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

Abel Danger: Airliner Atrocity Is Another Illuminati False Flag

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Abel Danger: Airliner Atrocity Is Another Illuminati False Flag
Oct 302015


July 19, 2014

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

False flag: You commit an atrocity and blame your enemies. In this case, the Kiev-based junta shot down the plane and blamed the Donetsk separatists and their Russian backers. The reaction of the Western mass media is the “tell.” Just as they blamed Osama bin Laden within a half-hour of the 9-11 false flag, the Illuminati Jewish mass media pins the blame on the Russian-backed separatists without any evidence whatever. Echoes of 9-11, they call this shootdown “an act of terror.”

You have to ask, “who benefits” from such a crime? What possible benefit could the Russians or their allies derive from this atrocity?

The Ukrainians on the other hand are backed by the US-based Illuminati Jewish NeoCons who are anxious to increase tensions and provoke war with Russia. Their ultimate goal is to unseat Putin. This heinous crime must be seen in the context of the sinking of the Maine or the Lusitania as an attempted casus belli. Obama called it a “wakeup call for Europe.” CNN “experts” say the Russians did it; militias don’t have the skills. (No proof is necessary, just like Assad’s “chemical attack” on his own people. This is what the Illuminati-Jewish-dominated West has descended to: Commit an atrocity and blame the “enemy,” i.e. the nation that refuses to surrender.)

Here are articles which support the False Flag view:

Was Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior Behind the Downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17?

The Ukrainians says the separatist militias do not have the Buk system. A report from an expat Spanish air traffic controller in Kiev said the plane was diverted over the conflicted area and taken down by order of the Nazi-run Ukrainian Interior Ministry which is in charge of pacifying the Eastern region. ‘Smoking gun’ intercepts in the MH17 shootdown The Ukrainian Secret Service released a reported phone conversation in which Russian separatists admit shooting down the plane by mistake. The Russians debunk this as a fraud. They say the conversation was concocted before the plane was hit. See also: “Busted: Tape Made Before Shootdown”

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 Downed Over Warzone Ukraine. Who Was Behind It? Cui Bono?

Russia and the fighters operating in eastern Ukraine have nothing to gain by downing a civilian airliner, but absolutely everything to lose thus pointing the finger in another direction that of NATO and their proxy regime in Kiev.

Malaysian Plane Crash: Lies and Sinister Political Agenda by the West

The Russian Defense Ministry has said that when a Malaysia Airlines plane was apparently shot down over Ukraine, a Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft missile battery was operational in the region.

Kiev Refuses to Release Controller Instructions to MH17 Pilots A simple search at FlightAware reveals that MH17 was in fact diverted 200 kilometers north from the usual flight path taken by Malaysia Airlines in the previous days and plunged right in the middle of a war zone. Why? What sort of communication did MH17 receive from Kiev air control tower? Kiev has been mute about it. Yet the answer would be simple, had Kiev released the Air Traffic Control recording of the tower talking to Flight MH17; Malaysia did it after Flight MH370 disappeared forever. It won’t happen; SBU security confiscated it. So much for getting an undoctored explanation on why MH17 was off its path, and what the pilots saw and said before the explosion. The Russian Defense Ministry, for its part, has confirmed that a Kiev-controlled Buk anti-aircraft missile battery was operational near MH17’s crash. Kiev has deployed several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers; these are all perfectly capable of bringing down jets flying at 33,000 ft.

Russia Slams US for Implicating Rebels

On Saturday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the US administration sought to pin the blame on separatists and Russia without waiting for the results of an investigation. “The statements of representatives of the US administration are evidence of a deep political aberration of Washington’s perception of what is going on in Ukraine,” he told Russian news agencies.

The cynicism is breath-taking.

The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), in a statement titled “The Downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17: Russia in the Dock,” provides a self-incriminating indictment as to the motives Kiev and its NATO backers had in carrying out the attack on MH17 and subsequently framing Russia for it. RUSI’s statement claims: A Game Change: Within days, however, the real debate will shift from one about producing the right evidence and culprits, to more about what can be saved from the rapidly-deteriorating relations between Russia and the West. The tragedy will stain Russia’s relations with the world for years to come. Nations determined to keep on good terms with Russia such as China or Vietnam which relies on Russian weapon supplies and wishes these to continue will keep quiet. And there will always be some plausible deniability, giving other countries enough room for manoeuvre to avoid accusing Russia directly for this disaster. But the culprits for the crime will be pursued by international investigators and tribunals. And many Russian officials will be added to the ‘wanted’ lists of police forces around the world. The story will linger, and won’t be pretty for Russian diplomats. Given the fact that the majority of the victims are European citizens, it is also getting increasingly difficult to see how France would be able to deliver the Mistral ships which Russia ordered for its navy, or how Britain could continue shielding Russia from financial sanctions. And, given the fact that scores of US citizens were also killed on the MH17 flight means that the US Congress will demand greater sanctions on Russia, making any improvement in relations with Washington highly unlikely.

Russia Asks Kiev to Answer Ten Simple Questions

6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?


Another Summary of Evidence by Nick Kollerstrom Points to Ukrainian Military Jets shooting Down MH-17

Russian Expert Says Damage Confirms MH-17 Shot Down by Ukrainian Military Jets _______

First Comment from James Perloff:

Just in case they don’t get a war against Russia over MH17, perhaps the Western media should trot out the following tried-and-tested headlines this week as “breaking news”:


If one false flag doesn’t suffice, why not use the shotgun approach?

Read the original post:
Abel Danger: Airliner Atrocity Is Another Illuminati False Flag

 Posted by at 7:41 am  Tagged with:


 NATO  Comments Off on NATO –
Oct 282015

NATO is based on the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides the organization a framework. The treaty provides that an armed attack against one or more of NATO`s member nations shall be considered an attack against them all.* NATO is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. The organization was formed in 1949. Many nations joined NATO even Iceland, the only member without a military force.

The organization was originally formed out of the fear that the Soviet Union would ally militarily with Eastern European nations, i.e. the Warsaw Pact, and thus become a threat to Western Europe and the United States. In short, the alliance is an association of free states united in their determination to preserve their security through mutual guarantees and stable relations with other countries.

From 1945 to 1949, Europe faced the crucial need for economic reconstruction. Western European countries and their North American allies viewed with apprehension the expansionist policies and methods of the U.S.S.R. Having fulfilled their own wartime commitments, and desiring to reduce their defense establishments and demobilize forces, Western governments became increasingly alarmed as it became clear that the Soviet leadership intended to maintain its own military forces at full strength.

Furthermore, in view of the Soviet Communist Party`s avowed ideology, it was evident that appeals to the United Nations Charter, and international settlements reached at the end of the war, would not assure democratic states their autonomy. The rise of nondemocratic governments in many central and eastern European countries, and the resultant repression of opposition parties and basic human rights, raised more alarm in the West.

Between 1947 and 1949, a series of extraordinary political events brought matters to a head. They included direct threats to the sovereignty of Norway, Greece, Turkey and other countries, the June 1948 coup in Czechoslovakia, and the illegal blockade of Berlin that began in April of the same year. The signing of the Brussels Treaty in March 1948 marked the commitment of five Western European countries Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to develop a common defense system and strengthen the ties among them in a manner that would enable them to resist ideological, political and military threats to their security. Later, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway and Portugal were invited by the Brussels Treaty powers to become participants in that process.

Then followed negotiations with the United States and Canada on the creation of a single North Atlantic alliance based on security guarantees and mutual commitments between Europe and North America. The alliance would become the transatlantic link by which the security of North America was permanently tied to the security of Europe.

Negotiations culminated in the signing of the treaty in April 1949, entered into freely by each country following public debate and due parliamentary process. The treaty a legal and contractual basis for the alliance was established within the framework of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which reaffirms the inherent right of independent states to individual or collective defense. The treaty requires of each of them not to enter into any other international commitment that might conflict with its provisions. The preamble to the treaty states that the aim of the allies is to promote peaceful and friendly relations in the North Atlantic area.

However, at the time of the treatys signing, the immediate purpose of NATO was to defend its members against a potential threat resulting from the policies and growing military capacity of the Soviet Union. The treaty created a common security system based on a partnership among the 12 countries. Others joined later:

The means by which the alliance carries out its security policies includes the maintenance of a sufficient military capability to prevent war and to provide for effective defense; an overall capability to manage crises affecting the security of its members; and active promotion of dialogue with other nations. The alliance performs the following fundamental security tasks:

A continent evolves

NATO has worked since its inception for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. That central alliance objective has taken on renewed significance since the end of the Cold War because, for the first time in the post- World War II history of Europe, the prospect of its achievement has become a reality as embodied by the European Union.

From time to time, the alliance met at the summit level with heads of state and governments participating. Their direct participation in the process of taking decisions by consensus, raised the public profile of such meetings and bestowed on them increased historical significance.

By 1991, the major transformation of international security at the end of the 1980s was dictating the shape of the new NATO that would emerge over the next few years. The first of a series of four summit meetings that would plot the course of the alliances adaptation to the coming decade took place in Rome in November 1991. It would be followed by another summit meeting in Brussels in January 1994, two further meetings in Madrid in July 1997, and in Washington in April 1999.


The world has seen many changes since the inception of NATO. NATO peacekeeping forces maintain vigilance at hot spots around the world. Kosovo, Afghanistan and Somalia all enjoy a NATO presence. NATO announced on June 9, 2005, that it would help the African Union (AU) expand its peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan, by airlifting additional AU peacekeepers into the region and assisting with training.

The following is from a speech by former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson on November 12, 2003. The occasion was hosted by the George C. Marshall Foundation, the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced Internationa Studies and the Royal Norwegian Embassy:

Another excerpt from the same speech:

The following is an illustration of how the world has changed. General Ray Henault of the Canadian Air Force accepted the chairmanship of NATO`s Military Committee on June 16, 2005, from his predecessor, General Harald Kujat of the German Air Force. The Military Committee is the highest military decision-making authority in NATO, assisting and advising the North Atlantic Council. The Chairman of the Military Committee is selected by the Chiefs of Defense and appointed for a three-year term of office.

See the article here:

 Posted by at 11:44 am  Tagged with:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949 – 19451952 …

 NATO  Comments Off on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949 – 19451952 …
Oct 232015

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union.

Signing of the NATO Treaty

NATO was the first peacetime military alliance the United States entered into outside of the Western Hemisphere. After the destruction of the Second World War, the nations of Europe struggled to rebuild their economies and ensure their security. The former required a massive influx of aid to help the war-torn landscapes re-establish industries and produce food, and the latter required assurances against a resurgent Germany or incursions from the Soviet Union. The United States viewed an economically strong, rearmed, and integrated Europe as vital to the prevention of communist expansion across the continent. As a result, Secretary of State George Marshall proposed a program of large-scale economic aid to Europe. The resulting European Recovery Program, or Marshall Plan, not only facilitated European economic integration but promoted the idea of shared interests and cooperation between the United States and Europe. Soviet refusal either to participate in the Marshall Plan or to allow its satellite states in Eastern Europe to accept the economic assistance helped to reinforce the growing division between east and west in Europe.

In 19471948, a series of events caused the nations of Western Europe to become concerned about their physical and political security and the United States to become more closely involved with European affairs. The ongoing civil war in Greece, along with tensions in Turkey, led President Harry S. Truman to assert that the United States would provide economic and military aid to both countries, as well as to any other nation struggling against an attempt at subjugation. A Soviet-sponsored coup in Czechoslovakia resulted in a communist government coming to power on the borders of Germany. Attention also focused on elections in Italy as the communist party had made significant gains among Italian voters. Furthermore, events in Germany also caused concern. The occupation and governance of Germany after the war had long been disputed, and in mid-1948, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin chose to test Western resolve by implementing a blockade against West Berlin, which was then under joint U.S., British, and French control but surrounded by Soviet-controlled East Germany. This Berlin Crisis brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of conflict, although a massive airlift to resupply the city for the duration of the blockade helped to prevent an outright confrontation. These events caused U.S. officials to grow increasingly wary of the possibility that the countries of Western Europe might deal with their security concerns by negotiating with the Soviets. To counter this possible turn of events, the Truman Administration considered the possibility of forming a European-American alliance that would commit the United States to bolstering the security of Western Europe.

Signing of the Brussels Treaty

The Western European countries were willing to consider a collective security solution. In response to increasing tensions and security concerns, representatives of several countries of Western Europe gathered together to create a military alliance. Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg signed the Brussels Treaty in March, 1948. Their treaty provided collective defense; if any one of these nations was attacked, the others were bound to help defend it. At the same time, the Truman Administration instituted a peacetime draft, increased military spending, and called upon the historically isolationist Republican Congress to consider a military alliance with Europe. In May of 1948, Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenburg proposed a resolution suggesting that the President seek a security treaty with Western Europe that would adhere to the United Nations charter but exist outside of the Security Council where the Soviet Union held veto power. The Vandenburg Resolution passed, and negotiations began for the North Atlantic Treaty.

In spite of general agreement on the concept behind the treaty, it took several months to work out the exact terms. The U.S. Congress had embraced the pursuit of the international alliance, but it remained concerned about the wording of the treaty. The nations of Western Europe wanted assurances that the United States would intervene automatically in the event of an attack, but under the U.S. Constitution the power to declare war rested with Congress. Negotiations worked toward finding language that would reassure the European states but not obligate the United States to act in a way that violated its own laws. Additionally, European contributions to collective security would require large-scale military assistance from the United States to help rebuild Western Europes defense capabilities. While the European nations argued for individual grants and aid, the United States wanted to make aid conditional on regional coordination. A third issue was the question of scope. The Brussels Treaty signatories preferred that membership in the alliance be restricted to the members of that treaty plus the United States. The U.S. negotiators felt there was more to be gained from enlarging the new treaty to include the countries of the North Atlantic, including Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, and Portugal. Together, these countries held territory that formed a bridge between the opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean, which would facilitate military action if it became necessary.

President Truman inspecting a tank produced under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program

The result of these extensive negotiations was the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. In this agreement, the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom agreed to consider attack against one an attack against all, along with consultations about threats and defense matters. This collective defense arrangement only formally applied to attacks against the signatories that occurred in Europe or North America; it did not include conflicts in colonial territories. After the treaty was signed, a number of the signatories made requests to the United States for military aid. Later in 1949, President Truman proposed a military assistance program, and the Mutual Defense Assistance Program passed the U.S. Congress in October, appropriating some $1.4 billion dollars for the purpose of building Western European defenses.

Soon after the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the outbreak of the Korean War led the members to move quickly to integrate and coordinate their defense forces through a centralized headquarters. The North Korean attack on South Korea was widely viewed at the time to be an example of communist aggression directed by Moscow, so the United States bolstered its troop commitments to Europe to provide assurances against Soviet aggression on the European continent. In 1952, the members agreed to admit Greece and Turkey to NATO and added the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955. West German entry led the Soviet Union to retaliate with its own regional alliance, which took the form of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and included the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe as members.

The collective defense arrangements in NATO served to place the whole of Western Europe under the American nuclear umbrella. In the 1950s, one of the first military doctrines of NATO emerged in the form of massive retaliation, or the idea that if any member was attacked, the United States would respond with a large-scale nuclear attack. The threat of this form of response was meant to serve as a deterrent against Soviet aggression on the continent. Although formed in response to the exigencies of the developing Cold War, NATO has lasted beyond the end of that conflict, with membership even expanding to include some former Soviet states. It remains the largest peacetime military alliance in the world.

Read more here:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949 – 19451952 …

 Posted by at 11:47 pm  Tagged with:

NSA | Define NSA at AcronymFinder

 NSA  Comments Off on NSA | Define NSA at AcronymFinder
Oct 202015

NSA National Security Agency (US government) NSA National Speakers Association NSA No Strings Attached NSA Naval Support Activity NSA Network Security Appliance (Sonicwall) NSA Notary Signing Agent NSA National Security Advisor NSA Not Seasonally Adjusted NSA National Security Archive NSA National Security Act NSA National Society of Accountants NSA National Sheriffs’ Association (Alexandria, VA, USA) NSA National Security Affairs NSA No Sugar Added NSA National Stuttering Association NSA National Stroke Association NSA Network Spinal Analysis NSA National Spiritual Assembly (Institution of the Baha’i Faith) NSA Norwegian Shipowners Association NSA North Slope of Alaska NSA National Sheep Association (Malvern, Worcestershire, UK) NSA National Safety Associates NSA National Scrabble Association NSA Non-State Actor (international relations) NSA National Student Association NSA North Star Academy NSA New Saint Andrews College (Moscow, Idaho) NSA National Sunflower Association NSA National Stone Association (Washington, DC) NSA National Stereoscopic Association NSA Negative Security Assurances NSA National Steeplechase Association NSA National Sound Archive NSA National Security Area NSA NATO Standardization Agency NSA National Smokers Alliance NSA Nebraska Statewide Arboretum NSA Negotiated Service Agreement (US postal service) NSA National Security Agents (gaming clan) NSA Non-Standard Analysis NSA National Seniors Australia (est. 1976) NSA Nuclear Science Abstracts NSA Normalized Site Attenuation NSA Nashville School of the Arts (Tennessee) NSA National Storytelling Association NSA National Slag Association (Alexandria, VA) NSA Northern Study Area NSA Navy Support Activity NSA National Skateboard Association NSA Noise Sensitive Area NSA Nikkei Stock Average NSA National Shipping Authority NSA National School of Administration (China) NSA Non-surgical Sperm Aspiration NSA Nunavut Settlement Area NSA New Statistical Account (Reports on the conditions of Scotland, with reports on each parish, in the 1830s) NSA National Supers Agency (fictional from the movie The Incredibles) NSA National Safety Association NSA National Security Anarchists (hacker group) NSA National Sprint Association (UK) NSA Natuurwetenschappelijke Studievereniging Amsterdam (University of Amsterdam Physics Department student organization) NSA Nebraska Soybean Association NSA Naperville Soccer Association NSA No Smoking Area NSA National Softball Association, Inc. NSA Norcross Soccer Association (Georgia) NSA Naval Supervising Activity NSA National Singles Association (Atlanta, Georgia) NSA Navy Stock Account NSA Night Stalker Association NSA National Success Association NSA National Shuffleboard Association NSA National Software Alliance NSA No Significant Abnormalities (disease assessment) NSA Northern Slope of Alaska NSA National Service Alliance, LLC NSA Non Semi Auto (concealed handgun license; Texas) NSA Non Standard Area (of a database) NSA Nantucket Shellfish Association (Nantucket, MA) NSA National Scout Association NSA National Standard Application NSA Narrow-Slot Approximation NSA National Sentinel Audit NSA Node Switching Assembly NSA Net Sales Area NSA Network Search Algorithm NSA Nikkei Student Association NSA Nuclear Support Agency NSA Naval Systems Analysis NSA Nichiren Shosu of America NSA Net Sellable Area (real estate) NSA Network South Australia (Adelaide, Australia) NSA Neutron Source Assembly NSA Net Server Assistant NSA Norwegian Security Act NSA Nabelschnurarterie (German: Umbilical Cord Artery) NSA Narrow Slot Aperture NSA Nikkei Siam Aluminium Limited (Pathumtani, Thailand) NSA New Student Ambassadors (various schools) NSA Nippon Software Industry Association (Japan) NSA Nippon Steel Australia NSA Nippon Supporters Association (Japan) NSA Nippon Surfing Association (Japan) NSA No Secrets Association NSA Non-Self-Aligned NSA Non Standard Ammunition (munitions) NSA Neil Stewart Associates (UK) NSA Network Security Administrator NSA Network Security Agreement NSA Network Simplex Algorithm NSA New Settlement Apartments (New York, NY) NSA New Small Airplane (Boeing) NSA Network Storage Appliance (computing) NSA Network Supported Account (Cisco) NSA Network Systems Administrator (various organizations) NSA Nouvelle Substance Active (French: New Active Substance; Canada) NSA Nordic Securities Association (est. 2008) NSA Non-Standard Auto (insurance) NSA Naczelny Sad Administracyjny (Polish: Supreme Administrative Court) NSA National Scrapbooking Association NSA National Sex Authority NSA National Smokejumper Association NSA National Snow Analyses (US NOAA) NSA Need Special Assistance NSA Natural Systems Agriculture NSA National Supervisory Authority (EU) NSA National Survey of Adolescents NSA Native Speakers of Arabic NSA National Statistical Authorities (EU) NSA National Sports Academy (various locations) NSA National Space Agency

Here is the original post:
NSA | Define NSA at AcronymFinder

 Posted by at 8:44 pm  Tagged with:

Second Amendment – Conservapedia

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment – Conservapedia
Oct 192015

See also gun control.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:[1]

For several decades, the lower federal courts had interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting merely a collective right of state militias.[2] However, the U.S Supreme Court has always called it an individual right. The 2008 Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

In 1786, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Constitutional Convention was held with the idea of amending the Articles. When the convention ended with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they insured that a Bill of Rights would be made, which would provide constitutional guarantees against taking away certain rights.

One of those rights was the right to bear arms. This was intended to prevent the Federal Government from taking away the ability of the states to raise an army and defend itself and arguably to prevent them from taking away from individuals the ability to bear arms.

The meaning of this amendment is controversial with respect to gun control.

The National Rifle Association, which supports gun rights, has a stone plaque in front of its headquarters bearing the words “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The slogan means that individual citizens have the right to own and use guns.

American law has always said that the militia includes ordinary private citizens, and gun rights advocates say that the amendment means individuals have the right to own and use guns. Gun control advocates began in the late 20th century to say it means only that there is only some sort of collective or state-controlled right.

Supreme Court opinions have all been consistent with the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but the lower court opinions are mixed.

As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is Parker v District of Columbia, in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007 that the DC gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.

The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.””’

Quoted from:

Down to the Last Second (Amendment)

Participants in the various debates on firearms, crime, and constitutional law may have noticed that the Second Amendment is often quoted differently by those involved. The two main variations differ in punctuation- specifically, in the number of commas used to separate those twenty-seven words. But which is the correct one? The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic. Therefore, a look into the progression of this declaratory and restrictive clause from its inception to its final form is in order.

Before beginning, one must note that common nouns, like “state” and “people,” were often capitalized in official and unofficial documents of the era. Also, an obsolete formation of the letter s used to indicate the long s sound was in common usage. The long ‘s’ is subject to confusion with the lower case ‘f’ ,therefore, Congress” is sometimes spelled as “Congrefs,” as is the case in the parchment copy of the Bill of Rights displayed by the National Archives. The quotations listed here are accurate. With the exception of the omission of quotations marks, versions of what is now known as the Second Amendment in boldface appear with the exact spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as the cited originals.

During ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.1

On July 21, John Vining of Delaware was appointed to chair a select committee of eleven to review, and make a report on, the subject of amendments to the Constitution. Each committeeman represented one of the eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution at that time), with James Madison representing Virginia. Unfortunately, no record of the committee’s proceedings is known to exist. Seven days later, Vining duly issued the report, one of the amendments reading:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. 2

In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people religiously scrupulous in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty. However, motions to strike the clause were not carried. On August 21, the House enumerated the Amendments as modified, with the fifth article listed as follows:

5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. 3

Finally, on August 24, the House of Representatives passed its proposals for amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the Senate for their consideration. The next day, the Senate entered the document into their official journal. The Senate Journal shows Article the Fifth as:

Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. 4

On September 4, the Senate debated the amendments proposed by the House, and the conscientious objector clause was quickly stricken. Sadly, these debates were held in secret, so records of them do not exist. The Senators agreed to accept Article the Fifth in this form:

…a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed. 5

In further debates on September 9, the Senate agreed to strike the words, “the best,” and replace them with, “necessary to the.” Since the third and fourth articles had been combined, the Senators also agreed to rename the amendment as Article the Fourth. The Senate Journal that day carried the article without the word, “best,” but also without the replacements, “necessary to.” Note that the extraneous commas have been omitted:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 6

With two-thirds of the Senate concurring on the proposed amendments, they were sent back to the House for the Representatives’ perusal. On September 21, the House notified the Senate that it agreed to some of their amendments, but not all of them. However, they agreed to Article the Fourth in its entirety:

Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth amendments… 7

By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 8

The above version is used almost exclusively today, but aside from the parchment copy, the author was unable to find any other official documents from that era which carry the amendment with the extra commas. In fact, in the appendix of the Senate Journal, Article the Fourth is entered as reading:

Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.9

Also, the Annals of Congress, formally called The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, show the proposed amendment as follows:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.10

Further, once two-thirds of both chambers of the Congress agreed to the proposed amendments, the House passed a resolve to request that the President send copies of them to the governors of the eleven states in the Union, and to those of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Senate concurred on September 26, as recorded in their journal:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the executives of the United States, which have ratified the constitution copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto; and like copies to the executives of the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.11

Fortunately, an original copy of the amendments proposed by the Congress, and sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, does survive. Certified as a true copy by Assembly Secretary Henry Ward, it reads in part:

Article the Fourth, –A well regulated Militia being neceffary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms fhall not be infringed. 12

And so, the proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification. When notifying the President that their legislatures or conventions had ratified some or all of the proposed amendments, some states attached certified copies of them. New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island notified the general government that they had ratified the fourth amendment in this form:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 13

Articles the First and Second were not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, but by December 15, 1791, the last ten articles were. These, of course, are now known as the Bill of Rights. Renumbering the amendments was required since the first two had not been ratified. The 1796 revision of The Federalist on the New Constitution reflects the change as such:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.14

This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley’s Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term “state” is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.15,16, 17

This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. 18

(The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a “literal print” of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)19

Thus, the correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word “state.” It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified.

Why the Commas are Important

It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous. These points will be demonstrated later in the Second Amendment Series.

Footnotes to Comment section:

1. Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789. The Constitution Society., 16 January 2000.

2. Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society., 16 January 2000.

3. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 August 1789.

4. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 25 August 1789.

5. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 4 September 1789.

6. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 9 September 1789.

7. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 September 1789.

8. Bill of Rights. National Archives and Records Administration., 22 January 2000.

9. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix.

10. Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix

11. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong. 1st sess., 26 September 1789.

12. A True Bill. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications., 27 January 2000.

13. U.S. House Journal, 1st Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix Note: Maryland and South Carolina capitalized the “m” in “Militia.”

14. The Federalist on the New Constitution, 1796. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications., 17 February 2000.

15. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society., 18 February 2000.

16. Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite., 2 February 2000.

17. Statutes at Large 1845, 21.

18. Second Amendment–Bearing Arms. The Constitution of the United States of America., 18 February 2000.

19. Text of the Amendments (Literal Print). The Constitution of the United States of America., 18 February 2000.

Liberals have made various efforts to subvert the Second Amendment by enacting unconstitutional gun laws which restrict the ability of individuals to protect themselves against the excesses of government. Examples include:

See also list of celebrities against Second Amendment

Bill of Rights: 1 – Freedom of speech, press, etc. 2 – Right to bear arms 3 – Quartering of soldiers 4 – Warrants 5 – Due process 6 – Right to a speedy trial 7 – Right by trial of a jury 8 – No cruel or unusual punishments 9 – Unenumerated rights 10 – Power to the people and states

11 – Immunity of states to foreign suits 12 – Revision of presidential election procedures 13 – Abolition of slavery 14 – Citizenship 15 – Racial suffrage 16 – Federal income tax 17 – Direct election to the United States Senate 18 – Prohibition of alcohol 19 – Women’s suffrage 20 – Terms of the presidency 21 – Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment 22 – Limits the president to two terms 23 – Electoral College 24 – Prohibition of poll taxes 25 – Presidential disabilities 26 – Voting age lowered to 18 27 – Variance of congressional compensation

See the article here:
Second Amendment – Conservapedia

 Posted by at 10:45 pm  Tagged with:

The best islands in Southeast Asia

 Islands  Comments Off on The best islands in Southeast Asia
Oct 182015

Coral and Raya Islands Off Phuket’s southern coast lie a number of small islands whose pristine shores lure scuba divers and beach bums away from the mainland. Most of these isolated islands are undeveloped, but the notable exceptions are Coral Island and Ko Raya (also known as Ko Racha) which have accommodation options and restaurants. Both islands have safe swimming, reefs teeming with aquatic life, and a sense of getting away from it all that’s harder and harder to come by in Phuket proper. Coral Island is read more about Coral and Raya Islands

Ko Adang Far out in the Andaman Sea, the formidable mountains of Ko Adang rise over Ko Lipe like a protective uncle. The two islands are so close together that if arriving to Lipe at Pattaya Beach, you may very well assume that Adang’s lushly forested southern eminence is part of Lipe’s interior. In fact, the two neighbours could hardly be more different. While both islands are technically part of Tarutao National Park, development and mass tourism have taken a firm hold on Lipe. In contrast, Adang read more about Ko Adang

Ko Bulon Lae Kicking a football in the sea breeze, school kids laugh on their beachside field. Local sea gypsies smile at backpackers and families who lounge outside their simple bungalows. Flowers and butterflies abound. Away from the over-development and other problems found on more popular Thai islands, Ko Bulon Lae quietly preserves its rural tranquility. If that sounds wonderful, well, it truly is. But it takes a special sort of person to appreciate this one-of-a-kind island in the Andaman Sea. read more about Ko Bulon Lae

Ko Chang Sometimes called the Beast of the East thanks to its sheer mass and location in the eastern Gulf of Thailand near Cambodia, Ko Chang might just be the quintessential Thai island destination. From breathtaking mountains to idyllic beaches, hippy hangouts to salubrious resorts, and traditional fishing villages to neon nightlife, Elephant Island truly has something for everyone. Some say that Ko Chang’s name derives from its shape on a map that somewhat resembles the head of an elephant. read more about Ko Chang

Ko Chang Noi Not to be confused with the far bigger and better known Ko Chang of Trat province in the Gulf of Thailand, little Ko Chang or, as we have always known it, Ko Chang Noi is a formidable destination in its own right. One of Thailand’s quietest, most relaxed, and undeveloped islands, Ko Chang Noi makes up for its lack of sparkle with an artsy, laid back atmosphere you’ll find nowhere else. Don’t expect luxury resorts and bus loads of short-term holiday makers but rather rustic read more about Ko Chang Noi

Ko Jum The little-known Andaman island of Ko Jum (aka Ko Pu) strikes an ideal balance of great beaches, thin crowds and ultra-relaxing atmosphere. With mass tourism having been left to neighbouring Ko Phi Phi and Ko Lanta, Jum’s Muslim residents have happily preserved their traditional lifestyle. So enchanting is Ko Jum that we’ll go out on a limb to call it one of our favourite Thai islands. Colourful fishing hamlets dot the east coast, where longtail boats bob amid the seaside villages and read more about Ko Jum

Ko Kham An idealic little blink-and-you’ll-miss-it island barely a kilometre from Ko Maak, Ko Kham was once the perfect spot to really get away from it all. Crystal-clear waters and a number of coral reefs made the island popular with the snorkelling crowd and many boat outings from Ko Chang stopped here for an hour or two to have a look into the not-so-deep. A series of black volcanic rocks jut out of the snow-white sand on the island’s eastern beach, and for those on the island they made for read more about Ko Kham

Ko Kho Khao Just a ten minute boat ride from the Takua Pa area of Phang Nga province, Ko Kho Khao (pronounced kaw koe cow) doesnt look very different from the mainland. However, for those seeking a family beach destination thats not as remote as nearby Ko Phra Thong but not as busy as Khao Lak or Phuket, Kho Khao is worth a visit. The islands long golden beaches are the main draw, and aesthetically these are similar to the beaches of the Khao Lak area further south. The waters are slightly murky read more about Ko Kho Khao

Ko Kradan A thin slip of an island off the coast of Trang province, Ko Kradan boasts a gorgeous white-sand beach stretching between fluffy green hills and the cerulean blue Andaman Sea. Also home to some good snorkelling and low-tide sandbars that make for the beach walk of a lifetime, Kradan is among Thailand’s more visually spectacular islands. With some advanced planning, anyone from solo gap-year backpackers to groups of old friends to honeymooning couples and flashpacking families can enjoy a read more about Ko Kradan

Ko Kut We’re going to go out on a limb and declare Ko Kut (also spelt Ko Kood) to be the most beautiful island we’ve seen in Thailand over two decades of travel to the kingdom. There. We said it. It really is just drop dead gorgeous. And we strongly recommend you add it to your itinerary the next time you holiday in Thailand. Set to the south of better known Ko Chang and Ko Maak, Ko Kut is a large, mountainous island whose interior remains largely jungle covered and whose western and southern read more about Ko Kut

Ko Lanta Lanta. The word alone conjures daydreams of lazing in a hammock, soothed by tepid waves and refreshed by the juice of coconuts that collect on the sand. The exact meaning is unknown, but the island’s old Malay name of Pulao Satak translates as Long Beach Island. Four splendid stretches of powder-white sand span several kilometres each on Ko Lanta, with many more secluded beaches just waiting to be lounged upon. First discovered by Scandinavian backpackers in the 1980s, this long and slender read more about Ko Lanta

Ko Lao Liang If you thought that all of Thailands finest islands had been ruined by mismanaged development, Ko Lao Liang will prove you wrong. A little-known remedy for travellers seeking breathtaking Andaman Sea scenery without the crowds, the isolated pair of islands dont even register among Trang provinces more popular destinations. And we hope it stays that way. Part of Mu Ko Phetra National Park, Ko Lao Liangs two islands stand side-by-side some 40 kilometres west of the mainland. All read more about Ko Lao Liang

Ko Libong The largest but certainly not busiest island in Trang province, Ko Libong lulls travellers into a simpler state of mind with its unusual landscapes, deep starry nights and Muslim fishing villages uninfluenced by mass tourism. Lucky visitors might catch a glimpse of an endangered dugong, but all will depart with a sense of experiencing something completely different. Close cousins of the manatee and more distantly related to elephants, around 130 chubby and amiable dugongs, also known as read more about Ko Libong

Ko Lipe In the early 1990s, whispers of an unspoilt island far out in Thailand’s Andaman Sea began surfacing among backpackers. With dazzling white-sand beaches touched by crystal-clear water that sheltered vibrant marine life, Ko Lipe was everything it was cracked up to be. Though it remains tremendously beautiful today, mass tourism is pushing Lipe in a worrisome direction. Those who appreciate their luxuries and want to avoid the bigger resort islands will probably find everything they desire on read more about Ko Lipe

Ko Maak Just a few kilometres south of Ko Chang but a world away from its heavy development lies Ko Maak, undoubtedly an overlooked gem in Thailand’s crown. Ideal for those who prefer the quiet life, this decidedly rural island has so far escaped the grasp of major developers. Though a sprinkle of tasteful new resorts have appeared in recent years, it appears that Maak will remain a sleepy, family-friendly destination for the foreseeable future. Ko Maak is blessed with long stretches of read more about Ko Maak

Ko Muk A quintessential island paradise Ko Muk is not, but its decent beaches, affordable accommodation and terrific day-trips draw a handful of travellers each high season. Also commonly spelt Ko Mook, the mid-size island sits off the coast of Trang province in the Andaman Sea and supports a modest Muslim-Thai lifestyle focused on fishing. The only part of Ko Muk ever seen by many travellers is the spectacular Tham Morakot, or Emerald Cave. After swimming through a dark sea cave, you read more about Ko Muk

Ko Mun Nork The blip of an island of Ko Mun Nork rarely finds itself on the itinerary of roving backpackers and travellers — partly due to the cost of the resort, but also because it can only be visited as a part of an organised trip. Ask many Bangkok residents though and you’ll quickly hear some of the rave reviews Ko Mun Nork receives — both as a romantic weekend getaway, but also for the occasional parties thrown on the island — parties which are very much invite only. Private label raves and read more about Ko Mun Nork

Ko Ngai If you’re after a romantic beach holiday on a beautiful island and don’t mind paying a premium for it, Ko Ngai is worth considering. Sitting quietly amid a scenic patch of the Andaman Sea with plentiful coral, Ngai hosts a long sliver of blondish-white sand with views to distant limestone karsts and the mainland. The tiny island doesn’t have much character, but it offers plenty of comfort. Officially part of Ko Lanta National Park, Ko Ngai (also spelt Hai) is easily reached during high read more about Ko Ngai

Ko Pha Ngan Although best known for the monthly full moon parties, which attract thousands of travellers from all over the globe, there is a lot more to stunning Ko Pha Ngan than getting trashed and passing out in the powder-soft white sand. The mid-sized and quite mountainous island (it stretches over 168 sq km and 70% of its topography is mountainous jungle with the remainder beaches and coconut groves) is situated roughly a third of the way from Ko Samui to Ko Tao. The island’s original inhabitants read more about Ko Pha Ngan

Ko Phayam Ko Phayam boasts long uncrowded beaches, plenty of walking trails, some jungle, lots of birdlife, roads without cars and one small village. Sounds good? Read on. Until a few years ago, few tourists had heard of this quiet laidback island on the Andaman coast near the Burmese border. It’s still pretty unspoiled compared to many Thai islands but the number of tourists has increased significantly over the past few years. Tourists of all ages and backgrounds visit but they are nearly all read more about Ko Phayam

Ko Phi Phi Ko Phi Phi, or Phi Phi Island, is one of the most talked about places in Southeast Asia, with its natural beauty and reputation for good times putting it firmly on the tourist trail. The beauty of the island is unparalleled, even in a region of the world renowned for its stunning destinations. Limestone cliffs, turquoise waters, white sand beaches and miles of trackless forest make Phi Phi a perfect tropical island. Developments over the past 20 years however have made it the subject of read more about Ko Phi Phi

Ko Phra Thong In Thai, phra thong means golden Buddha, and a legend tells of how a valuable solid gold Buddha image was buried somewhere on the island hundreds of years ago. Any treasure hunters seem to have given up their searches long ago, which isn’t surprising given Ko Phra Thong’s unforgivingly hot and expansive savannah landscape. Totally unique not only in Thailand but all of Southeast Asia, visitors to Ko Phra Thong often remark that the landscape looks strikingly similar to the savannahs of read more about Ko Phra Thong

Ko Ra Despite its relatively close proximity to the town of Khuraburi along Thailand’s west coast, the long, thin and rugged island of Ko Ra is one of the country’s more remote islands with accommodation, and is a good choice for those seeking an offbeat, eco-minded destination. With most of the island protected as a wildlife sanctuary, this is a chance to experience a lush, untamed landscape. Ko Ra Ecolodge, which offered a wide range of activities, has recently closed and though we haven’t read more about Ko Ra

Ko Rawi Unspoilt Ko Rawi arguably boasts the best beaches of any island in the Adang archipelago — and that’s saying a lot. A smidgen smaller than neighbouring Ko Adang, Rawi has a similarly rugged interior to go with far more rudimentary national park services. Most visitors only stop here for lunch during a boat tour from Ko Lipe, but it’s possible to pitch a tent for a longer stay. Separated only by a one-km-wide channel, Rawi and Adang look like a healthy pair of twins when viewed on a map. read more about Ko Rawi

Ko Rok Brilliant white-sand beaches, crystal-clear water, expansive coral reefs and metre-long monitor lizards: welcome to Ko Rok. Protected as part of Mu Ko Lanta National Park, these gorgeous twin islands boast some of the finest snorkelling in Thailand’s Andaman Sea. Most come as a day trip, but it’s possible to hang around for extended stays during high season. Aesthetically similar to Ko Surin further north, Ko Rok refers to Ko Rok Nai (called the inner island since it’s closer to the read more about Ko Rok

Ko Samet As the closest major island to Bangkok, Ko Samet is one of the most popular places in Thailand to watch teal water caress feathery white sand shores. Its not the kingdoms most picturesque, enchanting or cleanest island, but Samet consistently draws droves of travellers seeking a quick, easy getaway from the Thai capital. One of the very first Thai islands to surface on the foreign traveller radar back in the 1970s, Samets old days of crashing in hammocks next to beach campfires are read more about Ko Samet

Ko Samui Back in the days when backpackers to Southeast Asia were first discovering Ko Samui in the 1970s, a basic thatched hut with running water and electricity was considered luxury. Now Ko Samui is home to some of Thailand’s best luxury resorts and in the popularity stakes is surpassed only by Phuket. With an international airport, a mass of ferry connections and close to 500 hotels and guesthouses, this is not somewhere to come to glimpse a corner of the Thai kingdom untouched by tourism read more about Ko Samui

Ko Si Boya The rural island of Ko Si Boya sits windswept and largely forgotten off the southern coast of Krabi province. The few travellers who make it here are far outnumbered by villagers, who themselves are outnumbered by cows and monitor lizards. While this is not the place to find idyllic beaches and luxury resorts, Si Boya doesn’t disappoint those seeking peace and quiet. Reachable via a 15-minute local ferry hop from the mainland villages of Laem Hin and Laem Kruat, this mid-size island mainly read more about Ko Si Boya

Ko Si Chang Ko Si Chang not to be mistaken with Ko Chang is an island two to three hours from Bangkok, in Chonburi province, 12 kilometres from the western shore of Siracha district and surrounded by eight smaller islands. Ko Si Chang is geographically the closest island to Bangkok, and often overlooked by tourists for more well known destinations. The small island is popular among Thais living in or near Bangkok and is a great place for a day trip with friends or a pleasant weekend with read more about Ko Si Chang

Ko Sukorn On calm and pastoral Ko Sukorn, water buffaloes outnumber the locals, and locals far outnumber the travellers. The not-so-easy-to-reach island is home to a slow-paced Muslim community that subsists mainly off agriculture and fishing, with tourism a distant third. Many of the few travellers who make it here settle in for extended stays, soothed to the bone by the time they leave. The dark-blue water off Sukorns shores doesnt strike the idyllic sapphire and turquoise shades that read more about Ko Sukorn

Ko Surin If Thailand’s tropical islands are the country’s crowned jewels, Ko Surin could be the brightest of them all. Protected as the Mu Ko Surin National Park, Ko Surin actually consists of two relatively small islands Ko Surin Nuea (north) and Ko Surin Tai (south) as well as a handful of islets and some magnificent underwater seascapes. Though many choose to visit on a daytrip, Ko Surin really warrants spending a night or two in order to adequately absorb the unspoilt natural beauty both read more about Ko Surin

Ko Tao Once jokingly referred to as a drinking island with a diving problem, Ko Tao has evolved far beyond backpackers diving and beach boozing. Today the island draws families, flashpackers and sports junkies alike. Visitors will find hiking trails of various levels of difficulty that end with the promise of picturesque views, extreme rock-climbing, live jam sessions where locals and tourists showcase their talents, beach barbecues accompanied by fire shows and even trapeze-flying classes. For such a read more about Ko Tao

Ko Tarutao The Malay word tarutao means old, mysterious, primitive. At 150 square km and with mountains reaching over 500 metres high, this rugged island does indeed stir up a primeval sense of awe. It’s no wonder that Thailand once banished convicted criminals here, and that the TV show, Survivor, chose this as one of its shooting locations. First occupied by only a handful of sea gypsies, Thailand sent more than 3,000 prisoners to work camps on Tarutao in the 1930s and ’40s. Common criminals were read more about Ko Tarutao

Ko Wai Azure water laps onto powdery beaches framed by distinctive rock formations. Vibrant tropical marine life dazzles the snorkellers. Draped in jungle and overgrown rubber groves, pristine hills dare visitors to discover hidden beaches and viewpoints. No roads or motorbikes; no blaring all-night parties; limited electricity, just primitive huts in paradise. Welcome to Ko Wai. This tiny island sits six kilometres south of Ko Chang’s southerly point, reachable via an easy cruise during high read more about Ko Wai

Ko Yao Noi Ko Yao Noi, or Small Long Island, sits halfway between Phuket and Krabi in the middle of Phang Nga Bay. Found just a 30-minute speedboat trip away from Phuket, Yao Noi’s tight-knit local Muslim community has led the island along a more low-impact, peaceful development path than its rowdy island neighbour. Yao Noi boasts a diverse and photogenic landscape with mangrove forests lining its west coast, a lush, pastoral interior and sandy east-coast beaches with superb views to the towering read more about Ko Yao Noi

Ko Yao Yai Ko Yao Yai, or Big Long Island, running about 30 kilometres in length from top to bottom, sits halfway between Phuket and Krabi in the middle of Phang Nga Bay. Though only a 25-minute speedboat trip from Phukets east coast, this long, narrow island ringed with thick mangroves and white-sand beaches has somehow avoided becoming another hectic island resort. Its more than twice the size of neighbouring Ko Yao Noi, but tourism development here lags behind its sister island. Yao Yais read more about Ko Yao Yai

Phuket Thailand’s largest island is its best example of the benefits and problems of tourism. Huge promotions of Phuket by the TAT and travel agents since Thailand first start attracting international travellers on a large scale in the 1980s have brought in millions of tourists and billions of baht — the province is visited by over a third of all international visitors to Thailand in any given year. But along with them has come unregulated development, severe environmental degradation, organised read more about Phuket

Similan Islands Some 50 km from the Thai western coast among open water in the Andaman Sea, the Similan islands are known far and wide to boast some of the most spectacular scenery and best snorkelling and diving of anywhere in Southeast Asia. With Malay roots, the word similan means nine in local Moken (sea gypsy) language after the nine tiny islands of the Similan archipelago. Along with magnificent underwater seascapes, the Similans boast some of the finest white sand, turquoise water beaches in Thailand, read more about Similan Islands

Koh Rong Koh Rong is quite possibly that cliched island paradise you’ve been looking for, boasting pristine white beaches, turquoise water and limited development on most of the island. For years the island was almost completely undeveloped save for a diving outfit and a few bungalows, though that’s changing, in particular on the southern patch Koh Touch. Serviced by the fast boat from Sihanoukville as the fourth stop, Koh Touch is a sandy guesthouse-packed stretch that has earned Koh Rong a read more about Koh Rong

Koh Rong Samloem Koh Rong Samloem is just 45 minutes by speedboat and yet a world away from Sihanoukville. The island of many spellings — it’s also known as Koh Rung Samloem, Koh Rong Saloem, Koh Rong Samlon and a few other variations — is owned by the Cambodian navy, which has a base there. As of late 2014 a development company awaits the approval of their plans for the island, with large signboards along the beach near M’Pay Bei village sticking out between the trees, reminding you of the future that read more about Koh Rong Samloem

Koh Sdach This small fishing village island sits at the half-way mark between Koh Kong and Sihanoukville within the Koh Sdach archipelago. Located a 15-minute boat-ride off the Cambodian coast, Koh Sdach is dominated by a sizeable fishing village that stretches along the side of the island that faces the mainland. While fishing is the mainstay of the local economy, the village also has a large ice-making plant, where you can watch the production and see the ice ferried off by boat to the surrounding read more about Koh Sdach

