BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 3
Go here to read the rest:
BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 3 – Video
BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 3
Go here to read the rest:
BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 3 – Video
BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 4
Read the original post:
BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 4 – Video
BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 1
Read the original post:
BVARSITY: Liberty at Independence volleyball, Game 1 – Video
In less than a year Scotland is voting on whether to leave the UK, but far from being a simple decision on whether Scotland wants to manage its own affairs, there could be a spanner in the works.
Earlier this year the islands of Shetland, Orkney and the Western isles decided to use the independence vote as an opportunity to push for their own constitutional reform; a decision that could have far reaching consequences not only for the islands but also for Scotlands bid for independence.
To understand this debate its worth putting the islands concerns into some context. At least as British as Scottish
These islands have their own cultural and musical traditions that are different from the mainland; they also have a unique history.
The islands only became part of Scotland in the 15th century when they were given to Scotland as part of a Norwegian princesss dowry, before that they were part of Norway and spoke a Nordic dialect. That means theyve spent longer being ruled by Westminster than Edinburgh.
The Scandinavian country is often considered the spiritual home of the islanders, not Scotland. This was in focus 36 years ago when Shetlanders voted overwhelmingly against an independent Scotland.
[What would REALLY happen if Britain left the EU?]
The trouble for Scottish Nationalists is the seas that surround the islands are rich in oil and gas reserves, holding some 20% of all UK reserves. Shetland is very influential in the North Sea oil and gas industry and the push for Home Rule could give the islands the lions share of Scotlands oil and gas reserves.
The islands are also attractive as a renewable source of energy. For example, Orkney has attracted billions in renewable energy investment in recent years. The importance of the islands in Scotlands energy industry could be what scuppers the Scottish independence lobbys bid for freedom.
Scottish independence hinges on Scotland being able to fund itself on the back of oil and gas revenues, but the islands are starting to object to the rest of Scotland taking their revenues when the oil is on their lands.
Go here to read the rest:
Could the Scottish Islands become the next Jersey?
Statue of Liberty reopens to public
The Statue of Liberty reopens on July 4, America's Independence Day, months after Superstorm Sandy swamped the little island on which it stands. The statue's reopening Thursday was a sign…
See more here:
Statue of Liberty reopens to public – Video
USA Independence Day: Statue of Liberty reopens on Fourth of July after Superstorm Sandy repairs
July 4 marks America's Independence Day, and to commemorate this special day New York has reopened the Statue of Liberty. Liberty Island had previously been closed for about nine months after…
Statue of Liberty reopens on Independence Day
Independence day – July 4 had a special resonance this year in New York. Tourists flocked to… euronews, the most watched news channel in Europe Subscribe for your daily dose of international…
Watch: Fireworks at the Statue of Liberty as US celebrates Independence Day
The Statue of Liberty reopened on July 4, eight months after Superstorm Sandy shuttered the national symbol of freedom, as Americans around the country celebrated with fireworks and parades…
Visitors poured off the ferry Thursday to greet the nation’s gatekeeper. NBC’s Katy Tur reports.
By Elisha Fieldstadt, NBC News
The Statue of Liberty reopened to visitors Thursday during an Independence Day ceremony, eight months after the island Lady Liberty calls home wasflooded and destroyed by Superstorm Sandy.
The National Park Service closed the site just a day after the statues crown had been reopenedfollowing a year of renovations.
Nine long months have passed since anyone has been allowed to visit the Statue of Liberty due to damage from Superstorm Sandy, but the nation’s gatekeeper will be welcoming visitors once again, starting fittingly on Independence Day. NBC’s Katy Tur reports.
Even though the storm surge covered 75 percent of the island, damaging New York Harbor docks andislandwalkways, as well as buildings and electrical systems, the statue managed to withstand the intensity of the storm.
The statue’s 126-year-old iron framework designed by Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel allowed for the Statue of Liberty to withstand the storm’s intense winds, the National Park Service said.
The agency brought in workers from all over the country to clean up the mess Sandy left behind. Meanwhile, it suggested moving the storm-battered security checkpoints to Ellis Island, which is a short ferry-ride away from Liberty Island. The New York Police Department argued that metal detectors should remain in Manhattans Battery Park to better ensure the safety of one of the nations most famous and visited landmarks.
