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

State legislators are concerned about Second Amendment rights so much so that the Senate has passed a bill that would prohibit local regulation of firearms or ammunition.

State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Brockway, announced Friday that the senate passed House Bill 80 by a vote of 34 to 14 on Thursday.

State Rep. Martin Causer, R-Turtlepoint, said he supports the bill that would put a stop to local laws or ordinances attempting to regulate firearms or ammunition.

Now the bill is in the hands of the state House of Representatives following Thursdays vote.

I think its very much needed, Causer said, who was a co-sponsor of the original House Bill.

Causer said the measure promotes uniformity in regards to firearms across Pennsylvania. People traveling throughout the state would not have to worry about local gun laws being different.

Scarnati says the legislation would protect Pennsylvanians Second Amendment rights.

This legislation is a commonsense measure to not change, but simply clarify current law, Scarnati said. Senate Bill 80 clarifies existing law to ensure that firearms and ammunition laws are consistent across Pennsylvania.

There has never been such an issue across the region, Causer said, but he sees a problem in southern Pennsylvania, especially Philadelphia.

Causer said the bill would let an individual or organization sue to block or overturn a local ordinance. If successful, the individual would be able to recoup expenses, including attorney fees, costs, and lost income from employment, according to Scarnati.

Go here to see the original:
Senate passes bill prohibiting local firearm regulations

RICHLAND, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) – The former Gull Lake High School student, who reportedly posted a song with potentially threatening lyrics to YouTube will not face charges.

On Thursday, Kalamazoo County Undersheriff Paul Matyas said they won’t be seeking charges against the teen.

He adds that no crime had been committed that they could determine.

Newschannel 3 sat down with an attorney to find out just how far your First Amendment rights will carry you.

Tuesday, Gull Lake Community Schools sent out a robo-call to parents, alerting them to a possible threat.

In that call, the Superintendent said a former student wrote a song that contained lyrics describing violence against the district.

That song was posted to YouTube, but has since been removed.

“In this case, if it didn’t even get past step one, that tells me the Sheriff doesn’t think it was a legitimate threat, and that might be because of who it’s coming from, the circumstances that was made, and you know, when they look at…what the individual’s actually capable of, they realize it was a totally empty threat,” said attorney Don Smith, with Willis Law.

But how far is too far? And at what point is someone no longer protected under the First Amendment?

The Sheriff’s Department will not say what those lryics were, but Smith says for authorities to pursue the case, it would have to be a specific threat that causes an imminent risk to people.

Continue reading here:
Attorney discusses first amendment rights in wake of alleged Gull Lake threat



Nat Hentoff on Free Speech, Jazz, and FIRE
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is proud to release our newest video, an interview with legendary critic and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff. In the interview, recorded…

By: TheFIREorg

More here:
Nat Hentoff on Free Speech, Jazz, and FIRE – Video



G. Edward Griffin | Individual Liberty is Better than New World Order Collectivi
G. Edward Griffin | Individual Liberty is Better than New World Order Collectivism videos.. Please click here to subscribe to my channel.. Economic collapse and financial crisis is rising any…

By: Candace Price

Read more from the original source:
G. Edward Griffin | Individual Liberty is Better than New World Order Collectivi – Video

Oct 062014

Kekula saved, from left, her sister, Vivian, 28, her mother, Victoria, 57, and her father, Moses, 52.

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Editor’s note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and partner at Cevallos & Wong, practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter: @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) — Passengers on a United Airlines flight from Brussels were quarantined at New Jersey’s Newark airport and later released this weekend over Ebola fears that turned out to be unwarranted. In this case and that of the Ebola patient in Dallas, government and our citizens struggle to define the parameters of the sanctioned suppression of individual liberty that is the quarantine.

In the modern United States, the people boast unparalleled personal freedoms. Whether enumerated in the Constitution or “penumbral,” the inalienable liberties of the individual are designed to never be overridden by the interests of the majority.