Koh Ta Kiev Only an hour away from the mainland, Koh Ta Kiev is one of the closest islands to Sihanoukville and is on the itinerary of many of the day trips and island tours that leave from the beach town. Few people stay overnight on the island though, which is a shame because it’s beautiful and has a few easily accessible beaches. Like most of the islands in Cambodia, Koh Ta Kiev has been leased to a foreign company — the same French outfit that owns, or has taken 99-year leases, on half of Koh read more about Koh Ta Kiev

Koh Thmei Koh Thmei is part of Ream National Park but this hasn’t stopped the government from selling a substantial amount of the island to the highest bidder. Right now the island is mostly empty; although a few families live on the island, there’s not so much as a village and the only current accommodation is the eight wooden bungalows that comprise Koh Thmei Resort. Their owners believe that they were allowed to open because of their eco-friendly policies; they power it by day using solar panels read more about Koh Thmei

Koh Tonsay Better known as Rabbit Island, Ko Tonsay is a lovely little island about 25 minutes away from Kep by hired boat, making it one of the most easily accessible of all the islands. It is also one of the least-developed, with no motor vehicles, no mains electricity and few residents, making it an ideal getaway from the grind. Boats leave the ferry port in Kep regularly throughout the day a return ticket will cost around $7 or pay $25 for a boat with enough seating for six to eight read more about Koh Tonsay

Koh Totang A small drop in the ocean at only 1.3 kilometres by 500 metres wide, Koh Totang is one of the 12 tropical islands that make up the Koh SDach Archipelago in the Gulf of Thailand. Midway between the Thai border and Sihanoukville approximately 60 kilometres in either direction Koh Totang is somewhat out of the way of the main island hotspots, with the likes of Koh Rong and Koh Rong Samloem significantly further south. Until 2014 it was also tricky to get to, requiring an uncomfortable read more about Koh Totang

Don Dhet Referred to by some as Khao San Road on the river, Don Dhet is a classic backpacker hub with just a fraction of the shenanigans that take place on Khao San Road. Now well-established on the backpacker trail through Laos, the number and quality of rooms on Don Dhet continues to climb steadily. The scenery is indeed beautiful and the ambience very relaxed, but Laos this is not. Anyone who tells you differently has eaten too many banana pancakes. If you’re on the way here expecting to read more about Don Dhet

Don Khon Far larger than Don Dhet, Don Khon is skipped by many budget travellers because most of the accommodation is midrange. However although there aren’t 40-odd places to choose from as on Don Dhet, there are budget options here and staying on Don Khon is far more of a Lao experience than Don Dhet. There is a better range of eateries than on Don Dhet and the options for cycling and walking are considerably more extensive. The main disadvantage or advantage depending on your point of view is that read more about Don Khon

Don Khong The largest island in the Si Phan Don area, Don Khong is nowhere near as popular as the more southern islands of Don Dhet, with its chilled-out atmosphere, and Don Khon which has more activities on tap. The interior of Don Khong is almost entirely given over to rice cultivation and a forested mountainous area, while just about all the accommodation is crammed into and around the sleepy town of Muang Khong, which is situated on the east coast of the island. The major pastime on Don Khong is read more about Don Khong

Cat Ba Island Nestled on the periphery of Vietnam’s fabulous Ha Long Bay, Cat Ba Island is big — more than 350 square kilometres — but most tourists see but a sliver of it. Put ashore as part of a three-day tour of Ha Long Bay, time is spent on organised treks or bike rides in the national park and tours of Monkey Island, or eating at one of the many seafood places around the harbour. But independent travellers shouldn’t rule out a stay. Three beaches are located near the harbour town — hardly world read more about Cat Ba Island

Con Dao Islands The Con Dao Islands (also known as Poulo Condore) are an archipelago of 15 islands situated in the South China Sea, around 250 kilometres, or a 45-minute flight, from Ho Chi Minh City. The island is famed for its grizzly past: due its remoteness, the French used the main island of Con Son (the largest island in the group) to keep anti-colonial protestors prisoner. The South Vietnamese continued the tradition, sending political dissenters and activists to the 11 prisons which were also used read more about Con Dao Islands

Phu Quoc Island Sitting back in a hammock, looking out over the quiet surf, you may wonder why more people don’t know about Vietnam’s Phu Quoc Island. It gets almost none of the press of those islands over in Thailand — and yet with its rugged jungle, squeaking white sands and sparkling cobalt waters, it more than matches them. Sadly, with a brand spanking new international airport and progressive visa-exemption scheme, this is slated to change in the coming years. Drive around the island and you can read more about Phu Quoc Island

Pangkor Island Pangkor Island is about a fifth of the size of Penang off Peninsular Malaysia’s west coast, midway between Kuala Lumpur and Penang. The word Pangkor is said to be a derivative of the Thai pang koh, which means beautiful island and yes, this gives a hint of what the island is like, with sandy shores and surrounding emerald waters. Pangkor is well regarded as a family-oriented and culturally diverse destination, so guesthouses and hotels are generally family friendly rather than party read more about Pangkor Island

Penang Malaysia’s second largest island, Penang is also its most developed, with the eastern coast dotted with high-rises and crammed with holiday resorts. Travellers who have experienced beaches elsewhere in Asia will probably be unimpressed with the most popular beach spots, but the island’s real attraction lies in its culture, history and cuisine. The main city of Georgetown boasts a meld of interesting architecture stretching from the British colonial era to the colourful multicultural read more about Penang

Perhentian Islands The Perhentian Islands are two main islands, along with a scattering of uninhabited islets, off the northeast coast of Peninsular Malaysia. They’ve long been renowned for their coral reefs and clear waters, snorkelling, diving, attractive beaches and remote, semi-untouched feel and appearance. The two inhabited islands, Perhentian Besar (Big Perhentian) and Perhentian Kecil (Small Perhentian) sit across a narrow body of water from one another and each boasts a collection of attractive read more about Perhentian Islands

Semporna and Sipadan Island Its name may mean perfect in the Malay language, but the seaside town of Semporna makes a poor first impression with its fishy smell and littered water. Thankfully for most travellers Semporna is not the destination but the gateway to some of the best scuba diving in the world at Sipadan and Mabul Islands. Sipadan Island has been something of a mecca for scuba divers ever since Jacques Cousteau described it as an untouched piece of art. More than 3,000 species of sea creatures have been read more about Semporna and Sipadan Island

Gili Air Gili Air is the closest to Lombok of the three Gili islands. In size, it lies between Meno and Trawangan, and has the largest normal community. Unlike Gili Meno and Gili Trawangan, Gili Air actually does have its own water source and you’ll notice immediately how much greener and overgrown it is compared to the other two far more arid islands. Much of the interior is given over to coconut cultivation, though tourists are proving themselves a more lucrative crop and slowly the palm read more about Gili Air

Gili Gede Gili Gede is arguably the best known of the Secret Gilis — a sprinkling of islands off the coast of southwest Lombok far lesser known than the Gilis of the northwest. Gili Gede lies among a group also comprising Gili Layan, Gili Ringgit and Gili Asahan — about halfway back to Lembar is a second cluster including Gili Nanggu and Gili Sudak. Of all these, Gili Gede has the broadest selection of accommodation. At time of writing (mid-December 2014) there was a single midrange resort on Gili read more about Gili Gede

Gili Meno Situated midway between Gili Trawangan and Gili Air, Gili Meno is the smallest and least developed of the three Gili islands. Peanut-shaped, with a brackish seawater lake towards its western coast, this arid island is ringed by a good selection of places to stay and is the most affordable of the three islands. As with the others, Gili Meno is encircled by a rather pretty white sand beach, and, as with Gili Air, there is some pretty good snorkelling to be had. While it is the least read more about Gili Meno

Gili Trawangan Gili Trawangan, or Gili T to its friends, is the largest of three islands scattered off Lombok’s northwest coast. While all three of these Gilis (Gili means island in the Sasak language of Lombok) are especially photogenic, each has a character of its own and attracts a certain crowd — in the case of Gili T, it’s the party set. It is a very pretty island. You’ll have near endless opportunity to take photos to make the office back home suitably jealous. The beaches here really are white sand read more about Gili Trawangan

Kanawa Island A beautiful island about one and a half hours by boat more or less due west of Labuan Bajo, Kanawa Island is a bit of a go-to location for backpackers and flashpackers looking for some downtime. The island is surrounded by a reef, some of which is in extremely good condition with an impressive range of sealife, from soft coral through to sting rays, sharks and turtles — and it’s easy swimming distance from the beach. The beach itself is also very attractive, with ample shade, and you’re read more about Kanawa Island

Karimunjawa Islands Think of your ideal tropical paradise. Once you have that in mind, if it includes white-sand beaches fringed by palm trees, turquoise water so bright it stings your eyes, warm weather all year round, hardly any tourists and just enough decent accommodation to ensure you dont have to pitch a tent then the islands of Karimunjawa are your paradise. Located about 90km off the north coast of Central Java, the idyllic group of 27 tropical islands that form the Karimunjawa Islands is one of read more about Karimunjawa Islands

Nusa Ceningan The sliver of land that makes up Nusa Ceningan lies directly to the south of Nusa Lembongan in the main channel between Lembongan and far larger Nusa Penida. The northern channel (Ceningan Strait) runs almost dry at low tide while the southern channel (Toyo Pakeh Strait) is a roaring flow with swirling eddies and very fast currents. The Ceningan Strait runs almost dry at low tide and is given over to seaweed cultivation at the western end. It’s also this channel that has the yellow read more about Nusa Ceningan

Nusa Lembongan Nusa Lembongan occupies a comfortable middle ground between well-trafficked Bali and relatively untouched Nusa Penida. It’s not as pretty as either of the other two islands, but it has a banquet of good places to stay, a friendly bunch of locals and makes for a comfortable time-out. Lembongan is known for two things: seaweed and surf. Seaweed cultivation and harvesting is what keeps the bulk of the local population busy. It is farmed off many of the beaches (likewise on neighbouring Nusa read more about Nusa Lembongan

Nusa Penida Nusa Penida dwarfs nearby Nusa Lembongan and Nusa Ceningan, yet is almost devoid of tourists. For all intents and purposes there are only three (yes, three) places even worth considering staying at, despite miles upon miles upon miles of beautiful beaches, an attractive hinterland and a generally unspoilt vibe about the place. Before you pack your bags, a couple of disclaimers: The vast majority of beaches, with the notable exception of Crystal Bay, are given over to seaweed farming. read more about Nusa Penida

Togean Islands The Togean — or Togian — Islands are an archipelago in the southeast region of the Tomini Sea in northern Sulawesi. Famous for both their difficulty to reach and diving, the archipelago is formed by seven primary islands situated near the centre of a global hotspot of biodiversity known as the coral triangle. Home to a great number of rare marine and terrestrial species, most tourists who come here are divers or snorkellers hoping to see some of the world’s best marine life in unspoiled read more about Togean Islands

See original here:
The best islands in Southeast Asia

Best Places to Live in Piscataway Township, New Jersey

 Islands  Comments Off on Best Places to Live in Piscataway Township, New Jersey
Oct 182015

New York is the largest metro area in the United States. It includes the island of Manhattan, an eight-county area immediately north, western Long Island, and Staten Island. It is the fourth largest in the world behind Tokyo, Mexico City, and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Regardless of how the area is defined, New York is among the richest and most complex places to live in America.

Boroughs, districts, and neighborhoods define the city. The borough of Manhattan, a 10-mile-long, 2-mile-wide island, is the financial, commercial, and entertainment core. Much of Lower Manhattan consists of narrow, haphazard streets, dating back to the citys earliest days as a Dutch colony. With the exception of older areas, such as Greenwich Village, the rest of the city follows an orderly grid pattern of avenues and streets laid out in 1811. (Broadway, another exception, moves at a gentle diagonal across the city.)

Filling out the island are distinct districts. Lower Manhattan contains the Financial District. Midtown is the commercial center, with corporate headquarters, various media businesses, and world-class shopping along Fifth Avenue. Large skyscrapers dominate Lower Manhattan, then retreat as does hard bedrock to build on in those areas, then reemerges in Midtown. The in-between area is dominated by older ethnic enclaves like Chinatown and Koreatown and the more famous artsy areas of Greenwich and Soho.

Hip residential areas lie east and west, mainly popular with young single professionals. North and west is Hells Kitchen, in the 40s (most Manhattan area locations are so approximated by their east-west numbered streets) is an old ethnic area and warehouse district enjoying a residential renaissance, to soon be aided by an elevated bikeway and commercial corridor along an old rail line. Times Square and the Theater District just west of Midtown contain the world-famous theaters and numerous restaurants. Surrounding Central Park, the Upper West and Upper East sides are predominantly residential, although both contain ample dining and shopping. The Upper East Side also contains posh enclaves unaffordable for most, outstanding museums, and the designer boutiques of Madison Avenue. The Upper West Side is dotted with large apartment buildings and is a favorite for working professionals and families. Farther north above Central Park, neighborhoods start to decline, although Harlem is undergoing a rebirth.

The boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx are a patchwork of residential and commercial areas and parks. They have large industrial areas with a predominant blue-collar feel containing manufacturing and freight distribution centers for the area. All are close to the city and offer relatively more living space, and all are experiencing verying degrees of economic and residential revival. Ethnic diversity is strong in all boroughs, while Queens is reputedly the most ethnically diverse area in the country.

Brooklyn is large and diverse enough to function as a standalone city, with large and some upscale residential areas with a modern downtown and substantial commercial and retail offerings areas. Brooklyn is known for its large Olmstead designed (of Central Park fame) Prospect Park. Brooklyn shares the western end of Long Island with Queens, with excellent transportation service into the city by rail and subway and numerous beaches, parks and residential neighborhoods south and east towards the large JFK airport. Brooklyn is socioeconomically very diverse, with a mix of upscale, middle class and poorer areas, while Queens is more clearly identifiable as middle class.

The Bronx area, on the mainland to the north of Manhattan, is the grittiest of the three areas, although its strategic location between the city and to better areas north is starting to bring some interest. Staten Island, a mainly-residential borough to the south, is connected to Manhattan by ferries and the Verrazano Narrows bridge.

Finally, the New York metro area includes northern suburbs stretching up into Westchester County between the east bank of the Hudson River and the Connecticut border. Westchester is generally upscale and expensive, with spread-out towns and a country setting. White Plains is the largest city and a modern corporate center with large facilities for IBM and a number of companies relocating north from Manhattan. Smaller but very upscale areas lie east along the Long Island Sound (Rye being an example) and north along the Hudson as the smaller towns of Tarrytown, Ossining and Croton-on-Hudson.

Rockland County is more middle class with some working-class areas. West Nyack is a large family-oriented middle class area. Other suburbs give workers access to New York by freeway or by rail lines across the Hudson or to northern New Jersey.

The New York area offers a rich assortment of amenities, with world-class dining, shopping, and performing arts including theater, symphony, opera, and live music. Museums and architectural attractions, large and small, draw global audiences. Numerous major-league teams play in the area, including the MLB Yankees and Mets, NBA Knicks, NFL Giants and Jets, and NHL Islanders and Rangers. An extensive public transit system with subways and buses serves the urban core and links the boroughs.

A suburban rail and ferry network services surrounding communities in Connecticut, Long Island, and New Jersey. Rail lines on the Northeast Corridor make such cities as Boston and Washington, D.C. easily accessible. Many residents dont own cars and choose to depend on public transit or an occasional car rental. Three major airportsLa Guardia, Kennedy, and nearby Newarkprovide air service domestically and abroad. Surrounding the city are numerous recreation areas: Long Island beaches, the Poconos, the Hudson Valley, and the Jersey Shore, to name only a few.

The downsides are significant. The city is crowded and stressful, and some neighborhoods are run down. Violent crime rates are high, although not as bad as the stereotype. Cost of living is high in all categories and is rising. Median home prices of half a million or more dont buy much, especially in Manhattan. Home prices there can be five to six times higher for comparable properties in surrounding boroughs. Income differentials between wealthy workers and others are high, and overall the Buying Power Index is usually the worst in the country, suggesting that incomes dont keep up with costs. New York is a great place if you like the lifestyle and can make ends meet.

The New York City area exceeds 300 square miles and is located mostly on islands. Elevations range from less than 50 feet over most of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens to several hundred feet in northern Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. The area is close to storm tracks, and most weather approaches from the west- producing higher summer and lower winter temperatures than would otherwise be expected in a coastal area. Summers are hot and humid with occasional long periods of discomfort. Sea breezes occasionally moderate summer heat and winter cold in Lower Manhattan. Manhattan and the inner boroughs are more likely to receive rain in winter while outlying areas get snow. Precipitation is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. Summer rainfall is mainly from thunderstorms, usually of brief duration. Late summer and fall rains associated with tropical storms may occur. Coastal noreaster storms can produce significant snow. First freeze is mid-November, last is early April.

Read more here:
Best Places to Live in Piscataway Township, New Jersey

Eugenics in North Carolina – University of Vermont

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in North Carolina – University of Vermont
Oct 162015

Home (link to Eugenic Sterilizations in the United States)

Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont and students in HCOL195 Contact: Last updated: 10/30/2014

Eugenics/Sexual Sterilizations in

(eugenics; sexual sterilization)

Number of Victims

Over 8,000 sterilizations were approved by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. The total number of victims actually sterilized is estimated to have been over 7,600 (Winston-Salem, Lifting the Curtain on a Shameful Era). Of this number, females represented approx. 85% of those sterilized (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). By the late 1960s, the sterilization of men was virtually halted, as women made up 99% of those sterilized (Sinderbrand, p. 1). African Americans represent 39% of those sterilized overall; by the later 1960s, they made up 60% of those sterilized, even though they made up only a quarter of the population (Sinderbrand, p. 1). Of those sterilized up to 1963, 25% were considered mentally ill and 70% were considered mentally deficient. In each of these categories, females account for over 75% of the sterilizations. North Carolina ranked third in the United States for the total number of people sterilized.

Period During Which Sterilization Occurred

Sterilizations started in 1929 with the passage of the sterilization law and continued through 1973, when the last recorded sterilization is known to have been reported.

Temporal Pattern of Sterilization

After the passage of the sterilization law in 1929, sterilization law began at slow rate. It was not until about 1938 that sterilizations began to increase at a steady rate. After WWII, sterilizations accelerated and peaked in the two years between 1950 and 1952, with 704 sterilizations (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). This makes North Carolina fairly unique, as its peak sterilizations occurred after WWII, at a time when most other states had ceased performing operations (for other exceptions, see also eugenic sterilizations in Iowa and Georgia). After 1960, the rate of sterilization began to slow and continued to decrease from a rate of about 250 a year in 1963 to 6 per year in 1973. From 1950-1963 there were an average of about 300 sterilizations per year.In the peak years (the 1950s) there were about 7 sterilizations for every 100,000 residents of the state per year.

Passage of Laws

The very first sterilization law was passed in 1919 but it was probably never put to use. Many feared that the law was unconstitutional and therefore the state feared putting it into practice (Paul, p. 420). In 1929, The North Carolina General Assembly passed a new sterilization law. It stated that the governing body or responsible head of any penal or charitable institution supported wholly or in part by the State of North Carolina, or any sub-division thereof, is hereby authorized and directed to have the necessary operation for asexualization or sterilization performed upon any mentally defective or feeble-minded inmate of patient thereof (State Library, History, p. 1). After this law was declared unconstitutional by the state’s Supreme Court in 1933 due to a deficient appeals process, North Carolina in the same year enacted a new sterilization law that provided for notice, hearing, and the right to appeal (Paul, p. 421). The passage of this law also created the North Carolina Eugenics Board (see below). The passage of the 1929 sterilization law made North Carolina the 17th state out of 33 to pass one. North Carolina’s 1933 law remained effective until 1973, when the last recorded sterilizations were performed (State Library, History, p. 1). Finally, on April 4, 2003, the North Carolina Senate voted unanimously to overturn it (Bill to Overturn Eugenics Law Passes State Senate, p. 1).

Groups Identified by the Law

As stated in the original sterilization law of 1929, the groups targeted for sterilization were identified as mentally ill, mentally retarded, and epileptic (Paul, p. 421). However, the law also stated that the purpose of sterilization is to protect impaired people from parenthood who would become seriously handicapped if they were to assume parental responsibilities (Paul, p. 421).

With the passage of the 1933 law, the state of North Carolina instituted a Eugenics Board made up of high-ranking public health officials. Their main purpose was to decide whether sterilization petitions should be carried out. These Board members were addresses cases of individuals diagnosed as feeble minded or mentally ill (Gardella, p. 108). Another major goal of sterilization was to keep the handicapped from perpetuating themselves. Sterilization was seen as a way to prevent the spending of tax dollars on the feeble-minded (Gardella, p. 108). It should be noted that the law had an “extramural” component; i.e., it allowed for the sterilization of individuals who were presently not placed in state institutions.

Process of the Law

Under the sterilization law, the North Carolina General Assembly gave the governing body or executive head of any penal or charitable public institution the authority to order the sterilization of any patient or inmate whose operation they considered would be in the best interest of the individual and of the public good. It also gave the county boards of commissioners authority to order sterilization at the publics expense of any mentally defective or feeble-minded resident upon receiving a petition from the individuals next of kin or legal guardian outside state institutions (State Library, History, p. 1) – thus applying potentially to every resident in North Carolina. All orders for sterilization had to be reviewed and approved by the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, and the chief medical officers of any two state institutions for the feeble-minded or insane. In the reviewing process, they looked at a medical and family history of the individual being ordered for sterilizations to help decide whether the operation would be performed or not. They also considered whether it was likely that the individual might produce children with mental or physical problems (State Library, History, p. 1).

In 1933, under the new law, the General Assembly created the Eugenics Board of North Carolina to review all orders for sterilization of mentally diseased, feeble-minded, or epileptic patients, inmates, or non-institutionalized individuals (State Library, History, p. 1). This centralized board included five members: the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the State Hospital at Raleigh, and the attorney general. In the hearings of patients or inmates in a public institution, the head of that institution was the prosecutor in presenting the case to the Eugenics Board. In hearings of individuals who were non-institutionalized, the county superintendent of welfare or another authorized county official acted as the prosecutor. However, in both hearings, the prosecutor provided the board with a medical history signed by a physician familiar with the individuals case. The petition for the hearing was sent to the individual being ordered or to their next of kin or legal guardian. In the situation where this person could not represent or defend themselves at the hearing, the next of kin, guardian, or county solicitor stepped in to represent them. If the board decided to order the sterilization, the order had to be signed by at least 3 members and then returned to the prosecutor. This decision could be appealed by the individual to the county superior court and then further appealed to the state supreme court. If the appeal was successful, any petitions for sterilization were prohibited for one year, unless the individual, or his or her guardian or next of know requested sterilization (State Library, History, p. 1).

Eugenics in the 1950s was to some extent a southern phenomenon, as many states in other regions saw their number of sterilizations drop. Few sterilizations occurred in the 1930s in North Carolina (and in the other southern states) because the Great Depression resulted in funding crises that didnt allow for sterilization to occur in full force in the South. Sterilization picked up pace after WWII, especially during the mid-1950s (Castles, p. 1).

