tasks such as answering questions in school or coming to a solution in politics would be very difficult without protection from the First Amendment. Problems usually have more than a single right answer, yet if we were not allowed to express our opinions, one answer might be the only result to conflict. Sometimes the most meaningful solutions come from disagreements between people, and when they can finally see eye-to-eye, better answers to the problem are found. Without the First Amendment, our country may not have passed the other amendments. Laws are made of words and when only certain words are allowed, only some voices can be heard, and a limited number of people can speak, the solutions that result are just as restricted.

Unlike some rights to speech, the first amendment allows us to express ourselves during both good and bad times. In extreme wartime conditions, governments sometimes prohibit their citizens from showing any self-expression in the form music, dancing, singing, laughing, or even smiling, and yet we can do all of theses things and talk about them afterward without punishment. Though our opinions are not always positive and many times, when we express ourselves, we talk about something negative that needs to be changed, our words can change reality, and to me, the greatest freedom is to be myself and be able to make a change for others and myself through words instead of violence.

While all of the amendments to the Bill of Rights play an important role in our county, the First Amendment provides me with one of the most meaningful freedoms as a female student and citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech allows me to create change in non-violent ways, and express myself without worrying about the consequences of self-expression. For the freedom to express my views, make a difference, and have the same rights as everyone else in this country, I am immensely grateful.

Original post:
Students essay on First Amendment wins top prize

Abstract

Modern debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was apparently never even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted. Early discussions took the basic meaning of the amendment for granted and focused instead on whether it added anything significant to the original Constitution. The debate later shifted because of changes in the Constitution and in constitutional law and because legislatures began to regulate firearms in ways undreamed of in our early history.

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that governments of large nations are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

Using a militia as an alternative to standing armies had deep roots in English history and possessed considerable appeal, but it also presented some serious problems. Alexander Hamilton, for example, thought the militia system could never provide a satisfactory substitute for a national army. Even those who treasured the militia recognized that it was fragile, and the cause of this fragility was just what made Hamilton disparage it: Citizens were always going to resist undergoing unpaid military training, and governments were always going to want more professionaland therefore more efficient and tractableforces.

This led to a dilemma at the Constitutional Convention. Experience during the Revolutionary War had demonstrated convincingly that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense, and the onset of war is not always followed by a pause during which an army can be raised and trained. The convention therefore decided to give the federal government almost unfettered authority to establish armies, including peacetime standing armies. But that decision created a threat to liberty, especially in light of the fact that the proposed Constitution also forbade the states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress.

One solution might have been to require Congress to establish and maintain a well-disciplined militia. Such a militia would have had to comprise a large percentage of the population in order to prevent it from becoming a federal army under another name, like our modern National Guard. This might have deprived the federal government of the excuse that it needed peacetime standing armies and might have established a meaningful counterweight to any rogue army that the federal government might create. That possibility was never taken seriously, and for good reason. How could a constitution define a well-regulated or well-disciplined militia with the requisite precision and detail and with the necessary regard for unforeseeable changes in the nations circumstances? It would almost certainly have been impossible.

Another approach might have been to forbid Congress from interfering with the states control of their militias. This might have been possible, but it would have been self-defeating. Fragmented control of the militias would inevitably have resulted in an absence of uniformity in training, equipment, and command, and no really effective national fighting force could have been created.

Thus, the convention faced a choice between entrenching a multiplicity of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely have been too weak and divided to protect the nation, or authorizing a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not have been expected to prevent federal tyranny. The conundrum could not be solved, and the convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Constitution presumes that a militia will exist, but it gives Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gives the federal government almost unfettered authority to maintain an army.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control of the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was.

James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was to be structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out another decisive difference between Europes situation and ours: The American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

Read more from the original source:
The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense

At 10 a.m. next Tuesday, the Supreme Court continues its current fascination with free speech and the First Amendment, exploring at a one-hour hearing when an advocacy group can challengea restriction on election campaign rhetoric. Arguing for two advocacy groups in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus will be Michael A. Carvin of the Washington, D.C., office of Jones Day, withtwenty minutes of time. If the Court, as expected, permits the federal government to join in the argument, its views will be represented by Eric J. Feigin, an Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, with ten minutes. Ohios lawyer at the lectern, with thirty minutes, will be Ohio Solicitor Eric E. Murphy of Columbus.