The statues crown had been closed to visitors from 2001 to 2009, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Here is the original post:
Statue of Liberty officially reopens for July 4th
TFTW: Top Ten Heroes of Freedom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK1lH-1ewa8 Click here to watch TFTW: Top Ten Nudie Games “Steve and Larson celebrate Independence Day by counting down the greatest heroes freedom has ever…
See more here:
TFTW: Top Ten Heroes of Freedom – Video
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – Wiki Article
“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives examples of the vario…
Commentary By MANUEL F. ALMARIO Philippine Daily Inquirer
Having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom, US President Barack Obama said in a policy speech on terrorism last May 23.
For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over $1 trillion on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home, he said. Our service members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home.
Among those who have paid the price for freedom were many Filipino-Americans, migrant Filipinos who wanted to share the American Dream, not only by risking life and limb in the battlefield but also by losing their homes and their jobs because of the deficit and recession caused by the wars.
If I were an American, I would probably ask: Why should I and my fellow Americans pay the price for freedom everywhere or anywhere in the world? But being a Filipino, I ask: Is it fair and proper for my own sake to have the Americans pay for my freedom? After all, in fighting for their freedom, the Americans did it all by themselves. They paid their own price.
Also, would it be fair to say that only the Americans have paid the price for freedom? What about the hundreds of thousands or millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans and Pakistanis who died while being handed the gift of freedom by the United States? And before them, the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who were killed while being gifted with their freedom at the cost of 50,000 American young lives and trillions of dollars in American taxpayers money?
Did the price for freedom paid by the United States for Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan actually result in the prosperity, happiness and social stability of the lucky recipients of those gifts? Did it nation-build, as Obama put it, these countries? Or do they not daily experience terrorist bombings, the death of scores of innocent civilians, in a gyration of death and destruction that continues after a decade of war?
The price for freedom
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.
This week I’ve been in Chicago at Poynter’s Covering Guns seminar. The seminar, airfare and hotel was totally paid for by a grant from the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, which made it possible for me and most of the other reporters here to even consider participating.
On Monday, Second Amendment scholar David B. Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute and adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law at University of Denvers Sturm College of Law, spoke to our group about what journalists should know about the Second Amendment.
Kopel told us about how the Second Amendment evolved to be viewed as an individual right to own and carry a gun rather than the right of just those in an organized militia. This happened through several U.S. Supreme Court cases, U.S. v. Miller (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
In the 1970s, Kopel said, general legal thought was that the Second Amendment wasn’t an individual right.
The court explains in the Heller decision that the first half of the amendment is a “prefatory cause” which simply states one reason why people must have the right to own and carry weapons.
Robert Levy, a chairman of the Cato Institute’s board of directors and one of the driving forces behind the Heller case, also spoke with us.
Levy explained that a combination of good timing and an agreeable court helped win the Heller case. Levy said he’s never owned a gun himself but thought the case was important to take up in order to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment.
One topic of discussion centered around the language of the amendment.
What does “Right of the people” mean and what did it mean at the time it was written?
By Anna Hiatt
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The U.S. National Park Service is relocating security operations for the Statue of Liberty over the objections of the New York Police Department, saying on Friday it will move screening to Ellis Island from Manhattan when the statue reopens on July 4.
The statue has been closed to the public since late October because of Superstorm Sandy.
The landmark has been presumed to be a potential target since the hijacked-airliner attacks of September 11, 2001. Officials closed access to the inside of the statue after the attacks and did not reopen it for almost eight years.
The nearly 4 million tourists a year who visit Liberty Island, home of the statue in New York Harbor, previously went through airport-style screening in Manhattan before boarding ferries. That screening will move to Ellis Island, which sits next to Liberty Island and is home to an immigration museum.
“The Park Service’s decision to reopen the Statue of Liberty without screening in Manhattan was made against the NYPD’s recommendation and leaves unresolved the vulnerability to attack on ferry passengers en route to both Liberty and Ellis Islands,” NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said.
The decision to move security operations came after a lengthy review, said Linda Friar, a spokesperson for the National Park Service.
The contract for the Manhattan security tent, which was badly damaged in the hurricane, expires at the end of March. Even before Sandy hit, the city’s Parks and Recreation Department had asked the Park Service to remove the tent, Friar said.