One factor leading to the acceleration after WWII was race. Race has always been a loaded issue in the south, as slavery was prominent there. When slavery was legal, white slave owners encouraged the reproduction of their slaves in order to create bodies to work and sell. The legacy of considering poor Blacks as a source of cheap servant labor continued. By the 1950s, some in the white majority were becoming anxious about supporting blacks through welfare. The heads of the agencies of welfare departments agreed on the value of sterilization for reducing general welfare relief and ADC (Aid for Dependent Children) payments (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). Some erroneously believed that blacks accounted for the majority of illegitimate births that were subsidized by ADC. The state threatened to remove welfare benefits if the person did not submit to the operation. The fears about the rising cost of the ADC program was a major factor in leading to the shift in racial composition of those targeted for sterilization. As the attention shifted away from the structural causes of poverty and crime to placing the blame for urban poverty and social unrest on blacks, sterilization of blacks was facilitated (Schoen, Choice and Coercion; see also Schoen, “Reassessing,” p. 149). It was believed the control the reproduction of ADC recipients was necessary; as a result, the percentage of Blacks sterilized rose from 23% in the 1930s and 1940s to 59% between 1958-60 and finally to 64% between 1964 and 1966 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 108; “Reassessing,” p. 149).

Sterilization also accelerated because it expanded to include the general population when the state gave social workers the authority to submit petitions for sterilization. Therefore, the amount of eligible people increased drastically. The North Carolina Board-which initially targeted those who were deemed mentally ill, expanded its program to include the general population. In fact, the majority of those sterilized had never been institutionalized, and 2,000 were younger than 19 (Wiggins, p. 1). In addition, the fight against poverty in North Carolina led to sterilizations in the general population. As this fight intensified, a new policy was created that led to an increase in the number of non-institutionalized people who were sterilized. Sterilizations of the non-institutionalized rose from 23% between 1937 and 1951 to 76% between 1952 and 1966 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 109, “Reassessing,” p. 151).

The Human Betterment League made it their mission to spread information to the public regarding the benefits of eugenic sterilization (Gardella, p. 110). At the University of North Carolina State Public officials from the department of sociology searched for any possible people eligible for eugenic sterilization. Eventually through their efforts and the upholding of the states sterilization law North Carolina eve managed to sterilize the non-institutionalized (Gardella, p. 110)

Other Restrictions Placed on Those Identified in the Law or with Disabilities in General

There are no other known restrictions placed on those identified in the law.

Groups Targeted and Victimized Women, Especially African Americans and Those with Developmental Disabilities 77% of all those sterilized in North Carolina were women. North Carolina carried out 50 percent of these between 1929 and 1947 on females under the age of twenty (Cahn, p.162). There was a strong historical mentality in the South that supported the idea of trying to control the reproduction of women, and African Americans which helped the idea of eugenics to spread from the North to the South with little opposition from the elitist White male population. Because of the strong belief in moral purity of the South, however it was easy to explain why White women were just as endangered as African American women. Physicians in North Carolina didnt leave any margin for error either. Many women were brought in under the pretext that they might have been exhibiting behaviors that were sexual in nature and thus increasing the possibility of sexual promiscuity and warranting eugenic sterilization (Cahn, p. 165). Women that were deemed subnormal intellectually were also likely to be forcibly sterilized. About sixty percent of the inmates at a North Carolina Farm Colony in the 1930s were considered feebleminded and candidates for sterilization (Cahn, p.165). The greatest fear with women was that they are deceiving to others as they are still attractive to men and yet are below the standards for reproduction. North Carolinian journalists reported on these issues stated that these morons would breed rapidly like mink and contaminate the whole healthy human stock, (Cahn, p.166). And most of the women that they felt needed to be sterilized most were those women that exhibited no outward sign of incompetence but simply didnt do well on IQ tests because these womens charm of personality and conversation l abilityposed a greater social threat than more obviously disabled persons since their very attractiveness would lead to more opportunities for illicit sex or marriage and , thus a, the likelihood of starting a family of future liabilities to the State (Cahn, p. 168). Women were not safe even if they somehow managed to flee the State of North Carolina either. Such sexually deviant women could be chased all the way to Florida, as was the case for Emma Suggs. She was a candidate for sterilization because of her mental state due to her past and her out of wedlock pregnancy (Cahn, p. 169). Soon North Carolina set its sights on women of color who were seen as likely to be on welfare and to have illegitimate children. Chapel Hill Weekly stated that there was a higher proportion of Negroes than whites: and noted that the feebleminded Negro woman, often with illegitimate children, is a familiar and recurrent problem to health and welfare agencies (Cahn, p. 177). Women, including wives, daughters, sisters and unwed mothers, were overrepresented. They were labeled as either promiscuous, lazy, or unfit (Wiggins, p. 1), or more commonly as sexually uncontrollable (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 110). Overall, women made up 84.8% of sterilizations (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). However, more interesting is that the sterilization of men virtually halted in the 1960s, with only 2 sterilizations in 1964, and 254 sterilizations of women (State Library, Sterilizations, p. 1). Therefore, after 1960, women accounted for 99% of sterilizations (Sinderbrand, p. 1). While many white women were sterilized, the state began to focus on sterilizing black women as they became the majority of the welfare population. Black women were seen as highly uneducated, poor, and as having higher fertility rates than their white female counterparts. Schoen noted that as the amount of black women on welfare increased the public association between ADC and black female recipients was particularly close (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p.109; see also “Reassessing,” p. 153). Black women were presumed to have uncontrollable sexual behavior, and as these racial stereotypes were reinforced, black women became an even larger target for controlled reproduction through sterilization.

Social class also played a role in who was targeted after WWII, as women on welfare, usually living in socially isolated places, were overrepresented. The reason for this was to prevent poor and unfit women from reproducing children with mental or social ills (Wiggins, p. 1). They were generally ordered for sterilization by social workers and lived outside of institutions. The poor were not only targeted for their social ills but also because they were easier to sterilize. They would often not be released until they or a family member agreed to have them sterilized (Wiggins, p. 1).

Women that were social workers were strong supporters for the eugenics movement. Johanna Schoen (2011) has argued that some social workers provided sterilization out of empathy. However, Krome-Lukens maintains that women were often coerced and that many social workers provided sterilizations as an opportunity to save money from future drains on society (Krome-Lukens, p. 49). Interestingly enoughaccording to Krome-Lukenseugenics was a key element of progressive reform and was indicative of the new mentality surrounding sexuality and the standard gender roles of the time (Krome-Lukens, p. 9).

Finally, race also played a role in those targeted for sterilization. During the Civil Rights Movement, petitions were sent to the states eugenics board for black women (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). Overall, by the later 1960s, 60% of those sterilized were young, black women (Wiggins, p. 1). Overall, blacks represent 38.9% of sterilizations. This is because sterilizations of blacks were concentrated in a shorter period of time and because minorities only made up quarter of North Carolinas population (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). From the years 1960 to 1962, of the 467 sterilization ordered by the board, 284 (61%) were black (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). In addition, blacks were targeted because the amount of welfare recipients who were black grew from 31% in 1950 to 48% in 1961 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 109; see “Reassessing,” p. 151). It was seen as necessary to sterilize those recipients of welfare to decrease the growing financial burden on the state.

There are two stories that were made public by two black women who were sterilized against their will at a young age in North Carolina. The first is Elaine Riddick, who had been sterilized at the age of 14 by a state order in North Carolina in 1968 after giving birth to a baby after being raped. When she was operated on she was not informed that she was being sterilized. She only discovered this years later when she was trying to get pregnant with her husband. She was considered part of a lower class and the consent form had been signed by her illiterate grandmother, who was threatened to lose her public benefits, and her parents, who were both alcohol dependent at the time. She blames the sterilization for ending her marriage and is still affected by the surgery, saying, I felt like I was nothing. Its like, the people that did this; they took my spirit away from me (Sinderbrand, p. 1).

The second story is of Nial Cox Ramirez, who was sterilized at the age of 17 after several instances of pressure from social workers to get sterilized after becoming pregnant. She eventually complied because they threatened to take her family off of welfare, but she was never informed of the consequences of the surgery. She was assured she would be able to become pregnant again, but learned otherwise when she attempted to conceive years later. Like Riddick, her marriage fell apart. When she sued the state of North Carolina in 1967, the lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality (Wiggins, p. 1). These women were only two among those who fell under the categories of the groups targeted, and suffered as a result.

Some were quick to believe that Black Americans practiced reckless breeding (Larson, p. 156). However, North Carolina took an ever more grand approach to solving its reproductive woes, instituting a birth control program geared towards giving poor women a more acceptable and less costly way to prevent unwanted pregnancies claiming that it would be taught when the economic status precludes adequate care (Larson, p.157).

Young children were also targeted by these eugenic practices. A teenage girl from North Carolina was the object of her fathers affections. She was given a physical and the doctors realized that shed had sexual intercourse. As a result he parents gave consent to have their daughter sterilized instead of reprimanding the father for sexually assaulting his daughter (Ariyo, p. 59).

Blacks and Mentally and Physically Disabled: The Story of Junius Wilson


Junius Wilson was born in 1908 to Sidney and Mary Wilson (Burch, p. 1). He was born deaf in and so his literacy level was extremely low. At the age of eight he was sent away to a residential North Carolina School for the deaf and blind in Raleigh. This was Americas first school created to care for the special needs black children (Burch, p. 20). He was never taught proper sign language and so his family members often would misunderstand him or misinterpret gestures that he made, and he also did not understand the things that his family members were telling him, as his mother could not teach him how to read and write (Burch, p. 18). Because of the confusing communication, some of his family members suspected that he had assaulted one of his own family members sexually. In this community he was somewhat safer from his family however he was sent here not for deafness per se but for his perceived mental deficiencies and sexual deviations. Here in this institution Wilson became a member of a community that was equally misunderstood and equally ostracized by the greater community. They were all people of color and they were all unable to communicate by normal conventions. They were never officially taught ASL (American Sign Language) as they were all people of color and at the time no one saw fit to use their teaching resources on Blacks. They instead developed their own gestures and signs to communicate with one another and to the staff members in the institution. This form of sign language was entirely unique to these people. As a result, the deaf Blacks from Raleigh could not communicate with other signing deaf people, and far less could they be understood by their hearing peers (Burch, p. 22).

Southern states had a strong history of segregation. This mentality of separation and White superiority bled the special education programs of even the most progressive places south of the Mason Dixon, like North Carolina. Gustavus Ernest Lineberry became the superintendent for the North Carolina School for the Colored Blind and Deaf in 1918, after this the quality of education changed dramatically. Lineberry was a firm believer in the teaching of the blind and deaf, even Blacks, but he was not so kind as to consider the needs of his White and Black students to be the same (Burch, p. 22). He completely redistributed the resources of the school so that the best teachers and alumni were teaching at the White schools. He then made sure to provide a far less academic curriculum for the Blacks, as he felt there was a dire need to keep Blacks in their place (Burch, p. 22). The Black students with physical disabilities were given an education that would prepare them for rudimentary, vocational labor so that they could prove their worth to society boys were taught shoe repairing, carpentry and cabinetmaking along with dairy work (Burch, p. 22). It was also clear that this vocational form of training, towards fields that required little interaction, lowered the cost that their programs would incur and made the need for sufficient literacy nearly unimportant.

This, however, created a great deal of socialized problems for the students participating in the programs. Everyone sent to the school for the Colored Deaf and Blind was sent there to become better functioning and well prepared to rejoin society. But the students were not exposed to role models that were not fluent in sign and who did not know how to supply the needs of the deaf and blind. And because of the segregation that was taking place students could not even be taught by their White peers secretly, because they were transferred to Morganton (Burch, p.23).

Goldsboro Asylum during the Great Depression

Junius Wilson was becoming too much of a burden for his family as he became older, and his communication with them had not really improved either which was greatly to his detriment. His family decided that the best thing they could do in their situation was to have Wilson committed to a mental asylum. He was given up to the police by his family under the charge of attempted rape. However, it is clear that not everyone was on board with this idea. Although, his mother allowed them to take him away it was said that she didnt approve of the decision and would not speak with Andr, his father, because he was the one that supported removing his son permanently (Burch, p. 129).

Wilson was moved to Goldsboro Asylum in a farming colony. North Carolina was experiencing the debilitation of the Great Depression just like everyone else at the time and so holding whole mental institutions was more of a juggling act than those that ran the institutions could bear alone. Goldsboro opened up farming colonies in order to defer some of the costs involved in feeding inmates by having the inmates work for the food that they ate. The institution even went so far as to send inmates to other farms so that they could make money for the asylum. One could look at this as a sad combination of economic desperation seasoned with racism in the South and a disregard for the mentally and physically disabled (Burch, p. 76).

Freedom for Wilson

After a great deal of mistreatment however, Junius Wilsons case was taken up by John Wasson, who noted that Wilson was being held in the Asylum for phase of life adjustment disorder something he felt didnt warrant a seventy year stay in a mental institution (Burch, p. 128). In a major State court case Junius Wilson v. the State of North Carolina Wilson was finally granted his freedom and a cottage to call his own on the outskirts of the Hospital property at Goldsboro.

The Years after Junius Wilson

Wilsons story continued to have a significant impact after his death. His case which he brought through the North Carolina judiciary as a result of his poor treatment and wrongful sterilization was a model that others used in order to seek compensation for the trauma caused (Burch, p. 214). The state of North Carolina has made great efforts to own up to its involvement in the eugenics movement. In 2003 North Carolina was one of the first states to repeal the eugenic sterilization laws. Unfortunately it has taken until very recently for any party afflicted by the eugenics laws to be officially recognized and monetarily compensated. Until the 2009-2010 session of the State Legislature of North Carolina, there had been one promise after another with only symbolic acknowledgement being offered (Burch, p. 215). (See also below on compensation for victims.)

Dr. William Allan was North Carolinas initial promoter of negative eugenics. He wrote his first study on eugenics in 1916 and by the end of his life he had written 93 papers. He had his own private practice until 1941, when he started the medical genetics department at Bowman Gray. He thought that hereditary diseases could be halted by prevention and based much of his work on field studies and surveys. He pushed for a statewide bank of genetic information that would catalog peoples genetic backgrounds to see if they were prospective parents. He continued to push for this until his death in 1943 (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront).

Dr. C. Nash Herndon followed in the footsteps of Allan when he took over the department at Bowman Gray after his death. He conducted surveys of those with disabilities in an effort to find links of hereditary diseases. He was president of the American Eugenics Society from 1953-1955 and president of the Human Betterment League of North Carolina. He was the greatest contributor in pushing the eugenics movement forward in North Carolina after WWII (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront).


Ira M. hardy was the Superintendent at the North Carolina School for the Feeble-Minded. She appealed to the Southern Medical Association that took place in Florida expressing her deep desire to make the mentally ill completely separate from the rest of the population (Larson, p. 46).

Kate Burr Johnson was female social worker during the era of eugenic sterilization. She was a major proponent of the movement of compulsory sterilization. Johnson claimed that she wanted women to be liberated and be provided with reproductive freedom; however, she was actually strongly supporting the eugenic sterilization of people that would become social liabilities and produce unfit or economically unstable offspring (Krome-Lukens, p. 3).

Feeder Institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed

The Bowman Gray School of Medicine housed a program for eugenic sterilizations starting in 1948. It was aimed at the eugenic improvement of the population of Forsyth County. It consisted of a systematic approach that would eliminate certain genetically unfit strains from the local population (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront). It expanded the program throughout North Carolina. The school received much philanthropic support for research of genetic ideas. Today, school officials condemn eugenic research, as the dean of the school, Dr. William B. Applegate, states I think that the concepts and the practice of eugenics is wrong and unethical and would in no way be approved or condoned in modern medical times (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront). The school is now part of the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center-one of the most respected academic medical centers in the country. Although officials of the school condemn eugenics there is no mention of the program for eugenic sterilizations on the medical centers website.

(Photo origin: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, available at


The Stonewall Jackson Training School was founded in 1907 and was North Carolinas first juvenile detention facility. This was mostly a school for boys, but a few girls were sterilized there over its history, all of whom were labeled as mentally retarded. The boys who were sent there had only minor scrapes with authorities, not for mental illness. In 1948, seven boys out of 300 were targeted for sterilization because they were ready for discharge. These boys were deemed feebleminded as a justification for the operation. These were the only boys sterilized at this school (Winston-Salem,DETOUR: In 48 State Singled out Delinquent Boys). The building still exists but does not remain in operation today. There is no commemoration at the site or mention of the past.

The Goldsboro Training School, now known as the OBerry Center, opened in 1957 as the first institution for black intellectually disabled citizens. It had 150 clients were transferred to it from Cherry Hospital, at which point the treatment of the patients was limited to academics and vocational training. It is still operating today with approximately 430 clients, but it is no longer limited to African Americans (Castles, pp. 12-14). The centers website refers to the institution’s history of dealing with Black citizens with intellectual disabilities.


Opposition Blacks were opposed to sterilizations one two levels: those who knew about its racial bias and those who didnt. The sterilization program was only whispered about in the black communities, and any evidence that race played a part in those who were sterilized wasnt made public or scrutinized. Therefore, the eugenics board was allowed to proceed with few hurdles (Winston-Salem). Those blacks knew about the racial bias involved with sterilization tried to push for their rights. In 1959, State Senator Jolly introduced a bill that would authorize the sterilization of an unmarried woman who gave birth for the third time. This bill was contested bygroup of blacks. However, the senator’s response was “Youshould be concerned about this bill. One out of four of your race is illegitimate.” Blacks that demanded to be heard were ruledout of order by the white-controlled legislature (Winston-Salem,”Wicked Silence”).

Some college students were in opposition to the sterilizations.In 1960, students fromNorth Carolina A&TState Universitybegan sit-in movement against states progressive attitude or race relations. However, this gained little speed or recognition by the state to make any changes. Also, at Shaw University in Raleigh from 1968 to 1972, student activists tried to educate blacks about the issues and threats of sterilization. However, they lacked detailed information, and therefore this gained little momentum as well (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence).

Today, North Carolina is trying to amend for its past, making it one of the only states to do so thus far. In April 2003, the sterilization law was unanimously voted to be overturned by the North Carolina Senate. A few weeks later, a law was then signed by Governor Easley to officially put an end to forced sterilizations in North Carolina. Soon after, on April 17, 2003, Easley issued a public apology, stating, To the victims and families of this regrettable episode in North Carolina’s past, I extend my sincere apologies and want to assure them that we will not forget what they have endured” (“Easley Signs Law Ending States Eugenics Era,” p. 1). Then, in December 2005, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators passed resolution calling for federal and state programs to identify victims nationwide and get them health care and counseling (Sinderbrand, p. 1). However, these current efforts to find sterilized victims are difficult due to budget constraints and high costs of a publicity campaign. Therefore, efforts to find victims through “free media” were employed, such as posting info on bulletins, offices, health departments, libraries, schools, billboards, and city buses etc. (Sinderbrand, p. 1).


In 2009, a marker was dedicated in Raleigh, where the state eugenics board had met

A task force created by the governor has considered providing compensation for victims (NC Justice for Victims Foundation). (

Anderson Cooper on CNN ran a story on compensation for victims of sterilizations on 12/27/2011 (see

While a task force recommended to set compensation for surviving and verified victims at the amount of $50,000, the state senate rejected such a proposal in the summer of 2012, and the foundation was faced with the prospect of shutting down due to a lack of money. As of October 2012, only about 170 victims who are still alive have been verified, out of an estimated total of approx. 1,500-2,000. The low number of victims who have revealed themselves in this way reflects the continuing stigma of being sterilized and parallels the situation in Germany, where for many decades victims were reluctant to come forward in part due to the stigma attached to sterilizations and the still-existing belief that a sterilization constitutes a black mark on a family lineage.

The situation might be reflective of the difficulty of citizens in North Carolina to allow for “negative memory,” i.e., a willingness to concede that the state representing the will of its citizens was capable of committing atrocious (though legal) deeds. In contrast to sterilization victims in British Columbia and Alberta, not a single victim of a state eugenic sterilization law is known to have been compensated by a state in the United States so far.

After extensive efforts by organizations such as the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims, the states NAACP, and legal clinics by the University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights to spread the word about compensation to victims of eugenic sterilization, the number of claimants reached a number close to 800 until the cutoff date of June 30, 2014. In the larger context of compensation for social injustice stemming from illiberal and injurious state programs a firm deadline seems highly problematic, as the date seems arbitrary and informed not by considerations of justice but by political expediency, and it remains unclear why such a deadline would be necessary in the first place.

The number of verified cases remains very low at less than 220 (see here). It appears that a victim is only verified for compensation if a record of an order by the state’s Eugenics board exists. If this is the case, it leaves out those whose records might no longer be extant, or whose sterilization was due not to a sterilization order under the state’s eugenics law but what is known as “Mississippi appendectomies” (this is noted and explained here). As is the case with the deadline, this very narrow definition of victimhood is not calibrated to the historical record or experience of victimhood.


Ariyo, Oluwunmi. 2006. Making the Unfit Individual: Analysis of the Rhetoric of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. Masters Thesis, Department of Communication, Wake Forest University.

Schoen, Johanna. 2011. Reassessing Eugenic Sterilization: The Case of North Carolina. Pp. 141-60 in A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era, ed. Paul Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ——. 2005. Choice and Coercion: Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public Health and Welfare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Severson, Kim. “Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution.” Dec. 9, 2011. Available at .

Sinderbrand, Rebecca. 2005. “A Shameful Little Secret.” Newsweek 33 (March 28). State Library of North Carolina. “Eugenics in North Carolina.” Available at Wiggins, Lori. 2005. North Carolina Regrets Sterilization Program. Crisis 112, 3: 10. Winston-Salem Journal. Against Their Will. Available at .

See the rest here:
Eugenics in North Carolina – University of Vermont

 Posted by at 9:44 pm  Tagged with:

Eugenics Board of North Carolina – Wikipedia, the free …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics Board of North Carolina – Wikipedia, the free …
Oct 162015

The Eugenics Board of North Carolina (EBNC) was a State Board of the state of North Carolina formed in July 1933 by the North Carolina State Legislature by the passage of House Bill 1013, entitled ‘An Act to Amend Chapter 34 of the Public Laws of 1929 of North Carolina Relating to the Sterilization of Persons Mentally Defective’.[1] This Bill formally repealed a 1929 law,[2] which had been ruled as unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court earlier in the year.

Over time, the scope of the Board’s work broadened from a focus on pure eugenics to considering sterilization as a tool to combat poverty and welfare costs. Its original purpose was to oversee the practice of sterilization as it pertained to inmates or patients of public-funded institutions that were judged to be ‘mentally defective or feeble-minded’ by authorities. In contrast to other eugenics programs across the United States, the North Carolina Board enabled county departments of public welfare to petition for the sterilization of their clients.[3] The Board remained in operation until 1977. During its existence thousands of individuals were sterilized. In 1977 the N.C. General Assembly repealed the laws authorizing its existence,[4] though it would not be until 2003 that the involuntary sterilization laws that underpinned the Board’s operations were repealed.[5]

Today the Board’s work is repudiated by people across the political, scientific and private spectrum.[citation needed] In 2013, North Carolina passed legislation to compensate those sterilized under the Board’s jurisdiction.[6][7]

The board was made up of five members:[1]

The State of North Carolina first enacted sterilization legislation in 1919.[8] The 1919 law was the first foray for North Carolina into eugenics; this law, entitled “An Act to Benefit the Moral, Mental, or Physical Conditions of Inmates of Penal and Charitable Institutions” was quite brief, encompassing only 4 sections. Provision was made for creation of a Board of Consultation, made up of a member of the medical staff of any of the penal or charitable State institutions, and a representative of the State Board of Health, to oversee sterilization that was to be undertaken when “in the judgement of the board hereby created, said operation would be for the improvement of the mental, moral or physical conditions of any inmate of any of the said institutions”. The Board of Consultation would have reported to both the Governor and the Secretary of the State Board of Health. No sterilizations were performed under the provisions of this law, though its structure was to guide following legislation.[8]

In 1929, two years after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling of Buck v. Bell[9] in which sterilization was ruled permissible under the U.S. Constitution, North Carolina passed an updated law[2] that formally laid down rules for the sterilization of citizens. This law, entitled “An Act to Provide For the Sterilization of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded Inmates of Charitable and Penal Institutions of the State of North Carolina”, was similar to the law which preceded it, although this new Act contained several new provisions.[2]

In contrast to the 1919 law, which had mandated sterilization for the “improvement of the mental, moral or physical condition of any inmate”, the new law added a new and far-reaching condition: “Or for the public good.” This condition, expanding beyond the individual to greater considerations of society, would be built on in the ensuing years.[2]

The 1929 law also expanded the review process to four reviewers, namely: The Commissioner of Charities and Public Welfare of North Carolina, The Secretary of the State Board of Health of North Carolina, and the Chief Medical Officers of any two institutions for the “feeble-minded or insane” for the State of North Carolina.[2]

Lastly, the new law also explicitly stated that sterilization, where performed under the Act’s guidelines, would be lawful and that any persons who requested, authorized or directed proceedings would not be held criminally or civilly liable for actions taken. Under the 1929 law, 49 recorded cases took place in which sterilization was performed.[10]

In 1933, the North Carolina State Supreme Court heard Brewer v. Valk,[11] an appeal from Forsyth County Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court upheld that the 1929 law violated both the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of the 1868 North Carolina State Constitution.[12] The Supreme Court noted that property rights required due process, specifically a mechanism by which notice of action could be given, and hearing rights established so that somebody subject to the sterilization law had the opportunity to appeal their case. Under both the U.S. Constitution and the N.C. State Constitution in place at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1929 law was unconstitutional as no such provisions existed in the law as written.[11]

The North Carolina General Assembly went on in the wake of Brewer v. Valk to enact House Bill 1013,[1] removing the constitutional objections to the law, thereby forming the Eugenics Board and creating the framework which would remain in force for over thirty years. The Board was granted authority over all sterilization proceedings undertaken in the State, which had previously been devolved to various governing bodies or heads of penal and charitable institutions supported in whole or in part by the State.[2]

In the 1970s the Eugenics Board was moved around from department to department, as sterilization operations declined in the state. In 1971, an act of the legislature transferred the EBNC to the then newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the secretary of that department was given managerial and executive authority over the board.[13]

Under a 1973 law, the Eugenics Board was transformed into the Eugenics Commission. Members of the commission were appointed by the governor, and included the director of the Division of Social and Rehabilitative Services of the DHR, the director of Health Services, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the DHR in the area of mental health services, and the state attorney general.

In 1974 the legislature transferred to the judicial system the responsibility for any proceedings.

1976 brought a new challenge to the law with the case of In re Sterilization of Joseph Lee Moore[14] in which an appeal was heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The petitioner’s case was that the court had not appointed counsel at State expense to advise him of his rights prior to sterilization being performed. While the court noted that there was discretion within the law to approve a fee for the service of an expert, it was not constitutionally required. The court went on to declare that the involuntary sterilization of citizens for the public good was a legitimate use of the police power of the state, further noting that “The people of North Carolina have a right to prevent the procreation of children who will become a burden on the state.” The ruling upholding the constitutionality was notable in both its relatively late date (many other States had ceased performing sterilization operations shortly after WWII) and its language justifying state intervention on the grounds of children being a potential burden to the public.[14]

The Eugenics Commission was formally abolished by the legislature in 1977.[4][15]

In 2003, the N.C. General Assembly formally repealed the last involuntary sterilization law, replacing it with one that authorizes sterilization of individuals unable to give informed consent only in the case of medical necessity. The law explicitly ruled out sterilizations “solely for the purpose of sterilization or for hygiene or convenience.”[5][16]

At the time of the Board’s formation there was a body of thought that viewed the practice of eugenics as both necessary for the public good and for the private citizen. Following Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court was often cited both domestically and internationally as a foundation for eugenics policies.

In Buck v. Bell Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, in support of eugenics policy, that

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.[9]

Despite the Supreme Court rulings in support of eugenics as constitutionally permitted, even as late as 1950 some physicians in North Carolina were still concerned about the legality of sterilization. Efforts were made to reassure the medical community that the laws were both constitutionally sound and specifically exempting physicians from liability.[17]

Framing eugenics as supporting the public good was fundamental to how the law was written. It was argued that both for the benefit of the private citizen, and for the costs to society of future possible childbirths, eugenics were a sound and moral way to proceed. This was stated in the Board’s manual of policies and procedures, in which the practice was justified:[18]

No Place For Sentimentality

There can be no place for sentimentality in solving the problems of the mental health of our citizens. We would be less than human were we to feel no compassion for our unfortunates. But it is a peculiar paradox of human nature that while the best stock of our people is being lost on the battle fronts of the world, we make plans for the betterment and the coddling of our defectives.

In the press, opinion articles were published arguing for a greater use of eugenics, in which many of the reasons above were cited as justification. Even the Winston-Salem Journal, which would be a significant force in illuminating North Carolina’s past eugenics abuses in the modern era, was not immune. In 1948 the newspaper published an editorial entitled “The Case for Sterilization – Quantity vs. Quality” that went into great detail extolling the virtues of ‘breeding’ for the general public good.[20]

North Carolina’s Selective Sterilization Law


It Saves…

Proponents of eugenics did not restrict its use to the ‘feeble-minded’. In many cases, more ardent authors included the blind, deaf-mutes, and people suffering from diseases like heart disease or cancer in the general category of those who should be sterilized.[22] The argument was twofold; that parents likely to give birth to ‘defective’ children should not allow it, and that healthy children borne to ‘defective’ parents would be doomed to an ‘undesirable environment’.[23]

Wallace Kuralt, Mecklenburg County’s welfare director from 1945 to 1972, was a leader in transitioning the work of state eugenics from looking only at medical conditions to considering poverty as a justification for state sterilization. Under Kuralt’s tenure, Mecklenburg county became far and away the largest source of sterilizations in the state. He supported this throughout his life in his writings and interviews, where he made plain his conviction that sterilization was a force for good in fighting poverty. In a 1964 interview with the Charlotte Observer, Kuralt said:

“When we stop to reflect upon the thousands of physical, mental and social misfits in our midst, the thousands of families which are too large for the family to support, the one-tenth of our children born to an unmarried mother, the hoard of children rejected by parents, is there any doubt that health, welfare and education agencies need to redouble their efforts to prevent these conditions which are so costly to society?”[19][24]

Among public and private groups that published articles advocating for eugenics, the Human Betterment League was a significant advocate for the procedure within North Carolina. This organization, founded by Procter & Gamble heir Clarence Gamble provided experts, written material and monetary support to the eugenics movement. Many pamphlets and publications were created by the league advocating the groups position which were then distributed throughout the state. One pamphlet entitled ‘You Wouldn’t Expect…’ laid out a series of rhetorical questions to argue the point that those considered ‘defective’ were unable to be good parents.[21]

While it is not known exactly how many people were sterilized during the lifetime of the law, the Task Force established by Governor Beverly Perdue estimated the total at around 7,500. They provided a summary of the estimated number of operations broken down by time period. This does not include sterilizations that may have occurred at a local level by doctors and hospitals.[10][25]

The report went on to provide a breakdown by county. There were no counties in North Carolina that performed no operations, though the spread was marked, going from as few as 4 in Tyrrell county, to 485 in Mecklenburg county.[10]

Some research into the historical data in North Carolina has drawn links between race and sterilization rates. One study performed in 2010 by Gregory Price and William Darity Jr described the practice as “racially biased and genocidal”. In the study, the researchers showed that as the black population of a county increased, the number of sterilizations increased disproportionately; that black citizens were more likely, all things being equal, to being recommended for sterilization than whites.[26]

Poverty and sterilization were also closely bound. Since social workers concerned themselves with those accepting welfare and other public assistance, there was a strong impetus to recommending sterilization to families as a means of controlling their economic situation. This was sometimes done under duress, when benefits were threatened as a condition of undergoing the surgery.[27]

What made the picture more complicated was the fact that in some cases, individuals sought out sterilization. Since those in poverty had fewer choices for birth control, having a state-funded procedure to guarantee no further children was attractive to some mothers. Given the structure of the process however, women found themselves needing to be described as unfit mothers or welfare burdens in order to qualify for the program, rather than simply asserting reproductive control.[3]

Many stories from those directly affected by the Board’s work have come to light over the past several years. During the hearings from the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation many family members and individuals personally testified to the impact that the procedures had had on them.

NCEB Case Summary: Elaine Riddick

This thirteen year old girl expects her first child in March 1968….She has never done any work and gets along so poorly with others that her school experience was poor. Because of Elaine’s inability to control herself, and her promiscuity – there are community reports of her “running around” and out late at night unchaperoned, the physician has advised sterilization….This will at least prevent additional children from being born to this child who cannot care for herself, and can never function in any way as a parent.

Elaine Riddick is a fifty-one-year-old African American woman who was born in Perquimans County, North Carolina. Born into a poor family, one of seven children, the family was split up by the County Welfare department after her parents were deemed to be unfit. Elaine and one sister were sent to live with her grandmother, while the remaining five were sent to an orphanage. It was shortly after this family upheaval, when Elaine was 13, that she was raped by a 20-year-old man with a history of assault and incarceration. Elaine subsequently became pregnant.

When the social worker, Marion Payne, assigned to the Riddick family found out that Elaine was pregnant,[29] she pressured Elaine’s grandmother into signing a consent form for sterilization (Riddick’s grandmother, being illiterate, signed the form with a simple ‘X’ symbol). On March 5, 1968, when Elaine was 14 years old, she was sterilized under the authority of the board. The procedure took place hours after Elaine had given birth to a son.[30] Riddick learned only years later the extent of the procedure, testifying to its effect over her life in a lawsuit brought against the state of North Carolina with the assistance of the ACLU in 1974. She cited failed relationships, physical pain and suffering, and psychological trauma. Unfortunately for Riddick, her lawsuit did not end in success; a jury found against her, and the NC Supreme court refused to hear her case. It would not be until the hearings of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation that her story was to be widely heard once more.[31][32]

Junius Wilson was born in 1908 in North Carolina and grew up near Wilmington. In 1916 he was sent to the North Carolina School for the Colored Deaf and the Blind, a segregated state school in Raleigh that was the first southern school for black deaf children. Since this was a segregated school, students there were not given the resources of other schools. They were not taught American Sign Language and developed their own system of communication. This worked within the institution, but because it was their own, it did not travel, and so students and deaf from other schools were unable to understand them.[33]

Wilson stayed there for six years, learning rudimentary sign language, until a minor infraction lead to his expulsion. While at home in Castle Hayne, Wilson came to the attention of the legal system when he was accused of the attempted rape of a relative. It is unclear whether the charge had merit – biographers speculated that his misunderstood behavior stemming from communication difficulties may have led to the situation – but what is not in doubt is that in 1925 Wilson was declared legally insane by a court and committed to the state Hospital for the Colored Insane in Goldsboro, North Carolina, which became Cherry Hospital in 1959.[34] In 1932 he was surgically castrated under the provisions of the eugenics laws in place.[35]

Wilson would remain committed to the state facility for decades. In 1990, he was given a new social worker, John Wasson. Wasson came to find out that not only was Wilson not mentally disabled, but that the hospital staff had known for years that he was not. To compound the situation, the legal charges against Wilson dating back to 1925 had been dismissed in 1970; put bluntly, for twenty years he had been committed to the hospital without legal justification. In interviews with hospital staff, Wasson found that it had been considered the most ‘benevolent’ course of action, since Wilson was thoroughly institutionalized at that point, with many of the same difficulties in learning and communication that had been his burden since birth.

Wasson instigated the legal challenge to Wilson’s incarceration. In 1992 Wilson was formally declared a free man. Since he had no close relatives or family members able to care for him in his advanced age, a cottage was found for him on the grounds of Cherry Hospital. Wilson would live there until his death in 2001.[36][37]

Not all who testified before the Committee were sterilized by the Eugenics Board directly. In many cases people who were sterilized were operated on by local clinics and doctors. It was argued that in many of these cases patients were not fully educated as to the nature of the procedure and were urged into it by doctors or social workers who were making judgements based upon their patients’ economic situation. Young women of limited means who had multiple children were specifically targeted for sterilization by many case workers.[38]

Mary English was one such case. In her personal testimony she explained that in 1972, she had been newly divorced with three children. She went to see a doctor at a Fayetteville OB/GYN clinic for some medical complaints. The doctor offered her entry into a program that would negate any need for future birth control. English signed the required paperwork, and was sterilized after the birth of her third child. It was years later, when she went back to the doctor to have the procedure reversed, that she found out it was permanent.[39]

English went on to detail her struggles with depression and retold experiences of friends and neighbors who had gone through similar situations at the hands of their own doctors. As for the clinic at which English was sterilized, she claimed that it was still operating, though declined to name it, or the doctor responsible for her sterilization.[40]

The Winston-Salem Journal’s “Against Their Will” documentary, released in 2002, based in part on Joanna Schoen’s research of the North Carolina Eugenics program, is credited with spurring public interest and demands for action to repeal laws and explore the possibility of compensation for affected people. This five part series gave extensive background to the work of the Eugenics Board, with detailed statistics, victim’s stories, and historical information on the broader Eugenics movement in the United States in the Post-WWII era.[29]

Then-Governor Mike Easley offered an apology to victims of the policy in 2002. At the time, North Carolina was the third State in the nation to officially apologize for eugenics practices, following behind Virginia and Oregon though North Carolina was the first State to go beyond a formal apology to actively considering compensation in some form.[41] Easley set up a committee to study the history of the Eugenics Board with instructions to provide recommendations on how to handle what it termed ‘program survivors’. The committee recommended five specific steps:[42]

The recommendations lay dormant in the North Carolina Legislature until 2008, when a study committee was appointed. The House Committee gave its own recommendations which in large part mirrored Easley’s committee’s findings though it went further, in establishing a suggested dollar figure of $20,000 compensation per surviving victim. The House committee also recommended training, the creation of memorials, and documenting survivor experiences, and the creation of a database to store sterilization records for future research. While the House committee recommended setting funds aside for these purposes, the Legislature did not grant funding in 2008.[43] The house committee was co-chaired by State Representative Larry Womble, who has been a public advocate in the state house for victim’s compensation. Womble announced he would be stepping down and not seek re-election after a horrific car crash in late 2011.[44][45]

In 2008, Beverley Perdue was elected Governor of North Carolina. As part of her platform she pledged to take up the sterilization situation.[46] In 2010 Perdue issued an executive order that formed the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation (NCJSVF).[47]

The Task Force was made up of the following:[6]

The Foundation recommended that compensation be raised to $50,000 per victim, in a 3-2 vote. They also voted for funds for mental health services and historical displays and exhibits documenting the history of sterilization in the state.[10] It is not yet clear how many victims will be satisfied by the amount; many have granted detailed interviews that documented their severe emotional trauma in the wake of the procedures, and have been outspoken in demanding higher sums.[48]

On April 25, 2012, North Carolina’s Gov. Perdue announced that she will put $10.3 million in her budget proposal to allocate towards issues surrounding eugenics. The funds are intended to aid with $50,000 payments to verified North Carolina eugenics victims. The remainder of the monies will be used to support the continued efforts of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation as they provide outreach and clearinghouse services to help Eugenics victims. Governor Perdue stated,[49]

We cannot change the terrible things that happened to so many of our most vulnerable citizens, but we can take responsibility for our states mistakes and show that we do not tolerate violations of basic human rights. We must provide meaningful assistance to victims, so I am including this funding in my budget.

Gov. Perdue’s budget proposal is in accordance with the recommendations of the January 2012 final report issued from the Eugenics Compensation Task Force. The board suggested that living victims and those who were not deceased when verified by the foundation receive a tax-free, lump sum payment of $50,000. The N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation reports that there is still an increase in the number of confirmed/verified eugenics victims. As of April 25, 2012, 132 people in 51 counties had been matched to the North Carolina’s Eugenics program records.[49]

In 2013, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina.[7][50]

Go here to see the original:
Eugenics Board of North Carolina – Wikipedia, the free …

dog-friendly beaches – Pet Friendly Travel

 Beaches  Comments Off on dog-friendly beaches – Pet Friendly Travel
Oct 092015

Click on the map below to find dog friendly beaches, including off-leash dog beaches, and dog swim areas in the U.S.

Please help keep these beaches and swimming areas open to dogs — Never leave your dog unattended; Always keep your dog on a leash or under voice control; Always clean up after your dog.

Dauphin Island Dauphin Island is a barrier island located three miles south of the mouth of Mobile Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the public beach year round. The public beach is located next to Dauphin Island Elementary School and is the largest area on Dauphin Island set aside for dogs and their owners. There are at least a couple of miles of beach there, and with Sand Island now connected to Dauphin Island, there is more area of undeveloped beach jutting out into the Gulf on that barrier island. Though dogs are allowed at Dauphin Island’s primary public beach and at the Dauphin Island Campground, dogs are not allowed at the West End Beach Park on the Island’s extreme west end.

Fort Morgan Fort Morgan is an unincorporated community west of Gulf Shores on Mobile Point. Mobile Point extends from Gulf Shores to the west, towards historic Fort Morgan at the tip of the peninsula. Dogs on a leash are allowed on beaches in the city of Fort Morgan, but are not permitted on Alabama state beaches or Fort Morgan State Historic Site property.

Gulf Shores: The Dog Pond, 20115 State Highway 135, Gulf Shores, AL 36542 The dog park is located on the West end of the parking lot, under the Gulf Adventure Center on Lake Shelby in Gulf State Park. The dog park area offers dogs access to the lake.

Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve Pets on a leash are allowed on the beach between the Bartlett Cove Public Use Dock and the National Park Service Administrative Dock.

Homer: Bishop’s Beach Bishop’s Beach is located two blocks from Old Town at the end of Bunnell Street. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

Sitka: Sitka National Historical Park Two miles of well-maintained, handicapped-accessible trails wind through the park’s 113 acres of rainforest environment, along the beach of Sitka Sound and the banks of the Indian River. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach and the trails.

Gilbert: Cosmo Dog Park Cosmo Dog Park is the first dog park in the Greater Phoenix area to offer a lake where dogs can swim. The dog beach features a dock from which dogs can jump into the water.

Lake Havasu: Lions Dog Park at London Bridge Beach, Beachcomber Blvd., Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403 Located along the famous Bridgewater Channel, London Bridge Beach features a buoyed-in swimming area, beach, two playgrounds, and a fully enclosed dog park. Lions Dog Park has a grassy expanse for the dogs to play in, drinking bowls with fresh water, and a hydrant-shaped fountain that sprays a cooling mist of water, plus covered benches and a walking path for human guests. Dogs are also welcome outside the dog area on the beach but must remain on a leash.

Parker: Buckskin Mountain State Park, Colorado River Buckskin Mountain State Park is located on Arizona Highway 95, about 12 miles north of Parker. The River Island unit is one mile north of Buckskin Mountain State Park. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the north beach only (north of the boat ramp).


Arcata: Mad River County Park OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. One of the Redwood Coast’s best beaches for picnics, beachcombing and fishing, Mad River County Park is located 5 miles north of Arcata. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach as long as they are under complete control and within voice range of the owner.

Caspar: Caspar Beach, Mendocino County Caspar Beach is located approximately 4 miles north of the town of Mendocino across from the Casper Beach RV Park. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Clearlake Oaks: Clearlake Oaks Boat Launch Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach west of the breakwater.

Crescent City: Beach Front Park Crescent City is located on the Pacific coast about 20 miles from the Oregon border. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach and in the park located on Front St. in Crescent City.

Crescent City Area: Gold Bluffs Beach, Prairie Creek Redlands State Park Located 50 miles north of Eureka and 25 miles south of Crescent City on Newton B. Drury Scenic Parkway off of Highway 101. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are only allowed in the campground, on the beach and the main beach road. Dogs are not permitted on any of the park trails including Fern Canyon.

Ferndale: Centerville Beach County Park Centerville Beach is located 5 miles west of Ferndale. Dogs are allowed off-leash, if under complete control by owner, on the waveslope all year and on the entire beach from October 1st through February 28th. Dogs must be on leash March 1st to September 30th, except on the waveslope, where they can be unleashed if kept under complete control of the owner.

Fort Bragg: MacKerricher State Park MacKerricher State Park is located 3 miles north of Fort Bragg on Highway 1, near the town of Cleone. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on some beach areas, but are prohibited on Virgin Creek Beach, the northern half of Ten Mile Beach, the Seal Rocks harbor seal pup nursery area, and the Surfwood Walk-In campground.

Fort Bragg: Noyo Beach Off-Leash Dog Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. The Noyo Beach Dog Area is located under the bridge at Noyo Harbor in Fort Bragg. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach year round.

Fort Bragg: Seaside Beach OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Seaside Beach is approximately 6 miles north of Fort Bragg on Highway 1. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach. The beach has vast towering rock formations some with hollowed out arches formed naturally by years of crashing waves. Seaside Beach is a great beach to bring a picnic too and sit and enjoy the majestic beauty of this northern California gem of a dog friendly beach. NO dog waste bags or trash receptacles are provided so all dog owners must carry disposable waste bags to pick up after their dogs. Thank you, Hairy Putter! Hairy Putter’s Review Blog

Gualala: Gualala Point Regional Park Gualala Point Regional Park is located 36 miles north of Jenner and one mile south of Gualala on Hwy 1. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach. License required.

Gualala: Cook’s Beach OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. A little north of town is Cooks Beach which is at 526 County Road, mile marker 3.14. Parking is limited and there is a slope to navigate to get to the beach, but is it worth it! Protected from the wind, this beautiful sandy cove is a great place to let off some steam. Please bring suitable waste bags; this is a carry in and carry out beach. Thank you, Hairy Putter! Hairy Putter’s Review Blog

Humboldt County, Humboldt Bay: South Spit Cooperative Management Area The South Spit is a 4.5-mile expanse of wave sculpted beaches, windswept dunes, and bayshore marshes, approximately 20 minutes from either Eureka or Fortuna. Dogs must be leashed on the ocean side of South Jetty Road during Snowy Plover nesting season, March 1-September 15. On the bay side of South Jetty Road, dogs are allowed off-leash but must be under voice control.

Humboldt County, Humboldt Bay, Manilla: Manilla Dunes Recreation Area The Manila Dunes Recreation Area is located at 1611 Peninsula Drive, Manila CA. Dogs are allowed on a leash or under voice control. Horse use is limited to designated trails.

Humboldt County Parks Where permitted, dogs must be on a leash no greater than 10 feet in the parking and camping areas and within 100′ of these areas. Dogs are permitted to be unleashed, if under complete control by owner, on the waveslope only at Clam Beach, Table Bluff, and Centerville all year and on the entire beach from October 1 through February 28. Dogs are permitted to be unleashed if under complete control by owner, on the beach at Big Lagoon, Moonstone, Luffenholtz and Mad River County Parks. Dogs are permitted only in vehicle in Freshwater County Park.

Lakeport: Lakeside County Park, 1985 Park Drive, Lakeport, CA 95453 Located west of Clear Lake State Park (towards Lakeport) and also off of Soda Bay Road. Dogs on a leash are allowed at the west end of the swim area.