Background

The attack ad, often used to shamea candidate in an effort to persuade voters, is as common in todays political campaigns as buttons, town hall meetings, andendorsements. But it is not routine for the government to try to police those ads. The state of Ohio and some fifteen others try to do so, however, and that has helped produce the latest First Amendment case for a Supreme Court that currently has a keen interest inthat amendment, especially in campaign settings.

In all of the history of the First Amendment, theCourt has never ruled that false statements are totally without protection under the Constitution. It made the point again (although in a somewhat uncertain ruling that lackeda clear majority) in the decision two years ago in United States v. Alvarez, which took most of the punch out of a federal law making it a federal crime to falsely claim that one had received a military medal. That, too, involved political speech.

But if a group or an individual wants to challenge a law that outlaws speech, how and when is it allowed togo to courtto claim the protection ofthe First Amendment?That is the issue the Court faces next week, in the first case to reach it in which opposition to the new federal health care law became a campaign issue.

When the House of Representatives in 2010 gave its final approval to the Affordable Care Act (now known widely in politics as Obamacare), one of theDemocrats voting for it was Rep. Steven Driehaus, representing an Ohio district that included Cincinnati and its suburbs. Later that year, he campaigned for reelection, but was defeated.

An advocacy group that is opposed to abortions, the Susan B. Anthony List, made an arrangement to put up a billboard in Driehauss district that would proclaim: Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion. It also aired radio broadcasts with the same message. The billboard never went up, because the company owning the space backed down when a lawyer for the congressman threatened to sue, claiming the message misrepresented his vote.

Driehaus soon pursued a complaint with the Ohio ElectionsCommission, which has the power to recommend prosecution for violations of a state truth-in-politics law. That law has two key provisions:it prohibits anyone from trying to influence voters by intentionally making a false statement about a candidates voting record, and it prohibits the distribution of any false statement about a candidate if the source knew it was false or didnt care whether it was true or false.

The state commission, in a preliminary vote, sided with Driehaus, but before any prosecution by state officials went forward, Driehaus was defeated for reelection, and his complaint was dismissed by the commission at his request.

Susan B. Anthony List then sued in federal court,seeking to strike down the law under the First Amendment. It sued Driehaus and the state commission, along with its members. Thatcase was joined with one filed by an anti-tax group, the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, which had wanted to send out emails and other materials also attacking Driehaus for allegedly voting for tax-supported abortion. That group said it had held off sending out its messages because it knew of the commission action on Driehauss complaint, and was deterred from speaking out.

Read more from the original source:
Argument preview: Attack ads and the First Amendment

HAMPTON, Va. The Virginia Community College System has agreed to alter its free speech policy as a means to settle a lawsuit with a Christian student who was barred from preaching the Gospel on campus last fall.

As previously reported, last fall, student Christian Parks publicly preached the Gospel on four different occasions in a courtyard on the Thomas Nelson Community College (TNCC) campus.However, the third time Parks preached the Gospel in the campus courtyard, he was confronted by three uniformed police officers from the TNCC Police Department. The officers ordered Parks to stop preaching. Though Parks thought the officers actions were unconstitutional, he complied with their order.

A few days later, Parks began preaching in the same courtyard for the fourth time. Once again, campus police officers silenced him.

Following the second encounter with the campus police, Parks asked TNCC administrators why he was not allowed to preach on the schools campus. He was told that, in order to open-air preach on campus, he would first have to join a registered student organization and then receive permission from TNCC officials four days in advance of any preaching.If Parks did not comply with the regulations, he could be subject to disciplinary actions, including suspension or dismissal.

Therefore, Parks contacted the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) for assistance, which filed a lawsuit against the university. Attorneysargued that the schools silencing of Parks preaching is a violation of his First Amendment constitutional rights.

It is repugnant to Mr. Parks that he, as an individual citizen and student at a public community college, must notify the government in order to speak on campus when he feels convicted by his religious faith to speak and preach on campus, the suit contended.

