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

Jody Hice Smears Liberty Movement to High Heaven
Paul Broun's Favorite to take his place as U.S. Representative in Georgia's 10th Congressional District speaks at the Constitutional Party Conference in 2012.

By: Crush Politics

Here is the original post:
Jody Hice Smears Liberty Movement to High Heaven – Video

Tom M. White, Jr. and Joe Shirley, Jr. Play Politics with Free Speech
District I Supervisor Joe Shirley, Jr. and District II Supervisor Tom M. White, Jr. have once again refused to restore the call to the public during meetings…

By: Apache County Individual and Property Rights Association

Read the original:
Tom M. White, Jr. and Joe Shirley, Jr. Play Politics with Free Speech – Video

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

By David Madden

PLEASANTVILLE, N.J. (CBS) The feds have completed a $1.6-million beach restoration project along the Delaware Bay a project that is meant to assist wildlife.

Five beaches in Cape May and Cumberland counties have been replenished, and 800 tons of debris left in the wake of Hurricane Sandy have been removed.

Those beaches are a spawning ground for the horseshoe crab.

The horseshoe crabs spawn. They lay eggs, and those eggs are a critical forage resource for shore birds that are stopping over, migrating up to the Arctic to nest, explains Eric Schrading of the New Jersey office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which coordinated the project.

Care to take in the spawning for yourself? Hit those beaches at high tide, from now till mid-June.

But be warned: the later you go, the more likely youll have to deal with the carcasses of older horseshoe crabs that dont make it back to the bay. The smell is not appealing.

Five South Jersey Beaches Readied For Horseshoe Crab Spawning Season

Persona Non Grata: The Death of Free Speech in the Internet Age by Tom Flanagan, Signal, 256 pages, $29.95

Revolution in the Age of Social Media: The Egyptian Popular Insurrection and the Internet by Linda Herrera, Verso, 192 pages, $32

In the digital age, every person will have 15 seconds of notoriety. Tom Flanagan the well-known Calgary political scientist, pundit, and former Harper aide had his in February, 2013. At a University of Lethbridge talk on the Indian Act, an activist from the Idle No More movement inquired about offhand comments Flanagan had made years earlier on child porn. The question clearly caught him off guard, and the resulting YouTube video, entitled Tom Flanagan okay with child pornography, captures his rambling response.

If you watch the video, youll see that Flanagan never claimed to be okay with anything. He only questioned the expedience of jailing porn users for low-level possession offences, but the nuances got lost in the ensuing media frenzy. Within hours of the videos release, hed been denounced, condemned, ostracized, disinvited to speaking engagements, relieved from his advisory position with the Wildrose Party of Alberta, and fired from the CBC show Power and Politics, on which he was a regular commentator.

In his new memoir, Persona Non Grata: The Death of Free Speech in the Internet Age, Flanagan tells his side of the story. Its a settling of scores, a polemic about intellectual freedom, and a firsthand account from the pyre at a public burning. As a work of personal journalism, the book is compelling, even terrifying, but as a critical argument about Internet culture, its far too self-involved.

In an attempt to explain what went wrong, Flanagan argues that 1) he had enemies, and 2) his enemies had a new weapon thanks to digital technology with which to attack his character. As the author of First Nations? Second Thoughts and the co-author of Beyond the Indian Act, Flanagan holds divisive ideas about the rights of Indigenous people in Canada. His positions are complicated, but they skew toward assimilation, privatization, and the removal of special legal protections. Hes used to making people angry. You cant have opinions like his and expect to be universally loved.

Still, Flanagan contends that his opponents went after him in the worst possible way: they bated him on a controversial topic, filmed his response without permission, and posted the video to YouTube under a misleading, incendiary headline. This probably wouldnt have amounted to much had it not been for other actors, whom Flanagan singles out as accessories after the fact. He lambastes the mainstream media for painting him as a radical child-porn advocate without seeking his input or considering his arguments. He also skewers academic colleagues for believing the hype and University of Calgary president Elizabeth Cannon for denouncing him, when she of all people should have defended his intellectual freedom.

Flanagan argues that were entering a new era of self-censorship: colleagues from across the country have e-mailed me saying theyve seen what happened to me and are resolved to be more cautious in the classroom in the future. Going forward, he says, academics will keep in mind that Big Brother is always watching. For Flanagan, though, Big Brother doesnt mean the state. In an the era of smart phones and social media, Big Brother is all of us.