Lucerne: Lucerne Harbor Park, 6319 E Hwy 20, Lucerne, CA 95458 Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

McKinleyville: Clam Beach County Park Clam Beach is located 7.5 miles north of Arcata near McKinleyville. Dogs are allowed off-leash, if under complete control by owner, on the waveslope all year and on the entire beach from October 1st through February 28th. Dogs must be on leash March 1st to September 30th, except on the waveslope, where they can be unleashed if kept under complete control of the owner. Horses allowed.

Mendocino: Big River Beach, Mendocino Headlands State Park Big River Beach is on the south side of Mendocino. It is accessible by vehicle from Highway 1, or by trails down the bluffs. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Mendocino: Portuguese Beach, Mendocino Headlands State Park From downtown Mendocino, follow Main Street up-coast past the Mendocino Hotel to Heeser Street. The unsigned trail leads southwest through a fence and soon forks; the route down-coast to Big River Beach is described rst. Heading east, the trail delivers you to some blufftop benches and a coastal accessway leading down to Portuguese Beach, known as Point Beach by locals. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Mendocino: Van Damme State Park Van Damme State Park is located 3 miles south of Mendocino on Highway 1. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Nice: Keeling County Park Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach south of the boat ramp.

Redwood National and State Parks Beaches In Redwood National and State Parks, pets on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed: on all road-accessible beaches (excluding dune habitat); within 100 feet of public roads and parking areas (but not on trails); at designated picnic areas; and within all road-accessible campgrounds.

Samoa: Samoa Dunes Recreation Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. The Samoa Dunes Recreation Area is a 300-acre sand dune park located just west of Eureka on Humboldt Bay. Dogs are allowed off-leash if they are under voice control.

Trinidad: Big Lagoon County Park OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Big Lagoon County Park is located 7 miles north of Trinidad. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach if they are under complete control by owner.

Trinidad: Luffenholtz Beach & County Park OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Luffenholtz Beach & County Park is located 2 miles south of Trinidad on Scenic Drive. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach if they are under complete control by owner.

Trinidad: Moonstone Beach OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Moonstone Beach is located just south of Trinidad. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach if they are under complete control by owner.

Westport: Westport-Union Landing State Beach Westport-Union Landing State Beach is located 19 miles north of Fort Bragg and 2 miles north of Westport on Highway 1. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.


Bodega Bay – Area Beaches Dogs on a leash are allowed on the following beaches: Doran Beach, Marshall Gulch, Carmet Beach, Schoolhouse Beach, Portuguese Beach, Duncans Cove, Wright’s Beach, Furlong Gulch, Shell Beach, Blind Beach. Dogs are prohibited at Salmon Creek North, Salmon Creek South, Miwok Beach, Coleman Beach, Bodega Dunes Beach, Goat Rock Beach.

Bodega Bay: Doran Regional Park Located on Hwy 1, one mile south of Bodega Bay, Doran Park has a 2-mile stretch of sandy beach Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach. License required.

Jenner area: Stillwater Cove Regional Park Stillwater Cove Regional Park is located approximately 16 miles north of Jenner. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach. License required.

Russsian River District Dog Guidelines The following are designated areas where dogs are permitted on beaches adjacent to bodies of water in State Park Systems or portions of units: Marshall Gulch, Carmet Beach, Schoolhouse Beach, Portuguese Beach, Duncan’s Cove, Wright’s Beach, Furlong Gulch, Shell Beach, Blind Beach, Russian Gulch.

Santa Rosa: Rincon Valley Community Park Dog Park, 5108 Badger Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95409 The dog park features small and large dog areas, and a swimming pond.

The Sea Ranch The Sea Ranch is a planned, private community located along the coast in Sonoma County, south of the town of Gualala and about 100 miles north of San Francisco. Sonoma County Regional Parks manages six public access trails within The Sea Ranch. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the following access trail and beaches: Black Point Beach, Pebble Beach, Stengel Beach, Shell Beach and Walk-On Beach.


Albany: Albany Bulb The Albany waterfront is located at the end of Buchanan Street, just west of Interstate 80. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the Albany Bulb, the west end of a landfill peninsula at the end of Buchanan Street.

Benicia: First Street Beach OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Benicia is a waterside city located in the San Francisco Bay area just east of Vallejo. It has two off-leash beaches at the foot of First Street in the downtown area – one at the Promenade and the other south of the turnaround. Thank you, Gretchen!

Berkeley: Tilden Regional Park, Lake Anza Road off of Central Park Drive, Berkeley, CA 94708 Tilden Park’s Lake Anza has a sandy beach open during swim season from May through September. Dogs are allowed off-leash on Lake Anzas beach in the undeveloped areas only. No dogs are allowed in the pool area, wetland or marsh.

Bolinas: Agate Beach Park Located near the town of Bolinas, Agate Beach provides access to almost two miles of ocean shoreline at low tide. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach, but are prohibited from entering tide pools, and must stay on trails for safety and habitat protection.

Dillon Beach OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Dillon Beach is located 45 min.-1 hr. north of San Francisco between Tomales Bay and Bodega Bay. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach if they are under voice control.

Fremont area: Shinn Pond, Niles Community Park Shinn Pond is located at Niles Community Park in the town of Niles along side the Alameda Creek Regional Trail. The off-leash area offers long trails, big grassy areas, and a large pond where dogs can swim.

Half Moon Bay Area: Mavericks Beach A popular surfing location, Mavericks is located at Pillar Point Harbor Shore just north of Half Moon Bay. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

Half Moon Bay Area: Montara State Beach Montara State Beach is located 8 miles north of Half Moon Bay on Highway One. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Half Moon Bay Area/Pescadero: Bean Hollow State Beach Bean Hollow State Beach is located 17.5 miles south of Half Moon Bay and 3 miles south of Pescadero on Highway One. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Livermore: Del Valle Regional Park, 7000 Del Valle Rd., Livermore, CA 94550 Located 10 miles south of Livermore, Del Valle offers swimming and all kinds of water-oriented recreation. The lake is five miles long, and dogs are free to swim in all but two designated areas: East and West Swim Beach.

Marin Headlands: Rodeo Beach and South Rodeo Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Located 3 miles northwest of the Golden Gate Bridge. Dogs are allowed off-leash under voice control from the shoreline to the crest of the dunes. Dog Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Mill Valley: Muir Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Located 3 miles west of Muir Woods. Dogs are allowed off-leash if they are under voice control. Dog Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Pacifica: Esplanade Beach OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Dogs are allowed off-leash on Esplanade Beach, off of Esplanade Ave. and West Manor Drive, Pacifica CA 94044.

Pacifica: Linda Mar Beach (Pacifica State Beach) Linda Mar Beach offers a recreation trail along the ocean, surfing and surf camps, restrooms and showers. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

Point Reyes: Point Reyes National Seashore Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the following ocean-facing beaches year round: Kehoe Beach – north of the Kehoe Beach trail; Limantour Beach – southeast of the parking lot to the beach adjacent to Coast Camp; Point Reyes/Great Beach – from the North Beach parking lot to the south. Due to threatened snowy plover habitat, pets are not allowed on the beach south of the trail at Kehoe Beach or on the beach to the north of the North Beach parking lot. During the elephant seal pupping and mating season (December through April), pets and humans are not allowed on the beach south of the South Beach parking lot.

Point Reyes: Kehoe Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore A .6-mile walk alongside a marsh and over a sand dune takes you to the northern end of the Great Beach, called Kehoe Beach. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on this beach to the north of the trail. Dogs are not permitted south of the trailhead as this area is protected habitat for the endangered snow plover.

Point Reyes: Limantour Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore Limantour Beach is a long, narrow spit of sand, bound between Drakes Bay and an estuary. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the southeast end of this beach. Dogs are not permitted to the northwest as this area is protected habitat for harbor seals and the endangered snowy plover.

Point Reyes: The Great Beach/Point Reyes Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore The Great Beach, also known as Point Reyes Beach, features over 11 miles of undeveloped ocean beach. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on this beach, but are not permitted north of the North Beach entrance as this area is protected habitat for the endangered snowy plover. And during the winter when elephant seals are present, both people and dogs are not permitted too far south of the South Beach access.

Richmond: Point Isabel Regional Shoreline This landscaped 23-acre park at the west end of Central Avenue in Richmond offers beautiful views of the Golden Gate and Marin County and is one of the largest public off-leash dog parks in the nation. Dogs may be off-leash at Point Isabel, although owners must have a leash with them (six-foot maximum) and have their dog under voice control and within sight at all times. Dogs must be on leash in parking lots and streets.

San Francisco: Baker Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Dogs are allowed off-leash at the north end of the beach, north of Lobo Creek. Dog Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

San Francisco: Crissy Field, Golden Gate National Recreation Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach (excluding the Wildlife Protection Area at the west end of Crissy field beach where leashes are required all year except from May 15 to July 1). Dog Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

San Francisco: Fort Funston/Burton Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach (excluding the 12-acre closure in northwest Ft. Funston and the northern end of the Coastal trail, closed due to erosion). Dog Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

San Francisco: Lands End, Golden Gate National Recreational Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach. Dog Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

San Francisco: Ocean Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. Dogs are allowed off-leash (excluding the Plover Protection Area from Sloat Blvd. north to Stairwell 21 where leashes are required all year except from May 15 to July 1).The beach runs parallel to the Great Highway (north of Fort Funston). There are several access points including Sloat Blvd., Fulton Street or Lincoln Way. This beach has a mix of off-leash and leash required areas. Dogs must be on leash on Ocean Beach between Sloat Blvd and Stairwell No. 21 (roughly at Fulton). North of Fulton to the Cliff House and South of Sloat for several miles are still okay for off-leash dogs, however parts of these areas may be impassible at high tide. The GGNRA stricly enforces the on-leash area between Sloat and Fulton. Dog Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

San Francisco: John McLaren Park, 100 John F Shelley Dr., San Francisco, CA 94134 Dogs are allowed off-leash in two big open dog areas, one behind the Jerry Garcia Amphitheater and one at the intersection of Mansell Street and John F. Shelley Drive. A stylishly landscaped reservoir just below the water tower provides irrigation for the park and serves as a swimming whole for dogs.

Stinson Beach: Upton Beach Dogs on a leash are allowed on Upton Beach (owned by the County of Marin) which is located north of the land administered by the National Park Service. Dogs are not allowed on the National Park section of Stinson Beach.

Tomales Bay: Point Reyes National Seashore, Tomales Bay Pets are permitted on boats in Tomales Bay and on National Seashore beaches on the west side of Tomales Bay from the northern boundary of Tomales Bay State Park to Elk Fence North Beach. These beaches include: Kilkenny Beach, Long Cove Beach, Fruit Tree Beach, Marshall Beach, No Name Beach, Tomales Beach, Elk Fence South Beach, Elk Fence North Beach. Pets are not permitted on beaches or anywhere else within the Tomales Point Elk Reserve. Pets are not permitted on Hog Island, Duck Island or Pelican Point. Pets are not permitted on beaches within Tomales Bay State Park. Please note: the only way to access the Tomales Bay beaches listed above if you are accompanied by a pet is by boat. Pets are not permitted on Marshall Beach Trail.

Tomales Bay: Chicken Ranch Beach (Sir Francis Drake Highway) Chicken Ranch Beach is located north of Inverness, adjacent to Sir Francis Drake Blvd. and nestled along the west shore of Tomales Bay. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.


Lake Tahoe: Dogs at Lake Tahoe The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) manages about 75% of the land within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Dogs on a leash are welcome almost anywhere within the LTBMU, with the notable exceptions of designated swimming beaches and areas that are restricted for wildlife protection. While your dog is not allowed on any designated swimming beaches, there are still plenty of places for both of you to enjoy the water. Dogs are allowed at the Tallac Historic Site from Valhalla Pier to Tallac Point (where the Lake of the Sky Trail meets the lakefront) in South Lake Tahoe, North Beach at Zephyr Cove Resort, Hidden and Chimney Beaches on the east shore, Coon Street Beach in Kings Beach, Ski Beach in Incline Village (from October to April only), and Echo Lakes. Also, the lakes and streams in Desolation Wilderness are another good option.

Mammoth Lakes: Horseshoe Lake The Horseshoe Lake Loop is a combination of dirt trail and paved multi-use path that circumnavigates Horseshoe Lake, located at the end of Lake Mary Road and the Lakes Basin Path. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the trail and on the beach.

Nevada City: Kneebone Beach, South Yuba River State Park Dogs on leash are welcome in the park, including on trails and Kneebone Beach, a swimming area on the south side of the river. The family beach next to the visitor center is the only area where dogs are not allowed.

North Lake Tahoe, Kings Beach: Coon Street Boat Launch & Beach The Coon Street Boat Launch is located at the end of Coon Street in Kings Beach. The beach is (facing the lake) to the left of the boat launch ramp. Coon Street Beach features restrooms, picnic areas with grills and boat launch. Dogs are allowed only on the area marked as “dog beach” – the only public dog beach on the North Shore.

North Lake Tahoe, Carnelian Bay: Carnelian West Beach The California Tahoe Conservancys “Carnelian West” beach shares a free parking facility and day use buoy field with Gar Woods restaurant in Carnelian Bay. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

North Lake Tahoe, Carnelian Bay: Patton Beach Patton Beach in Carnelian Bay is a small rocky beach with picnic tables, restrooms and a nature walk. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

South Lake Tahoe: Echo Lakes Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach. There is a water taxi that can take you and your dog across the lake. From the South Lake Tahoe Y, drive south on Highway 50 for 9.6 miles and turn right on Echo Lake Road. Park in the upper lot at The Echo Lakes Resort.

South Lake Tahoe: Kiva Beach Dogs on a leash no longer than 10 feet are allowed on the beach. From South Lake Tahoe Y, drive north on Highway 89 for 2.5 miles to Kiva Beach.

South Lake Tahoe: Regan Beach, 3199 Sacramento Avenue, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Regan Beach is a city-owned beach located at Lakeview Avenue at Sacramento. A dog friendly portion of the shoreline is available at Regan Beach.

South Lake Tahoe: Tallac Historic Site The Tallac historic Site is open weekends only beginning Memorial Day weekend through mid-June and daily beginning mid-June through September. Dogs on a leash are allowed at the Tallac Historic Site from Valhalla Pier to Tallac Point (where the Lake of the Sky Trail meets the lakefront) in South Lake Tahoe. Dogs are not permitted in or near the Taylor Creek Marsh. From South Lake Tahoe Y, drive north on Hwy 50 for 3 miles and turn right at the sign for the Tallac Historic Site.

West Shore Lake Tahoe, Homewood: Dog Swim Area Next to Obexer’s Marina, 5300 West Lake Blvd., Homewood, CA 96141 there is a pebbly, shaded beach to the left of the boat launch where dogs can swim.


Aptos: Rio Del Mar State Beach Rio del Mar Beach has a wide strip of clean sand and a jetty. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

Aptos: Seascape Beach Seascape Park is a county park at the south end of Seascape Resort, located at 1 Seascape Resort Drive in Aptos. A path opens out onto Seascape (a privately-owned beach) is a small section of an 18-mile beach, running from New Brighton State Beach in Capitola to the Pajaro River near Moss Landing. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

Aptos: Hidden Beach Park, End of Cliff Drive, Aptos, CA This 1.5 acre neighborhood park include a children’s play area, lawn, picnic table, restrooms, and beach access. Dogs on a leash are allowed in the park.

Avila Beach: Avila Beach & Olde Port Beach Dogs on a leash are allowed on Avila Beach before 10 a.m. and after 5 p.m. Dogs are not allowed on Avila Beach between the hours of 10am 5pm. Dogs on a leash are allowed at any time of the day on the Olde Port beach, next to the Harford Pier.

Big Sur: Pfeiffer Beach Pfeiffer Beach is located in the heart of Big Sur. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach. Day use only, no overnight camping.

Big Sur/Gorda: Kirk Creek Beach and Trailhead Kirk Creek Beach is part of the Los Padres National Forest and is located near the Kirk Creek Campground. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach, in the campground, and on the Kirk Creek Trailhead.

Big Sur/Gorda: Sand Dollar Beach Sand Dollar Beach is part of the Los Padres National Forest and is located just 3.8 miles north of Gorda. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the beach.

Big Sur/Gorda: Willow Creek Beach Willow Creek Beach is part of the Los Padres National Forest and is located 1.5 miles north of Gorda. Dogs on a leash are allowed on the day-use beach.

Capitola: New Brighton State Beach New Brighton State Beach is located in the town of Capitola, just south of Santa Cruz. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Carmel: Carmel River State Beach Carmel River State Beach is located on Highway 1 in Carmel, one mile south of Ocean Avenue. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are allowed on the beach.

Carmel: Garrapata State Beach Garrapata State Beach is located on Highway 1, 6.7 miles south of Rio Road in Carmel. Dogs on a leash no longer than 6 feet are only allowed on Garrapata Beach.

Carmel-by-the-Sea: City Beach OFF-LEASH DOG BEACH. The Carmel City Beach is located at the end of Ocean Avenue. Dogs are allowed off-leash on the beach. This is a very dog friendly beach!

See the original post:
dog-friendly beaches – Pet Friendly Travel

 Posted by at 4:41 am  Tagged with:

Charlotte SEO Experts | #1 Experts in Digital Marketing

 SEO  Comments Off on Charlotte SEO Experts | #1 Experts in Digital Marketing
Oct 052015

Were an SEO company based in Charlotte, North Carolina (as if the name wasnt obvious enough, eh?)

We offer a range of services to our clients, including:

What is SEO?

We learned SEO from the Miami SEO gurus, Webris ( Yes, we like them so much that we even gave them a link on OUR HOMEPAGE!

Webris is owned by Ryan Stewart, a digital marketing whiz with over 10 years of experience working as one of the best SEO companies in Miami.

SEO is the process of improving your websites rankings in search engines. This is extremely important because of the amount of online traffic and searches that take place on a daily basis.

For example Charlotte SEO services gets typed into Google 1,000 times EACH MONTH! Imagine the power of ranking first for that search team because those are people that are seeking your exact services.

The process is difficult. We first need to do a thorough on page evaluation of your website. Then we need to check the HTML and coding to make sure that everything is OK.

After that we begin by creating social media signals on networks like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. These are extremely important and should NOT be overlooked because of the impact that social media has on our every day lives. Search engines are reading these signals with increasing importance and weight.

Next comes the most debated part link building. We offer white hat link building services that get the web taking note of your website. Some of these include Press releases, web 2.0s, directory submissions and a variety of other link building tactics. We also utilize partner websites to build high quality links on there as well.

After that we build up your website and make it look fancy so when actual visitors come to your website, they will convert from clicks to customers. At the end of the day, all we want is them to pick up the phone and call you and that is EXACTLY what we will do for you.

We like to keep our website short and to the point. If you have any questions, please browse our services page or contact us directly. Please give us up to 48 business hours to respond to your questions, as we are very busy.

Continued here:
Charlotte SEO Experts | #1 Experts in Digital Marketing

 Posted by at 7:43 pm  Tagged with:

The Coming Defeat of NATO – Washington Free Beacon

 NATO  Comments Off on The Coming Defeat of NATO – Washington Free Beacon
Oct 032015

Screenshot from YouTube

BY: Matthew Continetti October 2, 2015 5:00 am

The North AtlanticTreaty Organization, established in 1949, has 28 members devoted to the idea of collective security. Prediction: By the time President Obama leaves office in 2017, the NATO pledge of mutual defense in response to aggression will have been exposed as worthless. Objectively the alliance will have ceased to exist. The culprits? Vladimir Putinand Barack Obama.

Right now the world is focused on the Middle East: Russian jets and bombers, operating from an expanding air base in Syria, strike opponents of dictator and war criminal Bashar al-Assad. The Russians say they are going after Islamic Statebut theres no evidence they are doing so. Nor do they have reason to, considering the aimof Putins war is to preserve Assads rule and to expand, for the first time in decades, Russias sphere of influence into the Middle East.

Key to Putins strategy, write analysts Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, is the doctrine of reflexive control: establishing facts on the ground in such a way that the enemy chooses Russias preferred course of action voluntarily, because it is easiest and all the others appear much more difficult and risky, if not impossible.

Doesnt have to be this way. Moscows propaganda notwithstanding, Russia is a weak state with a deteriorating military capability, whose claim to great power status is based on its nuclear arsenal. But, by acting decisively and provocatively, Putin has found the means by which to reassert Russian sovereignty and preeminence and ward off challenges to his authoritarian regime.

Revisit Putins 2007 speech to the Munich security conference, where he said the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in todays world. The expansion of NATO, he went on, represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. Then came the threat: Russia is a country with a history that spans more than 1,000 years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today.

The next year the governments of GermanyandFrance, frightened by Putins rhetoric and reliant on Russian energy and arms deals, scuttledthe U.S. attemptto offer NATO membership to the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine. Deprived of NATOs security guarantee, both of these small and poor and new democracies became open prey. Putin invaded Georgia in 2008. Hecontinues to exert influence there.

The techniques of reflexive control found their ultimate patsy in Barack Obama. When it became clear in 2013 that the president had no interest in enforcing his red line against chemical weapons use in Syria, Putin and his foreign minister Sergei Lavrov pounced. Lavrov suggested in public that Russia would assist the United States in destroying Assads WMD stockpile. Obama, whose greatest fear is a major deployment of U.S. ground forces in the Middle East, couldnt help sayingyes. Suddenly Americawas partnering with the governments of Russia and Syria (and by extension Iran) to inspect and remove the munitions. This decision not only averted U.S. interventionand gauranteedAssads survival. ItallowedAssad to gas his population in the future.

In 2014, when protests forced Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych to flee to his backers in Moscow, Putin saw an opportunity to reclaim Ukraine from the West. His military buildup on Ukraines eastern border deterred NATO from harsh reprisals when the Russian parliament annexed Crimea. The techniques of maskirovkadisinformation and deceitprovided cover for Russias arming and training and staffing of anti-Kiev rebels in the east.

Sanctions and nasty words have not exacted enough of a cost to stop Putin from instigating and perpetuating a civil war whosedeath toll is in the thousands. President Obama has overruled his advisers and refuses to provide lethal defensive arms for pro-Western Ukrainians, believing, amazingly, that helping Kiev defend itself would escalate the situation.The Ukraine conflict is now frozenPutin can switch it on and off at will. Hisgoals remain: to efface Western pretentions to ideological and military supremacy, and to replace President Petro Poroshenko with a Kremlin stooge.

Two weeks ago, in a phone call with itsprime minister, Vice President Biden signaledAmerica will support Montenegros application for NATO membership. Good for him. But we should recognize nonetheless that this move is a fig-leaf. Itobscures the fact that Obama would otherwise be the first president in a generation not to preside over an expansion of NATO. So the White House supports a strategically insignificant nation surrounded by member states. Woo-wee. Its a metaphor for this administrations lackadaisical commitment to the allianceand for Europes.

The Kremlin has noticed this ambivalence. Russian intervention in Syria is about more than propping up Assad. Russian leadership of a pro-Assad coalition that includes Iran and Iraq effectively displaces America as the most influentialexternal power in the region. Russian provocations have forced Washington to plead for de-confliction, handing Moscow freedom of action over Syrian, and possibly Iraqi, airspace. And the location of the Russian base opens an additional front in Putins war against NATO.