The ACLU of Virginia also criticized the schools speech-limiting policies, writing in aletterto the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) that the schools policies deserve substantial revision.

If accurate, the complaint against VCCS describes a clear violation of the constitutionally protected free speech rights of a community college student, it stated. [W]e urge you to take immediate steps to ensure that a revised demonstration policy that takes into account the free speech rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public is considered and adopted by the Board without delay.

This week, the Daily Press reported that the system agreed to work out a settlement with Park, which primarily includes altering its free speech policy. The current policy has been suspended while the settlement is reached.

Both parties desire to suspend the current policy in order to allow [Parks] and all other students to speak freely on campus, court documents stated, [C]ounsel for the parties believe that they may be able to reach an amicable settlement in this case.

See the article here:
Community College to Reach Settlement with Student Barred from Preaching Gospel on Campus

Apr 152014

Got 10 seconds? Probably. But I bet you wont spend it waiting for a web page to spin, sputter and load. I hate that. You hate that. And search engines hate that, too. But if your site is lightning fast, everyone will love you.

Not too worried about your slow site? Maybe you should be. Sweet Brown(video autoplay) said it best: Aint nobody got time for that! And research findings agree.

As SEL news reporter Amy Gesenhues noted in her post last March, average page-load speed for top retail sites was over seven seconds well above the ideal load time of three seconds or less. And, according to KissMetrics, that four- to five-second differential is costing retailers billions. In fact, according to their findings, a one-second delay in page response can lead to a seven percent reduction in sales.

But, page speed has implications beyond a poor user experience and loss of revenue it also affects search engine rankings. SEOs have known this for years, but I wanted to find out if that factor was growing in importance. So naturally, I turned to the government to investigate.

No, I dont have a friend in the NSA; rather, I explored the issue by examining Googles page speed patents. Eventually, I dug into one entitled, Using Resource Load Times in Ranking Search Results.

Published in February 2014 (and filed seven months after Matt Cutts 2010 announcementthat Google was now incorporating site speed into its ranking algorithm), the patent details how web pages that load faster receive a ranking score bonus that can move them up in the organic search results:

But what I found interesting was how Google is actually tracking page speed. They are using Chrome not their web crawler.

Thats because when Google developed their Chrome browser, they included tools that enable developers and Google engineers to measure page load speed. This time tracker sends device and page speed information to Google every time you visit a page within your Chrome browser.

But, Google also factors in page speed beyond Chrome.

Read the original post:
5 SEO Tips To Boost Page Speed

As much as six per cent of all world wealth is hidden in tax shelters, according to a new study ‘One per centers’ earned an average of $1.2million in 2012, the most recent year data is available for, but the top 0.01 per cent earned over $30million One per centers’ incomes have remained flat, but the super rich 0.01 per cent have seen incomes sky rocket by 1,300 per cent since the early 1990s

By Ryan Gorman

Published: 18:59 EST, 12 April 2014 | Updated: 19:00 EST, 12 April 2014

348 shares

184

View comments

The richest of the rich are amassing wealth at an astonishing rate and increasingly hiding it in offshore bank accounts, a new report claims.

Those at the top 0.01 per cent of the tax bracket are hiding at least six per cent of their assets offshore, and their expatriation of wealth to tax havens is flying under the radar of even the authorities, according to UC Berkley professor Gabriel Zucman.

‘Ofcial statistics substantially underestimate the net foreign asset positions of rich countries because they fail to capture most of the assets held by households in offshore tax havens,’ Zucman wrote.

Losing out: Government entities like the IRS are less able to tax wealthy citizens because they are increasingly hiding assets in tax shelters

Continued here:
Super rich are even richer than thought as increasingly they hide money in overseas tax havens

GRANT PASS, OR – Hauling a truckload of logs to a Southern Oregon mill last fall, Chris Hill noticed a sheriff’s deputy behind him and flashed his lights to warn a UPS driver coming the other way.