Read the rest here:
Ebola at war with your liberty

Kekula saved, from left, her sister, Vivian, 28, her mother, Victoria, 57, and her father, Moses, 52.

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Editor’s note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and partner at Cevallos & Wong, practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter: @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) — Passengers on a United Airlines flight from Brussels were quarantined at New Jersey’s Newark airport and later released this weekend over Ebola fears that turned out to be unwarranted. In this case and that of the Ebola patient in Dallas, government and our citizens struggle to define the parameters of the sanctioned suppression of individual liberty that is the quarantine.

In the modern United States, the people boast unparalleled personal freedoms. Whether enumerated in the Constitution or “penumbral,” the inalienable liberties of the individual are designed to never be overridden by the interests of the majority.

Read this article:
Ebola fight trumps personal liberty

Kekula saved, from left, her sister, Vivian, 28, her mother, Victoria, 57, and her father, Moses, 52.

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

A one-woman hospital

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Editor’s note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and partner at Cevallos & Wong, practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter: @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) — Passengers on a United Airlines flight from Brussels were quarantined at New Jersey’s Newark airport and later released this weekend over Ebola fears that turned out to be unwarranted. In this case and that of the Ebola patient in Dallas, government and our citizens struggle to define the parameters of the sanctioned suppression of individual liberty that is the quarantine.

In the modern United States, the people boast unparalleled personal freedoms. Whether enumerated in the Constitution or “penumbral,” the inalienable liberties of the individual are designed to never be overridden by the interests of the majority.

See the original post here:
Beating Ebola vs. personal liberty

Oct 012014

This past week, I was joined by Josh McCoy of Vizion Interactive in presenting an SEO workshop for attendees of the Integrated Marketing Summit in Kansas City. The workshop was four hours and the presentation totaled just more than 100 slides.

As you might imagine, there was a lot of stuff to talk about. By its nature, some of that content was a “bit” on the technical side, but we tried our best to speak “English” so that the attendees could walk away with fewer questions than they had coming in.

We wanted the workshop to be interactive, and welcomed questions. One question did strike me as something that I think too often is bantered in executive meetings throughout the world

The comment (and question), as best as I can recall was something like, “Youve covered a lot of technical stuff in this presentation, but can you just tell me what the one thing is that we can do to really improve our results for SEO?”

We didnt dodge the question. I mean, if you had to pick one tactic, I would have to pick “create content.” But, thats really too simplistic an answer.

I shared with this individual that sometimes content isnt the answer. Each and every project is unique, the competitive set is unique, and every website (company) has its own set of unique challenges. I shared a few examples of instances where I had worked with large organizations that simply had an issue with getting content indexed. Once this “one thing” was fixed, it was a hockey stick. Traffic, in some cases, doubled. These companies already had authority built into their site (solid link profile/larger brands, etc.). And, in some cases, that “one thing” was the fact that their title tags were absolutely horrible (yes, there are still some with the title tag of “home” on their home/index page of their sites).

There are currently more than 1 million results for an “allintitle:” search on Google for “homepage” and nearly that many for the same search for “home page.”

But, these “one thing” opportunities dont come around very often.

More often, you are engaging in an omni-channel approach to building authority, strategically developing content, technical stuff, and optimizing conversion rates as much as you are title tags.

This, in my opinion, is “todays SEO.”

See more here:
SEO Is No One-Trick Pony

The teenager who was caused a security scare at the Freedom Tower earlier this year has been arrested for a new stunt, police said.

Justin Casquejo, 16, has been charged with defiant trespass and resisting arrest after being caught climbing a water tower in Weehawken, New Jersey.

State officials said that the Sept. 17 incident in Weehawken could violate his probation that was handed down after he was caught at the top of the Freedom Tower.

Teen Sneaks Past Security, Climbs Atop 1 World Trade Center

NJ Teen Who Climbed WTC Tower Tweets Apology

Casquejo was arrested in March after climbing to the tower’s spire. He later explained that he scaled the fence surrounding the site, took the stairs to the 20th floor, jumped on an elevator to the 99th floor and then walked the rest of the way up to the top of the Western Hemisphere’s tallest building.

He pleaded guilty in that case. He has not yet had to enter a plea in the Weehawken case.

Police sources confirmed that Casquejo was the individual arrested in connection to the Weehawken case because the suspect’s name was not originally released publicly due to his age.

There may have been other people present when he allegedly scaled the water tower last week, but Casquejo was the only person arrested.

Casquejo posted an apology on Twitter after he was caught in March, but he has not posted any remorseful message since his most recent arrest.

Read more here:
Why the Teen Who Climbed Freedom Tower Was Arrested Again

Sep 052014

Fourth Amendment:Searches and SeizuresWhat is the Fourth Amendment?The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The Fourth Amendment Defined:Like the majority of fields within American law, the Fourth Amendment is heavily rooted in the English legal doctrine. In a general sense, the Fourth Amendment was created to limit the power of the government and their ability to enforce legal actions on individuals. The Fourth Amendment was adopted as a direct response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which was a type of general search warrant used by the government during the American Revolution. The Amendment was created to limit the powers of the law enforcement agency who is conducting a search of an individuals personal property.The Fourth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 4th AmendmentThe Fourth Amendment guards against the governments ability to conduct unreasonable search and seizures when the individual party being searched has a reasonable exception of privacy.The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a law enforcement agency to possess judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants, which are supported by probable clause, to be administered before a persons property can be inspected.The Fourth Amendment ties in numerous limitations whereby an individual may be searched without a warrant given the presence of certain circumstances. The individuals property may be searched and seized if: The individual is on parole or in a tax hearing, faces deportation, the evidence is seized from a common carrier, the evidence is collected by U.S. customs agents, the evidence is seized by probation officers, the evidence is seized outside of the United States, or probable cause is evident.Court Cases tied into the 4th AmendmentIn Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is enforceable and should be applied to all states in the Union by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that certain searches and seizures were in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly issued to the coordinating law enforcement agencies.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Fourth Amendment:Searches and Seizures

What is the Fourth Amendment? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment Defined: Like the majority of fields within American law, the Fourth Amendment is heavily rooted in the English legal doctrine. In a general sense, the Fourth Amendment was created to limit the power of the government and their ability to enforce legal actions on individuals. The Fourth Amendment was adopted as a direct response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which was a type of general search warrant used by the government during the American Revolution. The Amendment was created to limit the powers of the law enforcement agency who is conducting a search of an individuals personal property.

The Fourth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 4th Amendment The Fourth Amendment guards against the governments ability to conduct unreasonable search and seizures when the individual party being searched has a reasonable exception of privacy.

The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a law enforcement agency to possess judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants, which are supported by probable clause, to be administered before a persons property can be inspected.

The Fourth Amendment ties in numerous limitations whereby an individual may be searched without a warrant given the presence of certain circumstances. The individuals property may be searched and seized if: The individual is on parole or in a tax hearing, faces deportation, the evidence is seized from a common carrier, the evidence is collected by U.S. customs agents, the evidence is seized by probation officers, the evidence is seized outside of the United States, or probable cause is evident.Court Cases tied into the 4th Amendment In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is enforceable and should be applied to all states in the Union by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that certain searches and seizures were in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly issued to the coordinating law enforcement agencies.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II

Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all

Excerpt from:
4th Amendment – Laws.com

Aug 312014

Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth Amendment?No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensationThe Fifth Amendment Defined:The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment:The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth Amendment? No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The Fifth Amendment Defined:

The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment: The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.

The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II

Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all

North Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved all

View original post here:
5th Amendment – Laws.com

The Supreme Court unwisely declined to review Drake v. Jerejian, last week, a case that challenged New Jerseys discretionary system of concealed-carry permitting.

By denying review, the Court failed to resolve a nationwide split about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Eventually, the Court will have to face the issue and decide if it was serious when it held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Both Heller and McDonald made it clear that the government cannot ban or effectively ban guns, but lower courts are still struggling to define what restrictions are allowed under those rulings.

In 2008, in the landmark case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Eventually, the Court will have decide if it was serious when it held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Later, in 2010s McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects citizens from not just federal prohibitions, as Heller said, but also from state and municipal prohibitions.

Since that time, the Court has not heard another Second Amendment case. Both Hellerand McDonald made it clear that the government cannot ban or effectively ban guns, but lower courts are still struggling to define what restrictions are allowed under those rulings. The Supreme Court needs to clear up the uncertainty.

Gun controllers in cities and states across the country are taking advantage of that uncertainty to test the limits of gun control. After McDonald struck down Chicagos de factogun ban, the city created a restrictive permit system requiring one hour of range training. But the city also banned gun ranges. The Seventh Circuit struck down the ban on ranges.

More recently, a judge struck down Chicagos ban on virtually all sales and transfers within the city because the Second Amendment right must also include the right toacquirea firearm.

See the rest here:
Guns and Supreme Court: Is Second Amendment a Privilege, Not a Right?

May 102014

The bottle is now labeled libertarianism. But its content is nothing new; it is what in the nineteenth century, and up to the time of Franklin Roosevelt, was called liberalism the advocacy of limited government and a free economy. (If you think of it, you will see that there is a redundancy in this formula, for a government of limited powers would have little chance of interfering with the economy.) The liberals were robbed of their time-honored name by the unprincipled socialists and near socialists, whose avidity for prestige words knows no bounds. So, forced to look for another and distinctive label for their philosophy, they came up with libertarianism good enough but somewhat difficult for the tongue.

They might have done better by adopting the older and more meaningful name of individualism, but they bypassed it because it too had been more than sullied by its opponents …

The mudslinging started long ago, but the more recent and best-known orgy occurred in the early part of the century when the heaven-by-way-of-government muckrakers attached to individualism a value-impregnated adjective rugged. The word itself has no moral content; when applied to a mountain it is purely descriptive, when applied to an athlete it carries a favorable connotation. But, in the literary usage of the muckrakers, it designated what in plain language would be called skulduggery. It has no more to do with a philosophy than has any form of indecent behavior. Thus, the rugged individualist was the fellow who threatened to foreclose the mortgage on the old homestead if the fair damsel refused his hand in marriage; or he was the speculator who made use of the stock market to rob widows and orphans; or he was the fat and florid buccaneer who lavished diamonds on his ladylove. He was, in short, a fellow whose conscience presented no obstacle to his inclination to grab a dollar, and who recognized no code of ethics that might curb his appetites. If there is any difference between an ordinary thief and a rugged individualist, it is in the fact that the latter almost always keeps within the letter of the law, even if he has to rewrite the law to do so …

Rugged individualism was a propaganda phrase of the first order. It was most useful in bringing the soak-the-rich urgency to a boiling point.

The phrase gained currency at the time when the leveling mania was fighting its way into the American tradition, before the government, making full use of the new power it had acquired under the income tax law, took hold of the individual by the scruff of the neck and made a mass-man out of him. It is an odd fact that the socialist is quite in agreement with the rugged individualist in advocating the use of political force to achieve ones good; the difference between them is only in determining the incidence, or the recipient, of government-given good. It is doubtful whether the robber barons (a synonym for rugged individualists) ever used the government, before the income tax, with anything like the vigor and success of the socialists. At any rate, the stigma of ruggedness has stuck, so that the collectivist intellectuals, who ought to know better, are unaware of the difference between thievery and individualism.

Original Smear Words

The besmirching of individualism, however, had a good start before the modern era. The original defamers were not socialists but solid proponents of status, the upholders of special privilege, the mercantilists of the nineteenth century. Their opposition stemmed in part from the fact that individualism leaned heavily on the burgeoning doctrine of the free market, of laissez-faire economics, and as such presented a challenge to their preferred position. So they dug into the age-old bag of semantics and came up with two smear words: selfish and materialistic. Just like the later socialists, they had no compunction about twisting the truth to suit their argument.

Laissez-faire that is to say, an economy free of political interventions and subventions holds that the instinct of self-interest is the motive power of productive effort. Nothing is produced except by human labor, and labor is something the human being is most parsimonious about; if he could satisfy his desires without effort, he would gladly dispense with it. That is why he invents labor-saving devices. But he is so constituted that every gratification gives rise to new desire, which he proceeds to satisfy by investing the labor he saved. He is insatiable. The log cabin that was palace enough in the wilderness seems quite inadequate as soon as the pioneer accumulates a surplus of necessaries, and then he begins to dream of curtains and pictures, inside plumbing, a school or a church, to say nothing of baseball or Beethoven. Self-interest overcomes his aversion to labor in his constant drive to improve his circumstances and widen his horizon …

It is in the free market that self-interest finds its finest expression; that is a cardinal point in individualism. If the market is regularly raided, by robbers or the government, and the safety of property is impaired, the individual loses interest in production, and the abundance of things men live by shrinks. Hence, it is for the good of society that self-interest in the economic sphere be allowed to operate without hindrance.

But self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest will impel the manufacturer to improve upon his output so as to attract trade, while selfishness will prompt him to seek the special privileges and state favor that in the end destroy the very system of economic freedom on which he depends. The worker who tries to improve his lot by rendering better service could hardly be called selfish; the description rather fits the worker who demands that he be paid for not working. The subsidy seeker is selfish, and so is every citizen who uses the law to enrich himself at the expense of other citizens.

See the article here:
What Individualism Is Not



2010 First Amendment Award: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
2010 First Amendment Award: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) izle, 2010 First Amendment Award: The Foundation for Individual Rights i…

By: Carol N. Hammons

Original post:
2010 First Amendment Award: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) – Video



College Sued For Stopping Students From Handing Out Constitution
The always formidable defenders of free speech at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed a lawsuit in federal court today on behalf of a student who committed the heinous…

By: JmanPrepper Redux

See the rest here:
College Sued For Stopping Students From Handing Out Constitution – Video



ConLaw Class 22 – Individual Liberty III
Bowers v. Hardwick, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor.

By: Josh Blackman

Originally posted here:
ConLaw Class 22 – Individual Liberty III – Video



ConLaw Class 21 – Individual Liberty II
Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

By: Josh Blackman

See original here:
ConLaw Class 21 – Individual Liberty II – Video



First Amendment Award: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
The Ford Hall Forum presents the 2010 Louis P. and Evelyn Smith First Amendment Award to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which is dedicated to defending and sustaining…

By: Forum Network

Read more:
First Amendment Award: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education – Video



ConLaw 20 – Individual Liberty I
Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Buck v. Bell, Griswold v. Connecticut .

By: Josh Blackman

See the rest here:
ConLaw 20 – Individual Liberty I – Video

JACKSON, Miss., April 4 (UPI) — Gov. Phil Bryant said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will protect “Mississippians of all faiths from government interference,” as he signed the controversial bill.

Supporters say the measure is similar to a federal law passed in 1993 that requires proof of a “compelling interest” in any government measure that imposes a “substantial burden” on religious practices. Critics say its real aim is to allow discrimination against homosexuals.

The law, which Bryant signed Thursday, also adds “In God We Trust” to the Mississippi state seal. It takes effect in July.

I am proud to sign the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which will protect the individual religious freedom of Mississippians of all faiths from government interference, Bryant said.

The Mississippi law was redrafted twice before being approved this week by the state legislature.

A number of states have religious freedom laws on their books, and others have recently considered them. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer recently vetoed a bill, and the Oklahoma Senate effectively killed one that had already passed the House by a wide margin.

In Arizona, a number of businesses lobbied against the bill and said the state might lose the 2015 Super Bowl. Critics said the law was so broad that cab drivers who believe for religious reasons that women should not travel alone could refuse to serve them.

[LA Times]

Go here to see the original:
Mississippi governor signs religious freedom bill



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