This is spooky stuff. Even readers who oppose Flanagans politics will be frightened by the swiftness with which he was taken down. Flanagan implies, however, that his experiences represent digital culture as a whole. To be fair, he briefly mentions other people Jan Wong, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson who have been targeted by similar sound-bite-driven campaigns, but he clearly selected these stories for their similarities with his own.

This would all be fine if Flanagan were merely seeking to document an unsettling trend, but instead, he presents a sweeping argument in the books title, no less about how social media is killing free speech. Thats a bold position, and it should be based on more than just personal grievances.

See more here:
The public burning: Is free speech waning in the digital age?

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/AP) Gun owners and defenders of the second amendment saw success during the 2014Floridalegislative session, but one battle is still being waged.

Major wins came in the form of the warning-shot bill which protects people from mandatory sentences when they threaten to use a weapon in self-defense and the pop-tart bill that keeps children from being punished for playing with imaginary guns or wearing clothing with images of firearms.

The biggest loss was legislation to extend carry and conceal privileges during a declared state of emergency. The bill was killed, in part, by a late push from theFloridaSheriffs Association.

Those who hoped to see changes in the stand your ground law were left empty-handed.

I told my constituents when I left to come to Tallahassee that the second amendment would be safe, said Sen. Greg Evers, R-Pensacola. I feel reasonably sure that we held true to that. In fact, we made some headway. The second amendment is definitely safe, so my folks back home are going to be happy.

Both Evers and Marion Hammer, a lobbyist and former NRA president, said the carry-and-conceal issue is not going away.

The sheriffs association argued that the language in the bill (SB 296) was too open-ended and left room for interpretation without time and place specifications. Hammer called that argument just a smoke screen.

It was never about anything other than their convenience and the fact they didnt want citizens carrying guns, Hammer said.

Original post:
Success For Gun Owners & 2nd Amendment Defenders In 2014

One of the surprises of President Obamas second term has been the prominence of a question that seemed peripheral to his first: the meaning of religious freedom. For years, opponents of the Affordable Care Act framed their objections in terms of economic freedom, but now some of the most noticeable challenges are coming from Christian groups who oppose the laws contraception-coverage requirement. In January, the Supreme Court extended a temporary injunction for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order that objects to having to file a form to obtain a religious exemption from the requirement. (When an organization files, the government effectively subsidizes its insurance provider, so that the employees contraception is still covered.) The Supreme Court will soon hand down a decision in the case of Hobby Lobby, the craft-store chain that strives to operate in a manner consistent with Biblical principles. One of those principles, in Hobby Lobbys view, forbids it to pay for those contraceptives which it considers tantamount to abortion. If the Court rules in the stores favor, the decision would be a small setback for the A.C.A. But it would be a big advance for the religious-freedom movement, which wants courts to recognize that for-profit corporations can be believers, too.

The argument over same-sex marriage is likewise shifting. Last year, when Charles J. Cooper appeared before the Court to defend Californias ban on same-sex marriage, his argument was scrupulously secular. Cooper told the Justices that California had good reason to treat heterosexual relationships differently, because California cares about children, and because the natural procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples continues to pose vitally important benefits and risks to society. He didnt persuade the majority, and perhaps he didnt persuade himself: a new book, Forcing the Spring, by Jo Becker, reports that Coopers position on gay marriage continues to evolve, just as Obamas once did. (Coopers stepdaughter has become engaged to a woman.) Many opponents have evolved, too. They have decided that if same-sex marriage cant be stopped in the name of society it can be resisted in the name of religious freedom.

The heroes of this movement are people like Jack Phillips, a baker from Colorado, and Elaine Huguenin, a photographer from New MexicoChristians who refused to supply their services to same-sex weddings and were sued for discrimination. In response to these cases, a number of Republican-controlled state legislatures introduced religious freedom laws. Governor Jan Brewer vetoed Arizonas bill after leading politicians, including John McCain, objected and business leaders warned of ill effects, including the possible loss of next years Super Bowl. Measures in Kansas and Idaho failed, too. But last month, in Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant signed a bill decreeing that state action shall not substantially burden a persons right to the exercise of religion without compelling justification. Supporters cited the example of a church whose relocation had been blocked by a local zoning ordinance. Opponents asserted that the law would harm the states gay population: GLAAD called it a thinly masked attempt to discriminate against L.G.B.T. people under the guise of religious freedom.