The deputy pulled over Hill on U.S. Highway 140 in White City and handed him a $260 ticket for improperly using his headlights, saying another deputy had seen the flashing lights from behind the UPS truck and alerted him to stop the log truck because of the signaling.

Outraged, Hill decided to fight the ticket, and on Wednesday, a Jackson County Justice Court judge dismissed the citation, finding that motorists flashing their headlights amounts to speech protected by the Oregon Constitution.

Judge Joseph Carter determined the law covering the use of high beams was valid, but was unconstitutional as it was applied by the deputy.

“The citation was clearly given to punish the Defendant for that expression,” the judge wrote. “The government certainly can and should enforce the traffic laws for the safety of all drivers on the road. However, the government cannot enforce the traffic laws, or any other laws, to punish drivers for their expressive conduct.”

The Jackson County Sheriff’s Office did not return a telephone call for comment.

Hill, 38, of Klamath Falls, has been driving truck for 10 years, and was not interested in seeing his insurance rates go up for getting a ticket. He initially told the deputy that the UPS driver was his neighbor, and he was just saying hello.

“My point to the cop was his partner didn’t know why I was flashing my lights,” Hill said. “He couldn’t tell for sure what I was doing.”

By the time his case went to court last month, Hill had researched the law and found nothing that expressly prohibited the use of headlights to signal other drivers. He also recalled a TV news story about a federal judge in the Midwest barring police from handing out tickets to drivers who flashed their lights to warn others of a speed trap ahead.

“I thought, `Well, I’ll throw that in there, too,”‘ he said.

Visit link:
Flashing headlights free speech? Judge says yes



News Wrap: China warns it will defend disputed islands
In our news wrap Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met with China's defense minister, who warned that his government is ready to use force to defend their sovereignty over a group of…

By: PBS NewsHour

Excerpt from:
News Wrap: China warns it will defend disputed islands – Video

Hauling a truckload of logs to a Southern Oregon mill last fall, Chris Hill noticed a sheriff’s deputy behind him and flashed his lights to warn a UPS driver coming the other way.

The deputy pulled over Hill on U.S. Highway 140 in White City and handed him a $260 ticket for improperly using his headlights, saying another deputy had seen the flashing lights from behind the UPS truck and alerted him to stop the log truck because of the signaling.

Outraged, Hill decided to fight the ticket, and on Wednesday, a Jackson County Justice Court judge dismissed the citation, finding that motorists flashing their headlights amounts to speech protected by the Oregon Constitution.

Judge Joseph Carter determined the law covering the use of high beams was valid, but was unconstitutional as it was applied by the deputy.

“The citation was clearly given to punish the Defendant for that expression,” the judge wrote. “The government certainly can and should enforce the traffic laws for the safety of all drivers on the road. However, the government cannot enforce the traffic laws, or any other laws, to punish drivers for their expressive conduct.”

The Jackson County Sheriff’s Office did not return a telephone call for comment.

Hill, 38, of Klamath Falls, has been driving truck for 10 years, and was not interested in seeing his insurance rates go up for getting a ticket. He initially told the deputy that the UPS driver was his neighbor, and he was just saying hello.

“My point to the cop was his partner didn’t know why I was flashing my lights,” Hill said. “He couldn’t tell for sure what I was doing.”

By the time his case went to court last month, Hill had researched the law and found nothing that expressly prohibited the use of headlights to signal other drivers. He also recalled a TV news story about a federal judge in the Midwest barring police from handing out tickets to drivers who flashed their lights to warn others of a speed trap ahead.

“I thought, ‘Well, I’ll throw that in there, too,’” he said.

Original post:
Judge Says Flashing Headlights Is Free Speech



Andrew Bolt on Racism and Free Speech March 2014
In March 2014 proposed changes to the Australian Racial Discrimination Act 1975 prompted claims that the government is supporting bigotry. http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2014…

By: Rex Lupis

Link:
Andrew Bolt on Racism and Free Speech March 2014 – Video

GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN, CAYMAN ISLANDS–(Marketwired – Apr 9, 2014) – Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. (NASDAQ: CWCO) (“Consolidated Water” or “the Company”), which develops and operates seawater desalination plants and water distribution systems in areas of the world where naturally occurring supplies of potable water are scarce or nonexistent, today announced the receipt of a new contract to refurbish the Lower Valley desalination plant and the extension of an existing contract to operate the North Sound desalination plant.Both contracts are with the Water Authority-Cayman (“WAC”), the water utility owned by the Cayman Islands Government, and each of the plants is located on the island of Grand Cayman.

Following a competitive tender process, the WAC has awarded to Consolidated Water a contract to refurbish its 800,000 US gallons per day (USgpd) Lower Valley desalination plant.The refurbishment includes complete replacement of the high pressure pumps; the first and second pass membrane racks, including membranes, pressure vessels and piping; the energy recovery systems; the controls systems; and associated electrical power systems.The WAC will demolish the existing Lower Valley Plant equipment to be replaced under the contract and prepare the existing plant building for installation of the new equipment.The contract requires completion of the refurbishment work within 250 days following the contract’s execution date.

Following the commissioning of the refurbished plant, Consolidated Water will operate the plant for a period of three months and comply with certain performance criteria before transferring the plant to the WAC.The refurbished plant will have a rated water production capacity of 800,000 USgpd.

Consolidated Water constructed and commissioned the Lower Valley desalination plant in 1997 for the WAC and operated the plant under contract until 2013.The Company expanded and refurbished the plant during this period under various contracts and contract extensions.The WAC took over operations and maintenance responsibilities involving the plant in January 2013.

The Company also announced a 12-month extension of its contract to operate the WAC’s 1.6 million USgpd North Sound seawater desalination plant.Consolidated Water constructed and commissioned the North Sound plant in 2002 for the WAC, expanded its production capacity in 2007 from 800,000 USgpd to 1.6 million USgpd, and has satisfactorily operated the plant under contract since commissioning.The operations contract was originally scheduled to expire on April 1, 2014.The WAC has extended the contract for 12 months, with certain adjustments to the terms of the contract as agreed between the WAC and the Company and approved by the Central Tenders Committee of the Cayman Islands Government.

The 12-month extension period will allow the WAC sufficient time to arrange the public tender process for a new operations contract for the plant, as required under the Cayman Islands Public Management and Finance Law.Consolidated Water intends to participate in this tender process.

CWCO-G

About Consolidated Water Co. Ltd.

Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. develops and operates seawater desalination plants and water distribution systems in areas of the world where naturally occurring supplies of potable water are scarce or nonexistent. The Company operates water production and/or distribution facilities in the Cayman Islands, Belize, the British Virgin Islands, The Commonwealth of The Bahamas, and Bali, Indonesia.

Consolidated Water is headquartered in George Town, Grand Cayman, in the Cayman Islands.The Company’s ordinary (common) stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “CWCO”.Additional information on the Company is available on its website at http://www.cwco.com.

Read more:
Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. Announces Contracts With the Water Authority-Cayman



Catherine Engelbrecht – Friend to Freedom, Enemy of Big Government
Catherine Engelbrecht dared to speak up about the integrity of the electoral system. She didn't just worry about it, write about it, or complain about it. Sh…

By: WesternFreePress

See more here:
Catherine Engelbrecht – Friend to Freedom, Enemy of Big Government – Video

Worshippers carry a cross in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Good Friday during Holy Week, in Jerusalem’s Old City.Reuters

As priests are abducted in Crimea, churches burn in Sudan, and American pastors waste away in North Korean prisons, how long will it take this administration to name a new ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom?

With the president visiting Saudi Arabia and the first lady visiting China earlier this month, April would have been a prime opportunity to send a message that America values religious freedom, even in the presence of necessary allies with dismal reputations in this regard. This isnt a Democratic, Republican, liberal, or conservative issue; its a matter of common decency and of human rights.

The ambassadorship has been vacant for six months and it has been nearly two months since President Obama stated at the National Prayer Breakfast that he looks forward to nominating our next ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

I have personally witnessed the shocking truth of the presidents related statement that “around the world, freedom of religion is under threat.”

– Recently, I was in the West Bank where earlier this year in the village of Deir Istiya, attackers set fire to the local mosque and spray painted hate messages on its walls.

– The same day I was leaving the region, radical Islamists fired at least 40 rockets into the towns of their Jewish neighbors.

– A few weeks ago, as worshippers were gathering in St. Pauls Roman Catholic Church in Nigeria, Boko Haram a militant group trying to overthrow the government and create an Islamic state, attacked the church and killed over 45 parishioners. One of the survivors lost her husband and child in the attack and when interviewed all she could say was, we saw hell.

– In the mainly Buddhist nation of Burma, the number of displaced Rohingya Muslims has climbed to more than 150,000; others have been killed at the hands of Buddhist mobs, and all of this has happened since Burma began making its move toward political reform.

— In the Central African Republic, Christian militias are now responding with unspeakable violence against the mainly Muslim Seleka rebels who notoriously terrorized Christians in the country last year, and on a recent Sunday morning in Mombasa, Kenya, extremists killed 2 Christian church leaders as they sat in the pews of Joy Jesus Church.

See the article here:
OPINION: US, Obama must act now to save lives, protect religious freedom

Forty people are missing and 49,000 homeless after entire communities washed away following heavy rains Devastating flash floods in the Solomon Islands have killed at least 19 people, while 40 are still missing and an estimated 49,000 people are homeless. Entire riverside communities and bridges were washed away when the Matanikau river in Honiara broke its banks on Thursday. The government …

See more here:
Solomon Islands flash floods kill at least 19 people

HONIARA, Solomon Islands Flash floods in the Solomon Islands have killed 14 people and left thousands more homeless.

Government spokesman George Herming said Saturday that the death toll could rise further, with many people listed as missing. He said as many as 15,000 people have had their homes destroyed or made uninhabitable.

The South Pacific island nation is home to 600,000 people.

Herming said there were several days of rain before the Mataniko River in the capital, Honiara, burst its banks Thursday and flooded low-lying settlements alongside the river.

He said the flooding continued through Friday, and waters began to gradually recede Saturday.

New Zealand’s government has pledged 300,000 New Zealand dollars ($258,000) to the relief effort.

See more here:
Solomon Islands flooding kills 14 people and leaves thousands more homeless

Meat producers including Hormel Foods Group Inc. (HRL) will get another chance to challenge country-of-origin labeling rules in a case pitting corporate free-speech rights against the governments regulatory reach.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today threw out a March 28 ruling by a three-judge panel upholding the Department of Agricultures labeling requirements so all 11 judges on the court can reconsider a constitutional question of corporate free speech: Can regulators require labels only that correct a deception such as false advertising or can they demand data for other purposes such as addressing consumer confusion?

The regulations, which were adopted in May and took full effect in November, require producers to specify the country or countries where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered. Retail packages cant mix muscle cuts from different countries under a general label.

Country-of-origin labeling forces meat producers to segregate animals and raises costs, according to the American Meat Institute and other opponents. They also argue the government doesnt have a good enough reason to override their free speech rights and force them to make statements against their will, a contention the appeals court panel rejected.

Admittedly, theres consumer curiosity about the origin of meat products, said Mark Dopp, general counsel of the meat institute, the Washington-based meat industry group leading the challenge to the rules. But we dont feel that rises to the level of a compelling government interest that would be needed to justify the labeling mandate, he said.

The Consumer Federation of America argued in court papers supporting the government that the rules aim to lessen confusion is enough reason to compel labels that put factual statements on packages.

Congress recognized that such confusion was particularly acute in the case of meat products, the group said.

Allison Price, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which is defending the rule, declined to comment in an e-mail.

In deciding to re-hear the free speech issue, the court followed the panels urging that the entire court resolve which of two earlier cases should set the standard on corporate free speech in the circuit.

The panels ruling sustained a decision by U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in September rejecting the meat groups bid to block the rules pending a trial on the merits of their case.

View post:
Meat Groups Get Second Crack in Court at Label Rules



Iraqi journalists question media freedom
Journalists in Iraq say they are subject to a campaign of violence and intimidation by both opposition fighters and the government. It comes after a veteran …

By: Al Jazeera English

More:
Iraqi journalists question media freedom – Video



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