Less than 50 miles from the border of Turkeya NATO memberthe Bassel al-Assad airbase gives Putins air force the ability to buzz and overfly not only Turkey but also U.S. allies Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. It also would allow, write the Kagans, his aircraft to shadow the U.S. Sixth Fleet around the Eastern Mediterranean. He could force Turkey and its NATO allies to establish standing combat air patrols along the southern Turkish border. The chances of a deadly incident increase every day.

Putin is boxing in NATO. His next target is the Baltic States. Last Sunday on 60 Minutes, he explained that the reason he has called the collapse of the Soviet Union the worst thing to happen in the last century isthat, in an instant, 25 million people found themselves beyond the borders of the Russian state. His goal is to reclaim themto unify Russians living abroad in the Baltics, in Ukraine, and beyond.

Raimonds Vejonis, president of Latvia, tells the Wall Street Journal that Russian sorties over the Baltics nations are on the rise. In his full interview with Charlie Rose, Putin singled out Lithuania: More than half of the citizens have left the country, he lied. Can you imagine a situation where more than half of the Americans left the territory of the United States? It would be a catastrophe!

Try this scenario: Sometime in the next 16 months, civil unrest breaks out in one or more of the Baltic States. Its the Russian population, calling for independence from the central government and closer ties to Moscow. Fighting erupts as Russian tanks mass along the border and jets fly over Riga or Vilnius or Tallinn. They are all targets. Take Vilnius: While there are few ethnic Russians in Lithuania, it is the land bridge between Mother Russia and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. Supplying Kaliningrad wouldbe Putins casus belli.

The Baltic authorities call on NATO to respondinvoking Article Four of the charter, which requires consultations, and possibly Article Five, requiring force.But the West is distracted. Europe is overwhelmed by crises in Greece and Ukraine, by the U.K. referendum to leave the E.U., by ongoing Muslim migration to the north. The United States is occupied by its presidential election, by Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, by economic shocks.

The cries for assistance go unheard. The Obama administration has refused even to try to secure permanent forward bases in the Balticswhich wouldprovide a credible deterrentapparently due to the belief that providing for a real defense is provocative. We are too busy, too self-absorbed, too confused to worry about promises made years ago. Obama wont arm the Ukrainians. What makes us think hed defendthe Lithuanians or Latvians or Estonians?

Before the White House recovers from its surprise at events in the Baltics, Putin will have achieved his strategic goals and established reflexive control over the situation. PresidentObama and Chancellor Merkel and Secretary of State Kerry are sure to proclaim that the arc of history will defeat Russia, even as they accommodate themselves to Putins reality. NATO will be exposed as a covenant without the sword. And millions of East Europeans will come under Vladimir Putins thumb. Victims of the Kremlins avarice. Victims of Obamas weakness.

See the original post here:
The Coming Defeat of NATO – Washington Free Beacon

California Beach List – Beaches List with Photos of …

 Beaches  Comments Off on California Beach List – Beaches List with Photos of …
Oct 022015

The five types of littoral cells along the California coast are each characterized by a different littoral process determined by the geographic features unique to the cell type.Guests who haven’t visited the 450 California beaches often ask what the water looks like and how is the sand. Is it anything like the clear blue water at the Bahamas where East Coast residents enjoy smooth sand beaches, lawn chairs and cocktails served? California beaches are not usually like that and we’ve yet to find one to fit that description. The beaches range in sand quality from coarse to fine sand, rocks to pebbles. The coastal waters near the beach in the Pacific Ocean seldom tops 75 degrees on the warmest summer day in Southern California. The color is not usually clear though in some locations you can see a few feet in depth. The color of the water ranges from aquamarine to a deep green and occasionally brownish-red during red tide. Most beaches do not allow alcoholic beverages; the beaches are mostly public and usually require guests to bring their own beach chairs and gear. In case you wonder why the beaches are so popular, they offer rugged, natural scenic beauty. With well over 15 million people living near the state’s beaches, the climate is a major factor in attracting so may people to this location. The Pacific Ocean’s affect keeps the air temperatures enjoyable throughout the year. Many people do not own air conditioning in their homes along the coast. Also, the ocean waves can provide a great surfing experience, something that’s contributed to California’s multi-billion dollar surfing industry. Heal the Bay’s Beach Summer Report Card was released with some real winners in water quality improvements and a few losers.

One type of cell is defined by a long stretch of coastline that begins at a headland and terminates in a submarine canyon, such as at Mugu Canyon in Ventura County and La Jolla Canyon in San Diego County; another cell type consists of a large river delta bounded on either side by rocky headlands, such as at Humboldt Bay; a third type of littoral cell is defined by a crescent-shaped by downcoast of a promontory, like Half Moon Bay in San Mateo County; and a fourth type of cell consists of a rocky headland downcoast of a beach where waves break in a line parallel to the shore, as at Ten Mile Beach in Mendocino County. Finally, lagoons and closed bays with restricted tidal flow create a fifth type of littoral cell, such as Bolinas Bay in Marin.

Characteristic differences between Northern and Southern California beaches depend upon the directions of prevailing wind and upon local coastal geology. Along California’s north coast, cove or pocket beaches are common where the granitic and basaltic rock that composes the sea cliffs has been sculpted by prevailing northwesterly winds and battered by high energy waves over millions of years. In Southern California, beaches often consist of long ribbons of sand interrupted by widely separated rocky points. The bluffs of easily eroded shales and sandstones that edge the coast here continuously crumble away, creating on even coastline over time.

Some beach types are found along both Northern and Southern California coasts. Narrow cove beaches like those at Laguna Beach in Orange County form where the coast is composed of conglomerate rock and hard sandstone; even when exposed to direct wave attack this rock type is highly resistant to erosion. The narrow beaches formed within there coves often lose all their sand during winter storms, exposing the underlying cobbles, as at Boomer Beach, south of Point La Jolla in San Diego County. Barrier beaches and sand spits are also present along the coast at river mouths, bays, and lagoons; examples are Silver Strand Beach in San Diego, Zuma Beach in Malibu, and beaches at the Smith, Salinas, Pajaro, and Santa Maria River mouths.

Beaches vary in color according to the mineral content of the sand, which is also a clue to the origin to the eroded sediments that make up the sand supply. Eroded shale cliffs create the charcoal gray beach sand at Shelter Cove in Humboldt County. North of Humboldt Bay, the coarse sands of Agate Beach are multicolored agates that have been ground and polished by the surf. Ground quartz and feldspar mineral make up the white beaches of Carmel, while a few miles to the north in Sand City, amber colored sand indicates the presence of iron mineral. Close inspection reveals that white sand beaches are mosaic of pale quartz grains, pink, green or white feldspar and flecks of black mica.Beaches are inhabited by a variety of invertebrates and insects. More

See more here:
California Beach List – Beaches List with Photos of …

Alabama Eugenics

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Alabama Eugenics
Sep 262015


Number of victims

There were 224 people who were sterilized, of whom approximately 58% were male. All of the sterilized were deemed mentally deficient. In terms of the total number of people sterilized, Alabama ranks 27th in the United States. Of the 32 states that had sterilization laws, Alabama is the state with the 5th lowest number of sterilizations.

Period during which sterilizations occurred

The period was 1919 to 1935 (Paul p. 246)

Temporal pattern of sterilizations and rate of sterilization

After the passage of the sterilization law in 1919, the number of sterilization appears to have been low. Gosney/Popenoe (p. 194; see data sources) report no sterilizations yet at the end of 1927, but the number for the end of 1929 was 44. After that year, the number of sterilizations increased. The last sterilizations occurred in June 1935 (Paul, p. 246). Between 1930 and 1935, the annual number of sterilization was about 30. The rate of sterilization per 100,000 residents per year was about 1.

Passage of law(s)

According to Edward Larson, Alabama began its long flirtation with eugenicsbefore any other state in the Deep South (Larson, p. 50). At the 1901 meeting of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama (MASA), Dr. William Glassell Sommerville, Trustee of the Alabama Insane Hospitals, declared it a proven fact that the moral disposition for good and evil, including criminal tendenciesare transmitted fromone generation to anotherand is as firmly believed by all scientific men as the fact that parents transmit physical qualities to their children (Dorr, Defective or Disabled?,pp. 383-4). At that same meeting, John E. Purdon stated that it was a proven fact that criminality, insanity, epilepsy, and other alleged manifestations of degraded nerve tissue were hereditary (Larson, 50). He emphasized that [i]t is essentially a state function to retrain the pro-creative powers of the unfit (Larson and Nelson, p. 407). He suggested that the use of sterilization would benefit the race by saying, [e]masculation is the simplest and most perfect plan that can be adapted to secure the perfection of the race (Larson, p. 50). Finally, Purdon explained his belief that the goodness, the greatness, and the happiness of all upon the earth, will be immeasurably advanced, in one or two generations, by the proposed methods (Larson and Nelson, p. 407), and, based on his belief thatweakness begets weaknessfeared that humanitarianism would assist the imperfect individual to escape the consequences of his physical and moral malformation (Dorr, “Honing Heredity,” p. 29).

Over the next decade, MASA was encouraged by many authorities such as physicians and Birminghams medical society to draft a bill to legalize the sterilization of the unfit. In 1911 at the annual MASA meeting, Walter H. Bell of Birmingham declared that any person who would produce children with an inherited tendency to crime, insanity, feeblemindedness, idiocy, or imbecility should be sterilized (Larson, p. 51). He believed that sterilization was an easy, safe and practical method of prevention with no restrictions or punishment attached (Larson and Nelson, p.410).

The MASA, however, continued to delay taking action until 1914 when it created a committee of physicians who would research needful data in regard to defective children, with a purpose to urge upon the state legislature the proper provision for the care of such defectives (Larson, , p. 60). During the 1915 MASA meeting, C.M. Rudolph suggested the formation of a home for mentally ill children. He stressed the importance of segregating the unfit youth because he believed it shrewd to [s]egregate the defectives of one generation to prevent the multiplication of their kind in the next (Larson, p. 60). In this same meeting it was decided that an Alabama Society for Mental Hygiene (ASMH) would be formed and led by William Partlow as a liaison with the National Committee for Mental Hygiene (NCMH) and to survey Alabamas defectives (Larson, p. 60). That year, MASA collectively agreed to support eugenic sterilization (Dorr, Defective or Disabled?, pp. 386-87).

In 1919, the MASA and the ASMH reached their goal. In the next regular session of the State legislator, a bill was passed to create the Alabama Home (Larson and Nelson, p. 413). Buried within the law was a clause granting permission to the superintendent of the Home for the Feeble-Minded in Tuscaloosa, to sterilize its patients. This was the first law passed in Alabama that supported sterilizations (Paul p. 239).

In 1934, Partlow wanted permission to sterilize all discharged patients from the Home (a procedure he was already practicing as superintendent) (Dorr, “Eugenics in Alabama”). Partlow proposed a bill that gave the superintendent of any state hospital for the insane complete power to sterilize any or all patients upon their release. The bill also proposed the creation of a board with three doctors who would have the right to sterilize a larger group of people. Finally, the anticipated bill granted permission for county public health committees to sterilize anyone in a state or local custodial institution (Larson and Nelson, p. 418). Although Partlows bill was passed in both the House and the Senate, the bill was vetoed by Alabamas Governor, Bill Graves after consulting with the Alabama Supreme Court on the bills constitutionality (Larson and Nelson, p. 422). In 1935 the Alabama State Supreme Court viewed the bill and deemed it unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutionsa sterilization victim would not have the right to appeal to a court against his or her sterilization (Larson and Nelson, p. 422). A second version of the bill was drafted and, similarly, passed in both houses but was vetoed by the Governor (Larson and Nelson, pp. 422-23). Soon after this second veto, Partlow discontinued the practice of sterilization (Larson and Nelson, p. 424).

Partlowsbill, however, was unsuccessfully reintroduced in 1939 and again in 1943. In 1945, legislation was created that asked for the right to sterilize every inmate or person eligible for entrance in the states insane asylums. This bill was passed by the senate but was rejected by the house (Larson and Nelson, p. 426).

Groups identified in the law

In the 1919 law, William Partlow included in his draft the permission for the superintendent of the Home for the Feeble-Minded to sterilize any inmate (Larson, p. 84). Inmates were any person confined in a poor house, jail, an orphanage, or a boarding school in the State (Larson, pp. 48-49). In the 1935 bill, it was proposed that any sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexualist, Masochist, Sodomist, or any other grave form of sexual perversion, or any prisoner who has twice been convicted of rape or imprisoned three times for any offense be sterilized. It was also suggested granting permission to county public health committees to sterilize anyone in a state or local custodial institution (Larson and Nelson, p. 418).An expansion of the law, proposed by Alabama State Health Officer Dr. James Norment Baker, called for the sterilization of anyone committed to state homes for the insane and feebleminded, reformatories, industrial schools, or training schools, , as well as any sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexual, Masochist, Sodomist (Dorr, “Protection,” p. 173) as well as anyone convicted of rape twice. The bill was considered unconstitutional and vetoed by Governor Bill Graves.

Process of the law

In the 1919 law, the superintendent of the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded was given the authority to sterilize any inmate (Larson, pp. 48-49). This law held only one limitation on sterilization in the Alabama Home. The superintendent of the Alabama Insane Hospitals had to agree upon the sterilization of the inmates from the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded (Larson, pp. 105-06). This absence of safeguards for inmates in the law made it possible for William Partlow to sterilize every inmate of the Home. This law was drafted by Partlow and was the only sterilization law passed in Alabama. Although this law passed, Partlow continued to try to strengthen the power to sterilize in Alabama through other bills. All of his attempts, however, failed.

Precipitating factors and processes

The entire Southern region in general was more hesitant to adopt eugenic ideals for many reasons. One of the most important Southern values was its traditional emphasis on family and parental rights, which eugenics challenged (Larson, p. 8). The Southern sense of family also encouraged relatives to take responsibility for individuals who might otherwise be subject to eugenic remedies in state institutions (Larson, p. 9). Most immigrants in the South came from the British Isles, the same area most Southerners originated from. Subsequently, a community existed in the South including many immigrants, unlike the North and West where Americans focused their eugenic ideas on ethnically diverse immigrants (Larson, p. 9). The strength of Southern religion also played a role in the overall rejection of eugenics in Alabama. Religion lent itself to conceptions of congregations as extended families and many people in the South accordingly apposed segregating the unfit (Larson, pp. 13-14). In comparison with the rest of the United States, Progressivism in the South was relatively weak due to the comparatively small size of its typical carriers, secular groups, urban professional middle classes, and the more educated (Larson, p. 17). Moreover, the Deep South was lagging other regions in biological research programs, as well as scientists and education, which shifted the advocacy of eugenics to state mental health officials and local physicians (Larson, pp. 40-44). The MASA and leaders such as William Partlow were extremely important to the eugenics movement in Alabama. Without the organizations and leaders that were produced from the MASA, Alabama may have never started eugenic practices.

Overall, Alabama was not in favor of sterilization, which is reflected in the comparatively low number of sterilization victims. In general, the people of Alabama were more in favor of segregation of the unfit than sterilization (Larson, pp. 60-63). However, inadequate funding of such facilities for segregating the feeble-minded as well as over-crowding seems to have facilitated a push toward sterilization (Larson, pp. 90-91). Even though mental health surveys placed Alabamas feeble-minded population at more than 7,000 persons, the new facility could accommodate only 160 residents, and was filled within two months of it opening (Larson, p. 90).

Groups targeted and victimized

Among those targeted were males, including some of the delinquent boys who[m] we fear might escape (Larson, p. 106),the poor, mental deficien[ts] and the feebleminded (Larson, p. 151). People who could be committed to the state mental health hospital included people in prison, a poor house, and orphanage, or a state boarding school (Larson, pp. 48-49).

While Alabama never established a facility for feebleminded blacks (see Dorr, Defective or Disabled?,p. 387), Gregory Dorr has argued that the absence of such a facilty should not lead observers to conclude that eugenics in Alabama lackedracist elements, for the limitation ofeugenicsto the sterilization of whites (in contrast to Virginia) reflected the belief that the “betterment” of theblack “race” could not be achieved by such measures. In fact, by the timethe wall of segregation had started to come to down in the 1970s and no longer assured second-class citizenship of Blacks, African Americans had become the targets of extra-institutional and extra-legal sterilizations, reflective of a more general southern racist view that it was necessary”to further protect the white race itself from black folks” (Dorr, “Defective or Disabled?,” p. 383; see also Dorr, Segregation’s Science).

The Relf case

The cause of forced sterilization in Alabama was not helped by the Relf case. By 1973, the focus had moved away from sterilization of the mentally deficient and those imprisoned, to the use of sterilization as birth control. The Relf family was on welfare, and living in a public housing project in Montgomery, Alabama. Two Relf sisters, Minnie Lee, age 14, and Mary Alice, age 12, had been receiving shot of Depo-Provera as a form of long term birth control (Rossoff, p. 6). When the use of the drug was no longer allowed, the mother was mislead into signing a consent form allowing the sterilization of her daughters. Mrs. Relf was unable to read or write, so she signed the form with an X, without any physicians explaining the conditions to her (Roberts, p. 93, Carpia, p.78, Caron, p. 211, Southern Poverty Law Center). She thought she was signing a form consenting to additional shots, when she was actually consenting to sterilizations (Tessler, p. 58). A third daughter, Katie Relf, also received the birth control shots, but refused to open the door to her room when the official came to get the three girls to be sterilized. Because she was 17, she could not be sterilized without her own consent. (Larson and Nelson, p. 440) Later, when Mrs. Relf realized that her daughters had been sterilized, she sued the surgeons and other associated groups for $1,000,000 (Rosoff, p. 6). As a result, a moratorium was placed on federally funded, coerced sterilizations until a decision was reached by the Department of Justice.

Other restrictions placed on those identified in the law or with disabilities in general

In 1919, Alabama passed legislation that made it the first state in the Deep South that made it illegal for people with venereal diseases to marry (Larson, p. 88).

Feeder institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed

(Photo origin:

The Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded opened in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in 1919 as a result of the law in favor of a home for the feeble-minded.Two months after the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded opening, the institution was completely full of people from poor houses, jails, orphanages, and boarding schools (Larson, pp. 48-49, 90). In 1927, this school was renamed the Partlo State School for Mental Deficients (Larson, p. 106). The school is now known as the Partlow State School and Hospital. Its closure has been announced in 2011 (“W.D. Partlow Developmental Center to close”).


Although the original bill went largely unnoticed by the population (Paul, pp. 239-40), the movement did meet considerable opposition in Alabama. Chief among these objectors were the Catholics, who were entirely against eugenics and any form of birth control in general. Alabama Catholicswrote legislators and spoke out at public hearings in response to their bishops plea to use every means at our disposal to help defeat this bill (Larson, p. 151). Protestants were similarly concerned. A Baptist claimed that he found in the Bible all the warrant he required to vote against the bill (Larson and Nelson, p. 420). Trade unions were also against expanding the sterilization law. As one laborer anxiously said, theres nothing in the bill to prevent a labor man from being railroaded into an institution where he could be sterilized on suspicion of insanity or feeble-mindedness (Larson, p. 141). Similarly, Alabamas Governor, Bill Graves was extremely important to the opposition of eugenics because of his decision to veto the 1935 bill and its revision. He claimed [t]he hoped for good results are not sure enough or great enough to compensate for the hazard to personal rights that would be involved in the execution of the provisions of the Bill (Larson and Nelson, p. 422).

Overall, however, the population in Alabama was perhaps not as supportive of eugenic sterilization laws as in other American states.


Carpia, Myla F. Thyrza. 1995. “Lost Generations: The Involuntary Sterilization of American Indian Women.” Master’s Thesis, Department of American Indian Studies, Arizona State University.

Dorr, Gregory M. 2006. Defective or Disabled?: Race, Medicine, and Eugenics in Progressive Era Virginia and Alabama. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5, 4: 359-92.

——-. 2008. Segregation’s Science: Eugenics and Society in Virginia. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Dorr, Gregory M. 2011. “Protection or Control: Women’s Health, Sterilization Abuse, and Relf v. Weinberger.” Pp. 161-90 in A Century of Eugenics in America, edited by Paul Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Larson, Edward. 1995. Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Larson, Edward J., and Leonard J. Nelson.1992. Involuntary Sexual Sterilization of Incompetents in Alabama: Past, Present, and Future. Alabama Law Review 43: 399-444. Noll, Steven. 1995. Feeble-Minded in Our Midst: Institutions for the Mentally Retarded in the South, 1900-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

——-.2005. The Public Face of Southern Institutions for the Feeble-Minded. The Public Historian 27, 2: 25-42. Paul, Julius. 1965. ‘Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough’: State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice. Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Relf Original Complaint. Available at

Roberts, Dorothy E. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Pantheon Books.

Rosoff, Jeannie I. 1973. The Montgomery Case. The Hastings Center Report 3, 4:6.

Southern Poverty Law Center. Relf v. Weinberger. Available at

Tarwater, James S. 1964. The Alabama State Hospitals and the Partlow State School and Hospitals. New York: Newcomer Society in North America.

Tessler, Suzanne. 1976. Compulsory Sterilization Practices. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 1, 2: 52-66.

“W.D. Partlow Developmental Center to close.” Tuscaloosa News 4 March 2001. Available at

Alabama Eugenics

Star Gazing in NJ: Where to find the best views …

 Astronomy  Comments Off on Star Gazing in NJ: Where to find the best views …
Sep 242015

Star light, star bright Mommy, I want to see the stars tonight! If you have a little Galileo on your hands, fear not. New Jersey is home to a myriad of majestic outdoor star gazing locations, as well as many public observatories and, yes, even astronomy clubs for the truly dedicated. With the proper equipment, information and planning, your family will get an up-close look at planets, star clusters and the Moon. Happy star-gazing, NJ!

The Great Outdoors For outdoor star gazing, youll want to choose an area in Northwest NJ, the shoreline or Southern NJ. To optimize your adventure, select a secluded location away from bright shopping mall lights, condo complexes or busy highways.

Here are some places to kick start your star gazing habit:

High Point State Park (Sussex, NJ) is open from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, unless you visiting one of the campsites. Hike up to the High Point Monument for breathtaking views and an endless sky of stars.

New Jersey Pine Barrens National Reserve includes Allaire State Park (Farmingdale, NJ), Bass River State Forest (Tuckerton, NJ), Belleplain State Forest (Woodbine, NJ) Double Trouble State Park (Bayville, NJ)and Wharton State Forest (Hammonton, NJ). Each location offers a unique star gazing post, but check locations for hours of operation and special events.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (Columbia, NJ) offers endless options for beautiful star gazing views and nearby Jenny Jump State Forest (Hope, NJ) hosts public programs on Saturday evenings from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm.

The crest of Sunrise Mountain at Stokes State Forest (Branchville, NJ) not only offers breathtaking views, but its the ideal location for evening star gazing. Please call (973) 948-3820 with any questions.

Indoors Activities New Jersey has several public observatories to view the Milky Way or Orions Belt. Most are equipped with state of the art telescopes and will have staff on hand for assistance. Observatories are usually small spaces, dark and may require some stairs, so this may not be a good activity for young children.

Please call ahead for details, especially as many events are weather permitting. All of the observatories listed below are free to the public!

John Crowley Nature Center and Astronomical Observatory at Rifle Camp Park (Woodland Park, NJ) is open to the public on selected dates throughout the month. Click here for the current schedule. For questions, please call (973) 523-0024.

John W. H. Simpson Observatory at Washington Crossing State Park (Titusville, NJ) is open Friday nights April through October from 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm. For more information, please call (609) 737-2575.