The initial security facilities on Ellis Island will be temporary and the Park Service plans to build a permanent structure that can handle extreme weather.
U.S. officials announced plans on Tuesday to reopen the Statue of Liberty to tourists on the Independence Day holiday after a $59 million project to repair damage on Liberty and Ellis islands caused by Sandy.
Originally posted here:
Statue of Liberty security post being moved over NYPD objections
First Amendment rights, global worship and Christ’s suffering on Good Friday are explored.
Peoria, IL (PRWEB) March 06, 2013
–A piece by renowned defender of First Amendment rights Nat Hentoff is reprinted. In “More of our doctors are losing their independence,” Hentoff explores the impact of the new health care law on doctor-patient relationships.
–Rob Slane, meanwhile, explores an inconsistency of the “pro-choice” movement, which claims to support a woman’s choice to abort until her choice crosses some other politically correct line.
–Members Paul and Cathy McAndrew work through musical group IziBongo to share with U.S. audiences the sound of global worship. Their Member Spotlight tells how they got to where they are and how appreciating other Christian cultures worship of God can deepen others’ faith.
–Dr. Mark Marinella takes a physician’s view of the crucifixion of Christ in “Died He for Me.” A review of the book and an interview with the Ohio oncologist are good opportunities to remember the immensity of Christ’s physical suffering as Good Friday approaches.
–Ray King asks hard questions while reflecting on Luke 18:7-8 in The Doorpost for this month.
Links to these articles can be found at the Samaritan Ministries blog.
Samaritan Ministries International seeks to help members of the Body of Christ carry out the Great Commission through ministries that enable Christians to better obey Jesus’ commands. This is currently done through the Christian Health Care Newsletter health care sharing ministry and the Morning Center maternity hospital ministry. For more information, contact James Lansberry, 877-764-2426, Ext. 186, jlansberry(at)smchcn(dot)net; or Mike Miller, 877-764-2426, Ext. 142, or 309-642-9529, mikemiller(at)smchcn(dot)net.
James Lansberry Samaritan Ministries International 877-764-2426 186 Email Information
Ive written a couple of short pieces about God and the Second Amendment since my post of Feb. 11 , and have trashed both. This is my third go.
Its a touchy topic. Incendiary, even. And that counsels taking care.
To refresh: My earlier post noted my puzzlement about a commentary published in the Sunday Ideas section of Jan. 31 referring to Americans God-given right to have guns.
I didnt question the right. The Second Amendment, despite multiple interpretations over more than two centuries, does plainly confer a right to keep and bear arms. I questioned the reference to God-given, because God isnt cited in the Second Amendment or in the entire Constitution and accompanying amendments except in the most glancing way.
My post got an interesting conversation going in the comment thread that followed. Often noted in comments and in a couple of emailed responses was that, yes, God isnt in the Constitution but is in the Declaration of Independence , as Robert Grenier expressed in a comment:Continue Reading
Many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were implied rights, derived from various sources, including the Declaration of Independence, where (Thomas) Jefferson wrote in part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
That thought has kept me scratching my head ever since. So, here I go. To the degree you think Im right, wrong or daft, you may thank my liberal-arts college education.
The Constitution was a political compromise, not scripture. The men who crafted it thought it was better than the Articles of Confederation that preceded it but still an imperfect document. So did many other Americans at the time, including those at the first North Carolina ratifying convention, which ended in stalemate (North Carolina ratified the Constitution only after calling a second convention after New York had approved it, making its adoption a forgone conclusion). Some critics expressed concern that God wasnt in the draft Constitution.
The Constitution is a wonderful document, and I dont mean to suggest otherwise. But its also a very human document, one that has not always extended its rights to all of Gods people under its reach.
Among the certain unalienable Rights enshrined in the Constitution is the now superseded right permitting states to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining population and thus representation in Congress.
See the rest here:
God and the Second Amendment, Version 2
UNITED NATIONS (AP) The Marshall Islands and other low-lying island nations appealed to the U.N. Security Council to recognize climate change as an international security threat that jeopardizes their very survival.
Tony deBrum, a minister and assistant to the Marshall Islands president, said Friday the island nations are facing opposition from Security Council permanent members Russia and China and a group of more than 130 mainly developing nations, which argue that the U.N.’s most powerful body is the wrong place to address climate change.