The First Amendmentwhich holds that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofwas worded so as not to circumscribe the religious arrangements in place in some states. (In Massachusetts, taxes subsidized Protestant teachers until 1833.) Over time, though, and in light of the Fourteenth Amendments guarantees of equal protection of the laws, the courts have broadened its meaning. They have regularly been petitioned, often successfully, by believers seeking exemption on religious grounds from military service, educational requirements, or taxes. Then, in 1990, the Supreme Court issued an unexpectedly broad ruling against members of the Native American Church who had been denied unemployment benefits after the drug-rehabilitation center where they worked fired them for ingesting peyote, which their church considers a sacrament. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that a ruling for the plaintiffs would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind. Legislators from both parties, spurred on by an unusual coalition of religious leaders and civil libertarians, responded by drafting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Clinton signed into law, in 1993. The law provides that government shall not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion. But in 1997 the Court ruled that the law could be applied only to the federal government. A number of states then enacted their own versions of it; Mississippi was not among them, until last month.

There is something unsettling about a conception of religious freedom that grants some people exemption from laws that others must obey. Much of the time, opinions about exemption from a particular law mirror the politics of the moment. People who opposed the Vietnam War tended to be sympathetic to devout pacifists who resisted the draft. (In 1971, the Supreme Court affirmed that secular pacifists could be conscientious objectors, too.) Right now, religious freedom seems particularly important to anyone troubled by the spread of gay-rights laws or by the implementation of the A.C.A. But the idea is too big, and too nebulous, to claim any political group as its permanent ally.

Not long ago, Republicans were warning that Sharia law posed a threat to America, which led many states, including Mississippi, to introduce bills that ban the courts from applying foreign laws. But during the debate last month in Jackson legislators insisted that religious freedom should be interpreted as broadly as possible. State Senator Gary Jackson, a Republican, said, This law has everything to do with government not interfering with the Buddhist, with the Christian, with the Islamist. In coming years, that proposition will likely be tested, perhaps by an inmate asking for special meals, or by a Sikh wishing to carry his ceremonial knife through a checkpoint, or by a religious pacifist who wants to resist some new concealed-carry legislation. When politicians talk about religious freedom, broad language often conceals narrower interests. The result is laws that will inevitably be used in ways their proponents cant predict, and may not like. In Mississippi, as elsewhere, arguments over same-sex marriage and the A.C.A. will eventually give way to general acceptance of a new status quo. But the meaning of religious freedom will keep on evolving.

Kelefa Sanneh: The politics of religious freedom.

NATO (nt) abbr.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an international organization composed of the US, Canada, Britain, and a number of European countries: established by the North Atlantic Treaty (1949) for purposes of collective security. In 1994 it launched the Partnership for Peace initiative, in order to forge alliances with former Warsaw Pact countries; in 1997 a treaty of cooperation with Russia was signed and in 1999 Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic became full NATO members


an organization formed in 1949 for the purpose of collective defense: originally comprising Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and later joined by Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.


Thesaurus Legend: SynonymsRelated WordsAntonyms


See original here:

NATO – definition of NATO by the Free Online Dictionary …

TNW – Stefan Molyneux – Money, Power and Politics The Cryptocurrency Revolution
Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes. The staggering growth…

By: The Next Web

See the rest here:

TNW – Stefan Molyneux – Money, Power and Politics The Cryptocurrency Revolution – Video

The Bitcoin Group #27 – China Bans Bitcoin Again – Politics – Dark Market – Bitcoin VC
Donate: 18EQEiQBK1X2DyDL5Y18j78iw4NuNHoLej Featuring… Andreas Antonopoulos (, Davi Barker (, Derrick J. Freeman (,…

By: World Crypto Network

Read more:

The Bitcoin Group #27 – China Bans Bitcoin Again – Politics – Dark Market – Bitcoin VC – Video

The Three Languages of Politics (with Arnold Kling)
If you ask “How do people talk about politics?” most of us will say something like “angrily.” But Arnold Kling thinks there's more to it than that. Kling is …


Follow this link:
The Three Languages of Politics (with Arnold Kling) – Video

Last week the Supreme Court overturned federal limits on the total amounts that one person may contribute to candidates and political committees during a single election cycle. The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse, the court declared in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.

But according to Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by three of his colleagues, the restrictions challenged in McCutcheon v. FEC are perfectly compatible with the First Amendment, which advances not only the individuals right to engage in political speech, but also the publics interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.

The idea that individual rights must be sacrificed for the sake of a vaguely defined collective interest reflects the dangerously broad agenda of campaign-finance reformers, who seek to shape the political debate so that it comports with their own notion of the public good.

Preventing corruption is the traditional justification for limits on campaign donations. As you might expect given his nebulous aim of preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters, Breyer favors a broad definition of corruption, including not just quid pro quo bribery (such as agreeing to vote for a bill in exchange for a donation) but also undue influence. While everyone understands what bribery entails, undue influence is in the eye of the beholder. On the day McCutcheon was argued, for instance, President Obama worried that it would exacerbate a problem created by the Supreme Courts 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which lifted restrictions on political speech by unions and corporations. The problem, according to Obama: too much speech of the wrong sort.

You have some ideological extremist who has a big bankroll, and they can entirely skew our politics, Obama complained. There are a whole bunch of members of Congress right now who privately will tell you, I know our positions are unreasonable, but were scared that if we dont go along with the Tea Party agenda or some particularly extremist agenda that well be challenged from the right. And the threats are very explicit, and so they toe the line. And thats part of why weve seen a breakdown of just normal, routine business done here in Washington on behalf of the American people.

In short, Obama thinks Citizens United was devastating (as he called it a few days after the case was decided) because it freed his opponents to criticize him and interfered with business as usual in Washington. Many Americans would see those as advantages.

In any case, its clear that Obama views campaign-finance regulation as a way of managing the political debate and keeping it from becoming too extremist, a rationale the court has never endorsed and one that is totally at odds with the First Amendments command that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

Similarly, the editorial board of The New York Times, which decries the distorting power of money on American elections, cites the broad ideological change sought by the Koch brothers as a reason to keep the aggregate caps on campaign contributions. To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with freedom of speech is totally absurd, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) opines, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) bemoans the undue influence of special interests and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) complains that the Supreme Court has chosen to pour even more money into our process and our politics.

As self-financed candidates periodically discover, you cant really buy elections. Even if a candidate is interested only in gaining and retaining power, he has to convince voters he is worthy of their trust.

The undue influence that worries Breyer, Obama, Sanders, McCain and Pelosi is ultimately based on the power of speech to persuade a power Congress is forbidden to regulate.

Continued here:
Free speech vs. protecting rights of collective speech

How the Illuminati use Church, Politics and Sex

By: mehmet can

Originally posted here:
How the Illuminati use Church, Politics and Sex – Video

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

CHATHAM (CBS/AP) A spring storm blasted the Cape and Islands with high winds and blowing snow on Wednesday, roiling the North Atlantic and leaving winter-weary residents facing the prospect of digging out from more snow.

Check: Current Conditions | Interactive Radar | WBZ Weather Blog

Cape Cod, Nantucket and Marthas Vineyard bore the brunt of the storm as it hit Massachusetts, dropping up to 10 inches of snow.

Check: Snow Totals

The snow had stopped by the afternoon but robust winds were expected through Wednesday night with gusts up to 80 mph on Nantucket, National Weather Service meteorologist Charlie Foley said.

Watch: Nantucket Emergency Management On Conditions In Nantucket

A blizzard warning was in effect and the National Weather Service also warned of coastal flooding and significant beach erosion along the Massachusetts coast. Wind gusts caused scattered power outages on the Cape and Islands.

WBZ NewsRadio 1030s Karen Twomey reports

Read this article:
Cape And Islands Battered By High Winds, Blowing Snow

Inside Politics: Obama talks free speech in China
John King, Margaret Talev and Manu Raju discuss the first lady's trip to China and her comments on free speech.


Read the original post:
Inside Politics: Obama talks free speech in China – Video

Dark Forces – Illuminati in Hollywood, Politics, etc
Warrior Training – More Info / Enroll

By: LoveGuruBlaire

Read the original:
Dark Forces – Illuminati in Hollywood, Politics, etc – Video

Freedom to Not Choose – The debate over dual nationality | People and Politics
Germany's new coalition government agreed on the right to dual nationality. Individuals born and raised in Germany but with non-German parents will now be ab…

By: DW (English)

Originally posted here:
Freedom to Not Choose – The debate over dual nationality | People and Politics – Video

Facebook To Ban 2nd Amendment Speech
Facebook now working with former N.Y. mayor to censor support for the Second Amendment Facebook is currently working with two anti-gun groups to further rest…

By: Belligerent Politics

Visit link:
Facebook To Ban 2nd Amendment Speech – Video

I'm not into Politics, but Obama is in the Illuminati!
So Jonathan Davis thinks he knows his shit on Politics, but in reality he does not really know what he is talking about. Here I will hopefully correct on wha…

By: Atticus TheDeathMetaller

See the original post:
I’m not into Politics, but Obama is in the Illuminati! – Video

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

TRENTON, N.J. (CBSNewYork/AP) New Jersey lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban smoking at all public beaches and parks in the state.

A state Assembly committee advanced the proposal at a hearing Thursday morning. It now goes to the full Assembly, where a final vote has not been scheduled.

The bill is designed to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke at beaches and parks, cut down on litter and improve fire safety in those public areas. Smoking would still be allowed in parking lots near beaches and parks.

Violators would get fined $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and $1,000 for subsequent ones.

When you look at our public parks and beaches, we do not want people to experience secondhand smoke, or increase the litter of cigarette butts, said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri-Huttle, one of the bills sponsors. This enhances our beaches. I think it promotes more tourism.

Karen Blumenfeld, executive director of Global Advisors on Smokefree Policy, said more than a third of New Jerseys municipalities have laws on the books that restrict smoking in parks and recreational areas.

We all know that theres no safe level of secondhand smoke at all, she said. Secondhand smoke outdoors does affect people.

Blumenfeld said some beach towns already have banned smoking on their sands, including Seaside Park, Long Branch, and Sunset Beach in Cape May Point.

View post:
New Jersey Weighs Smoking Ban At Beaches, Parks

This Wednesday I stumbled upon an article in Richmonds Style Weekly magazine covering the Feb. 8 convention of the Libertarian Party of Virginia. According to the articles author Tom Nash, this convention was the biggest and most important for Virginia Libertarians for quite some while. Given the recent relative success of the partys gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis (who made his mark by running a seemingly honest, intellectual campaign and winning 6.5 percent of the vote), Nash contends that the party hopes to maintain this momentum by having as many Libertarians as possible on the upcoming ballots.

Apparently, the tactic to achieve this involves inviting everyone on the partys email list to run for office, even if they have no chance of winning. One person who received this invitation was a high school student from the Maggie L. Walker Governors School for Government and International Studies. The student told Nash that he would consider running for office after finishing college.

Anyone who knows me also knows that my politics tend to fall so far left that they occasionally slip off the scale into an alternate universe where the gender binary has been all but eradicated, socialism reigns and everyone is free to sip tea and play with their cats in a borderless world of total equality.

Needless to say, libertarianism is not always consistent with these ideals. I do, however, hold a soft spot in my heart for the well-intentioned rationality of the party, so Nashs article made me wonder how many capable, up-and-coming young people might be drawn into politics by what is essentially a power vacuum in the Libertarian party.

One member of the University of Richmonds chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, Kelly Farley, WC17, said she planned on pursuing business as a career, but could easily see herself in politics: Libertarians are the party of the individual, liberty and, in my opinion, self-responsibility. I would be honored and proud to represent the libertarian opinion some day.

Another UR student, Martha Ashe, WC15, said that although she identified with the Libertarian party philosophically, she chooses to vote Republican because she is fiscally conservative and the party has more traction. She said, While I dont think I would ever run for politics, if I did, it would be hard for me to run as a Libertarian because I dont think the party has as much traction at this time. Ashe added, however, that she is confident we are trending toward a greater support of libertarianism: I do believe that most young people in my generation are Libertarian, whether they realize it or not, and that as my generation matures, the libertarian party will start to gain popularity.

While the upper levels of the two dominant parties in this country can seem like private clubs that require 80 percent networking and 20 percent underhanded dealing to gain entry, it might be that all it takes in Virginias Libertarian party right now is to show up.

Since the platform tends to attract a mixture of young people who are intelligent, ambitious or radical (and occasionally all three), I can happily picture a future where the party is dominated not by gun- and flag-toting old men, but by recent college graduates with clear plans for a more free country. Whether or not I support the whole ideology, I would rather have a relevant faction of young, educated people than not.

Read more here:
Recruiting the next generation of political leaders

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

Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by