Paul RobinsonObservatoryat Voorhees State Park (High Bridge, NJ) houses the largest public telescope in New Jersey. From Memorial Day to end of October, the observatory is open every Saturday evening from 8:30 pm to 10:30 pm, as well as every Sunday afternoon from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Please call (908) 638-8500 with questions.

William Miller Sperry Observatory at Union County College (Cranford, NJ), better known as the Sperry Observatory, hosts public events every Friday evening throughout the year. For information on weekly talks or questions about facilities, please call (908) 276-STAR.

William D. McDowell Observatory at Richard W. DeKorte Park (Lyndhurst, NJ) hosts free public programming every Monday and Wednesday from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Please call (201) 460-1700 with any questions.

Emil Buehler Trust Observatory at Bergen Community College (Paramus, NJ) is open to the public for free observations every Friday evening from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm. Please call (201) 447-7100 with questions.

Ready for More? New Jersey is home to several astronomical societies and astronomy clubs, including Morris Museum Astronomical Society (Morristown, NJ), Willingboro Astronomical Society (Cherry Hill, NJ) Amateur Astronomers’ Association of Princeton (Princeton, NJ), North Jersey Astronomical Group (Montclair, NJ) Astronomical Society of the Toms River Area (Toms River, NJ), South Jersey Astronomy Club (Petersburg, NJ) and National Space Society NJ North (Teterboro, NJ). Call or email one of these groups for more information.

photo credit: Hajos Produce via

Originally published 2012

Original post:
Star Gazing in NJ: Where to find the best views …

 Posted by at 11:47 pm  Tagged with:

The Book | Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the men who …

 Tax Havens  Comments Off on The Book | Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the men who …
Sep 212015

Millions of people have a queasy feeling that something is not right in the global economy but they struggle to put their fingers on what exactly the problem is. Treasure Islands at last tells the real story of where it all went wrong. This is the great untold story of globalisation.

Tax havens are not exotic, murky sideshows at the fringes of the world economy: they lie at its centre. Half of world trade flows, at least on paper, through tax havens. Every multinational corporation uses them routinely. The biggest users of tax havens by far are not terrorists, spivs, celebrities or Mafiosi but banks.

Tax havens are the ultimate source of strength for our global elites. Just as European nobles once consolidated their unaccountable powers in fortified castles, to better subjugate and extract tribute from the surrounding peasantry, so financial capital has coalesced in their modern equivalent today: the tax havens. In these fortified nodes of secret, unaccountable political and economic power, financial and criminal interests have come together to capture local political systems and turn the havens into their own private law-making factories, protected against outside interference by the worlds most powerful countries most especially Britain. Treasure Islands will, for the first time, show the blood and guts of just how they do it.

Tax havens arent just about tax. They are about escape escape from criminal laws, escape from creditors, escape from tax, escape from prudent financial regulation above all, escape from democratic scrutiny and accountability. Tax havens get rich by taking fees for providing these escape routes. This is their core line of business. It is what they do.

These escape routes transform the merely powerful into the untouchable. Dont tax or regulate us or we will flee offshore! the financiers cry, and elected politicians around the world crawl on their bellies and capitulate. And so tax havens lead a global race to the bottom to offer deeper secrecy, ever laxer financial regulations, and ever more sophisticated tax loopholes. They have become the silent battering rams of financial deregulation, forcing countries to remove financial regulations, to cut taxes and restraints on the wealthy, and to shift all the risks, costs and taxes onto the backs of the rest of us. In the process democracy unravels and the offshore system pushes ever further onshore. The worlds two most important tax havens today are United States and Britain.

Without understanding offshore, we will never understand the history of the modern world.

Poverty in Africa? Offshore is at the heart of the matter. Industrial-scale corruption and the wholesale subversion of governments by criminalised interests, across the developing world? Offshore is central to the story, every time. The systematic looting of the former Soviet Union and the merging of the nuclear-armed countrys intelligence apparatus with organized crime, is a story that unfolds substantially in London and its offshore satellites. Saddam Hussein used tax havens to buttress his power, as does North Koreas Kim Jong-Il today. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconis strange hold over Italian politics is very much an offshore tale. The Elf Affair, Europes biggest ever corruption scandal, had secrecy jurisdictions at its core. Arms smuggling to terrorist organisations? The growth of mafia empires? Offshore. You can only fit about $1 million into a briefcase: without offshore, the illegal drugs trade would be a fraction of its size.

Private equity and hedge funds? Goldman Sachs? Citigroup? These are all creatures of offshore. The scandals of Enron, Parmalat, Long Term Capital Management, Lehman Brothers, AIG and many more? Tax havens lay behind them all. The rise of multinationals, the explosion of debt in advanced economies since the 1970s is substantially an offshore tale. Complex monopolies, frauds, insider trading rings these corruptions of free markets always have tax havens at their heart. As Treasure Islands explains in vivid, thrilling, horrifying detail, every big financial crisis since the 1970s including the great global crisis that erupted in 2007 has been a creature of the tax havens.

These problems all have other explanations too. Tax havens are never the only story, because offshore exists only in relation to elsewhere. That is why it is called offshore. Without understanding the tax havens, or the secrecy jurisdictions as I often prefer to call them, we cannot understand the world. Treasure Islands at last starts to fill this gigantic hole in modern history.

In short, it is the most important expos of tax havens ever published.

View original post here:
The Book | Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the men who …

SEO Miami Experts #1 in Search Engine Optimization

 SEO  Comments Off on SEO Miami Experts #1 in Search Engine Optimization
Sep 172015

Hello, Im David Saba and Amir Seliger , owners of, the premier search engine optimization and internet marketing advertising agency in Miami, FL.

In the past 3 years, I have ranked hundreds of web pages on the first page of Google and I can do the same for you. I have spend countless hours studying how Google works and training with the industry experts to learn and apply the secrets of the search engines. My background is in computer science, yes I am a programmer, not just some marketing newbie, so you ca rest assure I know what I am doing. My first job out of college was with Motorola, writing software for their police radios. Now I do internet marketing full time.

If you are tired of getting nowhere with SEOs that dont really know what they are doing and you are looking for quality SEO, youve come to the right place! Quality SEO is not cheap or easy, otherwise anyone could rank a website. But you are in luck. Youve found the best SEO company in Miami. Since we are not a huge agency, we have very low overheads and we intend to keep it that way. In fact, we have turned away offers from venture capitalists who aim to turn us into a big agency, but we rather work with a few exclusive clients and deliver real results than juggling too many clients taking them no-where.

Whether you are looking to increase your online exposure or you would like us to help you understand whay your website is not ranking, we can help.

Want Proof? Here is just one of our clients ranking for a highly competitive keyword:

This is a depersonalized search, meaning, we are logged out of Google. (Dont trust us? Try it out by yourself) Want more proof? Give us a call and we will be glad to show you.

We are a small team of highly driven and committed SEO consultants and overall web experts based in North Miami, FL. We provide very advanced SEO and web marketing services for local businesses across the nation. We have ranked many websites in the past for some very competitive keywords. Our service is highly personalized to your business needs.

David Saba is a software engineer and marketing specialist who is behind all the technical aspects of the SEO. He is in charge of setting up the website and optimize them for sales. He holds a Computer Science degree. He has worked for high profile companies including Motorola, Inc. David keeps current with all the latest developments around SEO and is one of the nations leading authorities on the topic.

Amir Seliger is a graphic designer and online marketer with more than 7 years in the field. Amir has serviced more than 100 clients has been a speaker at many local SEO events.

Search Engine Optimization is comprised of many different activities that if done well, (or at least better than your competition) will make you rank on top. Some of these tasks include:

When we build a website from the ground up, we will make sure it is lean and fast so it downloads super fast. We will structure your on-page content to easy Googles job in reading and understanding what your page is about. Structured micro-data is embedded where possible.

Gone are the days where any page would rank high on google by simply spamming the website with low quality links. We are very careful about the type of links we create, this differentiates us from most others SEOs out there.

For businesses who are just looking to get leads and are not particularly interested in ranking their site organically, we can provide local lead generation. Whether you are a locksmith, a plumber, a realtor or a lawyer, we can provide you with highly relevant and motivated leads. We offer only high quality exclusive leads.

We can give you all the insight you need on which keywords to target. Using a combination of market research, common sense and advanced tools we can find and suggest the top search terms you should go after. We look for keywords with low competition but huge search volumes. But it is not enough to have a highly seek keyword if people are only looking for inforamtion. Our keyword research is focused on finding keywords with high commercial intent. No tool can tell you this. Only experience and intuition are effective in identifying these types of profitable keywords.

We offer SEO consulting services to local businesses. We can either invite you over to our office or hold a virtual webinar. We will teach you actionable things you can do to increase your online exposure as well as some advanced techniques to help rank your site on the top of the search engines.

Though much more expensive than SEO, we can manage your PPC campaigns so you dont have to wait while we get you results. Organic SEO takes time, so in the meantime, we can use part of your budget on online advertising. PPC is also a great way to determine if there is an audience hungry for your product or service. All the keyword research in the world cannot replace the value we get from a well executed PPC campaign.

Although we cannot publicly disclose our clients website, what we can tell you the following companies we have ranked on the first page:

and the ranking go on an on When you decide to meet with us, we can show you proof!

In short: We get things done.

Unlike big web agencies that have huge costs, we can provide you better results at a fraction of the price the big agencies will charge you. Agencies usually utilize our services to rank their clients, marking up our work up to 200%. Quality SEO is not cheap, however, we can offer you more for your money when you give us a call.

See original here:
SEO Miami Experts #1 in Search Engine Optimization

Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina |

 Liberty  Comments Off on Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina |
Sep 112015

Liberty is a town in Randolph County, North Carolina, United States. Originally named Liberty Oak, the town was founded in 1809 near the plantation of John Leak (according to: The Town of Liberty). The first church within the town was the Liberty Christian Church (now the United Church of Christ) founded on October 11, 1884. The town’s first school, the Liberty Academy, was founded on May 6, 1885 as a charter school and helped to foster the town’s early reputation as a place of higher learning. Liberty is home to the mother church of the Southern Baptist Religion (Sandy Creek Baptist Church), World Skeet Shoot Champion Craig Kirkman, and is the birthplace of professional baseball player Joe Frazier. Liberty is also home to The Liberty Antiques Festival a world famous antiques’ show that draws such famous faces as Julia Roberts and other Hollywood celebrities. Also The Liberty Showcase who has had many famous Nashville recording stars such as Ronnie McDowell, Lorrie Morgan, Gene Watson, Exile, and many more. The movies “Killers Three” (1968) and “Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice” (1992) were filmed in Liberty and the surrounding areas.

Visit link:
Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina |

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sep 072015

Early proponents

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[8] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”.[9] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix.[10] W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.”[10][11]

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[6] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[8] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[8][12] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[13] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[6] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[14] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[15]

By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeder’s Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to “investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[16][17] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[18] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[19][verification needed]

Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[20]

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[21][22] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. She advocated sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.[21] Unlike other eugenicists, she rejected euthanasia.[23] For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[24][25]

In the Deep South, women’s associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[26] Between 1915 and 1920, federated women’s clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[27] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Women’s Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[28] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent them from breeding more “feebleminded” individuals.

Public acceptance in the U.S. was the reason eugenic legislation was passed. Almost 19 million people attended the PanamaPacific International Exposition in San Francisco, open for 10 months from February 20 to December 4, 1915.[29][30][31] The PPIE was a fair devoted to extolling the virtues of a rapidly progressing nation, featuring new developments in science, agriculture, manufacturing and technology. A subject that received a large amount of time and space was that of the developments concerning health and disease, particularly the areas of tropical medicine and race betterment (tropical medicine being the combined study of bacteriology, parasitology and entomology while racial betterment being the promotion of eugenic studies). Having these areas so closely intertwined, it seemed that they were both categorized in the main theme of the fair, the advancement of civilization. Thus in the public eye, the seemingly contradictory[clarification needed] areas of study were both represented under progressive banners of improvement and were made to seem like plausible courses of action to better American society.[32][verification needed]

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded”[33] from marrying.[citation needed]

The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania’s state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[34] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[35] The state of California was at the vanguard of the American eugenics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations or one third of the 60,000 nationwide from 1909 up until the 1960s.[36]

While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina’s eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs.[37] An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina.[38] The North Carolina Eugenics Board almost always approved proposals brought before them by local welfare boards.[38] Of all states, only North Carolina gave social workers the power to designate people for sterilization.[37] “Here, at last, was a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies by an acceptable, practical, and inexpensive method,” wrote Wallace Kuralt in the March 1967 journal of the N.C. Board of Public Welfare. “The poor readily adopted the new techniques for birth control.”[38]

The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the League sought to bar what it considered inferior races from entering America and diluting what it saw as the superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners of Anglo-Saxon heritage). They felt that social and sexual involvement with these less-evolved and less-civilized races would pose a biological threat to the American population. The League lobbied for a literacy test for immigrants, based on the belief that literacy rates were low among “inferior races”. Literacy test bills were vetoed by Presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President Wilson’s second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917. Membership in the League included: A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University.[39]

The League allied themselves with the American Breeder’s Association to gain influence and further its goals and in 1909 established a Committee on Eugenics chaired by David Starr Jordan with members Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, Vernon Kellogg, Luther Burbank, William Ernest Castle, Adolf Meyer, H. J. Webber and Friedrich Woods. The ABA’s immigration legislation committee, formed in 1911 and headed by League’s founder Prescott F. Hall, formalized the committee’s already strong relationship with the Immigration Restriction League. They also founded the Eugenics Record Office, which was headed by Harry H. Laughlin.[40] In their mission statement, they wrote:

Society must protect itself; as it claims the right to deprive the murderer of his life so it may also annihilate the hideous serpent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm. Here is where appropriate legislation will aid in eugenics and creating a healthier, saner society in the future.”[40]

Money from the Harriman railroad fortune was also given to local charities, in order to find immigrants from specific ethnic groups and deport, confine, or forcibly sterilize them.[6]

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe.[41][verification needed] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of “old stock” white Americans as members of the “Nordic race” (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[42] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[43]

Stephen Jay Gould asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[44][45] It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.[42][46]

Both class and race factored into eugenic definitions of “fit” and “unfit.” By using intelligence testing, American eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of one’s genetic fitness.[47] This reaffirmed the existing class and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-middle class was predominately white. Middle-to-upper class status was a marker of “superior strains.”[28] In contrast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority, which meant that that those deemed “unfit” were predominately of the lower classes.[28]

Because class status designated some more fit than others, eugenicists treated upper and lower class women differently. Positive eugenicists, who promoted procreation among the fittest in society, encouraged middle class women to bear more children. Between 1900 and 1960, Eugenicists appealed to middle class white women to become more “family minded,” and to help better the race.[48] To this end, eugenicists often denied middle and upper class women sterilization and birth control.[49]

Since poverty was associated with prostitution and “mental idiocy,” women of the lower classes were the first to be deemed “unfit” and “promiscuous.”[28] These women, who were predominately immigrants or women of color[citation needed], were discouraged from bearing children, and were encouraged to use birth control.

In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[50][51] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[52] the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[53]

Some states sterilized “imbeciles” for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[54] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[55] Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[28] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[28] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[56][57]

Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[28] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less “desirable” members of society.[28] Eugenicists therefore predominately targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to “protect” white racial health, and weed out the “defectives” of society.[28]

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of “mental defectives”, 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[58]

In the 1970s, several activists and women’s rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded.[59] Although the sterilizations were not explicitly motivated by eugenics, the sterilizations were similar to the eugenics movement[according to whom?] because they were done without the patients’ consent.

For example, in 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge. An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization.[60] These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised older suspicions, especially amongst the black community, that “federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women.”[28]

Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s.[61] The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native American women unknowingly gave consent, since directions were not given in their native language. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 Indian women were sterilized.[61] The General Accounting Office stated that the Indian Health Service had not followed the necessary regulations, and that the “informed consent forms did not adhere to the standards set by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).”[62]

One of the methods that was commonly suggested to get rid of “inferior” populations was euthanasia. A 1911 Carnegie Institute report mentioned euthanasia as one of its recommended “solutions” to the problem of cleansing society of unfit genetic attributes. The most commonly suggested method was to set up local gas chambers. However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions. For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30-40% annual death rates. Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[63]

In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic “mercy killings” in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize “imbeciles” and other defectives. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[64]

Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the “unfit” from reproducing.[65]

Mary deGormo, a former classroom teacher was the first person to combine ideas about health and intelligence standards with competitions at state fairs, in the form of “better baby” contests. She developed the first such contest, the “Scientific Baby Contest” for the Louisiana State Fair in Shreveport, in 1908. She saw these contests as a contribution to the “social efficiency” movement, which was advocating for the standardization of all aspects of American life as a means of increasing efficiency.[18] deGarmo was assisted by the pediatrician Dr. Jacob Bodenheimer, who helped her develop grading sheets for contestants, which combined physical measurements with standardized measurements of intelligence.[66] Scoring was based on a deduction system, in that every child started at 1000 points and then was docked points for having measurements that were below a designated average. The child with the most points (and the least defections) was ideal.[67][verification needed]

The topic of standardization through scientific judgment was a topic that was very serious in the eyes of the scientific community, but has often been downplayed as just a popular fad or trend. Nevertheless, a lot of time, effort, and money were put into these contests and their scientific backing, which would influence cultural ideas as well as local and state government practices.[68][verification needed]

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People promoted eugenics by hosting “Better Baby” contests and the proceeds would go to its anti-lynching campaign.[10]

First appearing in 1920 at the Kansas Free Fair, Fitter Family competitions, continued all the way until WWII. Mary T. Watts and Florence Brown Sherbon, both initiators of the Better Baby Contests in Iowa, took the idea of positive eugenics for babies and combined it with a determinist concept of biology to come up with fitter family competitions.[69]

There were several different categories that families were judged in: Size of the family, overall attractiveness, and health of the family, all of which helped to determine the likelihood of having healthy children. These competitions were simply a continuation of the Better Baby contests that promoted certain physical and mental qualities.[70] At the time, it was believed that certain behavioral qualities were inherited from your parents. This led to the addition of several judging categories including: generosity, self-sacrificing, and quality of familial bonds. Additionally, there were negative features that were judged: selfishness, jealousy, suspiciousness, high temperedness, and cruelty. Feeblemindedness, alcoholism, and paralysis were few among other traits that were included as physical traits to be judged when looking at family lineage.[29]

Doctors and specialists from the community would offer their time to judge these competitions, which were originally sponsored by the Red Cross.[29] The winners of these competitions were given a Bronze Medal as well as champion cups called “Capper Medals.” The cups were named after then Governor and Senator, Arthur Capper and he would present them to “Grade A individuals”.[71]

The perks of entering into the contests were that the competitions provided a way for families to get a free health check up by a doctor as well as some of the pride and prestige that came from winning the competitions.[29]

By 1925 the Eugenics Records Office was distributing standardized forms for judging eugenically fit families, which were used in contests in several U.S. states.[72]

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[65] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s.[7]

The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs,[73] including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[6][74]

Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague:

“You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.”[75]

Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[76] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler’s 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the “science of racial cleansing”. Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the “common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics.”[77]

After 1945, however, historians began to attempt to portray the US eugenics movement as distinct and distant from Nazi eugenics.[78]Jon Entine wrote that eugenics simply means “good genes” and using it as synonym for genocide is an “all-too-common distortion of the social history of genetics policy in the United States.” According to Entine, eugenics developed out of the Progressive Era and not “Hitler’s twisted Final Solution.”[79]

Read more:

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Is NATO? Purpose, History, Members and Alliances

 NATO  Comments Off on What Is NATO? Purpose, History, Members and Alliances
Sep 032015

U.S. Infantry Troops Arrive In Poland For NATO Exercises. Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It’s an alliance of 28 member countries roughly bordering the North Atlantic Ocean: Canada, U.S., Turkey and most members of the European Union. NATO’s purpose is to protect the freedom of its members. As famously defined in Article 5, “…an armed attack upon one…shall be considered an attack upon them all.”

In recent years, NATO’s purpose has expanded to include defense against weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and cyber attacks.

Since its inception following World War II, NATO has had to continually redefine its focus as a military and political alliance to keep up with the changing face of war.

What Is the Purpose of NATO Today?:

NATO protects the security of its members. However, it must also take into consideration aggression against non-members that threaten the stability of the region. That’s why its September 2014 summit focused onPresident Putin’s goal to create a “Little Russia” out of Ukraine’s eastern region. Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, other former USSR countries are, and they’re worried. President Obama vowed to defend countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The U.S. contributes three-quarters of NATO’s budget. (Source: WSJ, U.S. Vows NATO Defense of Baltics, Sep. 4, 2014)

On August 28,2014, NATO announcedit had photos proving that Russia was invading Ukraine. Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, it has been working closely with NATO over the years. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens NATO members who are afraid they will be next because they were also former U.S.S.R.

satellite countries.

NATO expanded its role after the 9/11 attacks to include the war on terrorism. NATO is winding down its mission in Afghanistan, which deployed 84,000 troops at its peak from both NATO-member countries and at least a dozen non-members. By 2014, NATO expects to transition all security to the Afghan military.

NATO itself admits that “Peacekeeping has become at least as difficult as peacemaking.” As a result, NATO is strengthening alliances throughout the world. In the age of globalization, transatlantic peace has become a worldwide effort that extends beyond military might alone. (Source: NATO History)

What Is the History of NATO?:

NATO was established after World War II as part of the United Nations. Its primary purpose was to defend member nations against the large number of troops in pro-communist countries. The U.S. also wanted to maintain a presence in Europe, to prevent a resurgence of military nationalism and foster political union. In this way, NATO made the European Union possible.

NATO and the Cold War:

During the Cold War, NATO’s mission expanded to prevent nuclear war. After West Germany joined NATO, the communist countries formed the Warsaw Pact alliance, including the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. In response, NATO adopted the “Massive Retaliation” policy, which promised to use nuclear weapons if the Pact attacked. This deterrence policy allowed Europe to focus on economic development instead of building large conventional armies.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, continued to build its military presence. By the end of the Cold War, it was spending three times what the U.S. was with only one-third the economic power. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was due to economic as well as ideological reasons.After the USSR dissolved in the late 1980s, NATO’s relationship with Russia thawed. In 1997, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed to build bilateral cooperation. In 2002, the NATO-Russia Council was formed to allow NATO members and Russia to partner on common security issues.

The collapse of the USSR led to unrest in its former satellite states. NATO expanded its focus to address this instability when a civil war in the former Yugoslavia turned into ethnic cleansing and genocide. NATO’s initial support of a United Nations naval embargo led to the enforcement of a no-fly zone. Violations then led to a few airstrikes until September 1999, when NATO conducted a heavy nine-day air campaign that ended the war. By December of that year, NATO deployed a peace-keeping force of 60,000 soldiers that ended in 2004, when NATO transferred this function to the European Union.

NATO Member Countries:

NATO’s 28 members include: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. Each member is represented by an ambassador, who is supported by officials that serve on the different NATO committees. From time to time, the President/Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister or head of Defense will meet to discuss NATO business.

NATO Alliances:

NATO is involved with three alliances that expand its influence beyond its 28 member countries.

In addition, NATO cooperates with eight other countries in joint security issues. These countries include five in Asia (Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia and New Zealand) and two in the Middle East (Afghanistan and Pakistan). (Source: NATO, Partnerships)Article updated August 28, 2014

Continued here:
What Is NATO? Purpose, History, Members and Alliances

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