DeBrum told reporters after a closed Security Council meeting on the “Security Dimensions of Climate Change,” organized by Britain and Pakistan, that he hopes more council members will be convinced that “this is a security issue and not just an economic-political-social issue.”
The low-lying islands, which are already being inundated with sea water, want the council to bring its “political weight” to the issue and help their countries survive, for example, by harnessing new technologies and ensuring alternative energy supplies, he said.
DeBrum said it was “ironic, bizarre perhaps” that 35 years after he went before the Security Council to seek the independence of the Marshall Islands he was back again “to appeal for the survival of my country.”
He said climate change has already taken a toll on the Marshall Islands. Wells have filled with salt water, making drinking water scarce and in turn affecting food production. One small island in a lagoon is now under water, and coastlines are being eroded.
The impact of climate change is also causing migration to other islands, as well as to Australia and the United States, he said.
In an interview Friday with The Associated Press, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank’s vice-president for sustainable development, said that since the council’s last discussion of climate change “the sense of immediacy and urgency has increased.”
“The question is: Do you want to keep on cataloguing all of the terrible things that are going to happen if we continue on a business as usual track, or are we actually going to start doing anything about it?” she said
Kyte said she explained to the council on Friday that “it is possible to stop the worst from happening but it will require real, concerted policy action globally at every country level.”
Go here to see the original:
Islands want UN to see climate as security threat
Richard Grove on Declare Your Independe 1-22-13 (hour 1)
1-22-13 (hour 1) Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock | [guest] Richard Grove (Tragedy Hope and The Peace Revolution Podcast) on liberty, communication, and education
See the rest here:
Richard Grove on Declare Your Independe 1-22-13 (hour 1) – Video
Win Your Ex Back by Giving Him His Freedom Back!
tinyurl.com – CLICK HERE TO GET HIM BACK NOW! What is the one thing you can do NOW to Get Your Ex Back? It all starts with you; Getting Back Together happens when you start here. Have you run out of ideas as to how you can win your Ex back after trying a number of disastrous methods? Getting advice to get Ex back always is a dodgy thing as most of the times you end up losing your Ex by following it! Now that you have lost your partner, you must have realized that you took him for granted when he was around. And now you're dead sure he's left you forever, isn't so? Well, no matter how unfavorable the odds are, you can't lose hope! First of all you need to sort your twisted thoughts and get your thinking cap on! Now that you've tried everything, you need to start thinking intelligently and search for answers from the past. Were there more ups than downs in your relationship? Had you started to quarrel over trifles with your Ex? Was he feeling a lack of freedom and wanted to regain his liberty desperately? The thing is that you had deprived your boyfriend from his independence and now giving back him freedom is the key to win your Ex back! Now that you've agreed upon giving him his freedom, the only way to do that is to leave him alone. Stop showing up at his workplace every day and quit calling him pointless phone calls every night. These things will only make matters worse. If you want to win your Ex back, be more rational in your approach and allow him more space. You can …
Win Your Ex Back by Giving Him His Freedom Back! – Video
Libertarian Elitest (LIbertarians The New mainstream)
Earlier this week, Glenn Beck announced that he was reinventing The Blaze, his online media property, as a global libertarian news network, complete with three foreign bureaus, a nightly news magazine, and, no doubt, lots of Beck himself. Last night, he announced the next stage of his full-bodied embrace of libertarianism, which seems to be a massive commune inspired by “Galt's Gulch,” Ayn Rand's utopian community in Atlas Shrugged. You can watch Beck's 20-minute rant about the community, which he's dubbed Independence, USA, or you can turn to Right Wing Watch, which reports: On his program last night, Beck revealed that his intention to “go Galt” is quite literal, unveiling grandiose plans to create an entirely self-sustaining community called Independence Park that will provide its own food and energy, produce television and film content, host research and development, serve as a marketplace for products and ideas, while also housing a theme park and serving as a residential community. At the center — in the middle of the lake that is itself larger than all of Disney Land – Beck (with the help of David Barton) will create a massive “national archive”/learning center where people can send their children to be “deprogrammed” and elected officials can come to learn “the truth.”
By: Biff Burroughs
Read this article:
Libertarian Elitest (LIbertarians The New mainstream) – Video
Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum