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

Astronomy – Official Site

 Astronomy  Comments Off on Astronomy – Official Site
Jul 282015
 

PICTURE OF THE DAYsee all

The photographer reports the following: On the evening of June 19, I was able to find clearing skies after driving to Glyazi village and Lake Uluabat, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) to the west of Bursa, Turkey. The rains earlier in the day cleared the sky just in time and enough for faint stars and especially the Beehive Cluster (M44) to show up near the horizon. Due east, the sky back toward the city still looked gloomy, but no worries for me. The Moon hangs low to the right of center. Above it, brilliant Venus shines, with Jupiter to its upper left and Regulus (Alpha Leonis) to the upper left of Jupiter. (Canon 6D, Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 lens set at f/3.2, ISO 400, 5-second exposure, taken June 19, 2015, about an hour after sunset)

View original post here:

Astronomy – Official Site

Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of …

 Liberty  Comments Off on Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of …
Jul 242015
 

Imagine you are driving a car through town, and you come to a fork in the road. You turn left, but no one was forcing you to go one way or the other. Next you come to a crossroads. You turn right, but no one was preventing you from going left or straight on. There is no traffic to speak of and there are no diversions or police roadblocks. So you seem, as a driver, to be completely free. But this picture of your situation might change quite dramatically if we consider that the reason you went left and then right is that you’re addicted to cigarettes and you’re desperate to get to the tobacconists before it closes. Rather than driving, you feel you are being driven, as your urge to smoke leads you uncontrollably to turn the wheel first to the left and then to the right. Moreover, you’re perfectly aware that your turning right at the crossroads means you’ll probably miss a train that was to take you to an appointment you care about very much. You long to be free of this irrational desire that is not only threatening your longevity but is also stopping you right now from doing what you think you ought to be doing.

This story gives us two contrasting ways of thinking of liberty. On the one hand, one can think of liberty as the absence of obstacles external to the agent. You are free if no one is stopping you from doing whatever you might want to do. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be free. On the other hand, one can think of liberty as the presence of control on the part of the agent. To be free, you must be self-determined, which is to say that you must be able to control your own destiny in your own interests. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be unfree: you are not in control of your own destiny, as you are failing to control a passion that you yourself would rather be rid of and which is preventing you from realizing what you recognize to be your true interests. One might say that while on the first view liberty is simply about how many doors are open to the agent, on the second view it is more about going through the right doors for the right reasons.

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin called these two concepts of liberty negative and positive respectively (Berlin 1969).[1] The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization). In Berlin’s words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question What is the area within which the subject a person or group of persons is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?, whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that? (1969, pp. 12122).

It is useful to think of the difference between the two concepts in terms of the difference between factors that are external and factors that are internal to the agent. While theorists of negative freedom are primarily interested in the degree to which individuals or groups suffer interference from external bodies, theorists of positive freedom are more attentive to the internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or groups act autonomously. Given this difference, one might be tempted to think that a political philosopher should concentrate exclusively on negative freedom, a concern with positive freedom being more relevant to psychology or individual morality than to political and social institutions. This, however, would be premature, for among the most hotly debated issues in political philosophy are the following: Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept? Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the state to do so? The classic texts in the history of western political thought are divided over how these questions should be answered: theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, are typically classed as answering no and therefore as defending a negative concept of political freedom; theorists that are critical of this tradition, like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green, are typically classed as answering yes and as defending a positive concept of political freedom.

In its political form, positive freedom has often been thought of as necessarily achieved through a collectivity. Perhaps the clearest case is that of Rousseau’s theory of freedom, according to which individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process whereby one’s community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the general will. Put in the simplest terms, one might say that a democratic society is a free society because it is a self-determined society, and that a member of that society is free to the extent that he or she participates in its democratic process. But there are also individualist applications of the concept of positive freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim actively to create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization. The negative concept of freedom, on the other hand, is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty (Cohen, 1991, 1995).

After Berlin, the most widely cited and best developed analyses of the negative concept of liberty include Hayek (1960), Day (1971), Oppenheim (1981), Miller (1983) and Steiner (1994). Among the most prominent contemporary analyses of the positive concept of liberty are Milne (1968), Gibbs (1976), C. Taylor (1979) and Christman (1991, 2005).

Many liberals, including Berlin, have suggested that the positive concept of liberty carries with it a danger of authoritarianism. Consider the fate of a permanent and oppressed minority. Because the members of this minority participate in a democratic process characterized by majority rule, they might be said to be free on the grounds that they are members of a society exercising self-control over its own affairs. But they are oppressed, and so are surely unfree. Moreover, it is not necessary to see a society as democratic in order to see it as self-controlled; one might instead adopt an organic conception of society, according to which the collectivity is to be thought of as a living organism, and one might believe that this organism will only act rationally, will only be in control of itself, when its various parts are brought into line with some rational plan devised by its wise governors (who, to extend the metaphor, might be thought of as the organism’s brain). In this case, even the majority might be oppressed in the name of liberty.

Such justifications of oppression in the name of liberty are no mere products of the liberal imagination, for there are notorious historical examples of their endorsement by authoritarian political leaders. Berlin, himself a liberal and writing during the cold war, was clearly moved by the way in which the apparently noble ideal of freedom as self-mastery or self-realization had been twisted and distorted by the totalitarian dictators of the twentieth century most notably those of the Soviet Union so as to claim that they, rather than the liberal West, were the true champions of freedom. The slippery slope towards this paradoxical conclusion begins, according to Berlin, with the idea of a divided self. To illustrate: the smoker in our story provides a clear example of a divided self, for she is both a self that desires to get to an appointment and a self that desires to get to the tobacconists, and these two desires are in conflict. We can now enrich this story in a plausible way by adding that one of these selves the keeper of appointments is superior to the other: the self that is a keeper of appointments is thus a higher self, and the self that is a smoker is a lower self. The higher self is the rational, reflecting self, the self that is capable of moral action and of taking responsibility for what she does. This is the true self, for rational reflection and moral responsibility are the features of humans that mark them off from other animals. The lower self, on the other hand, is the self of the passions, of unreflecting desires and irrational impulses. One is free, then, when one’s higher, rational self is in control and one is not a slave to one’s passions or to one’s merely empirical self. The next step down the slippery slope consists in pointing out that some individuals are more rational than others, and can therefore know best what is in their and others’ rational interests. This allows them to say that by forcing people less rational than themselves to do the rational thing and thus to realize their true selves, they are in fact liberating them from their merely empirical desires. Occasionally, Berlin says, the defender of positive freedom will take an additional step that consists in conceiving of the self as wider than the individual and as represented by an organic social whole a tribe, a race, a church, a state, the great society of the living and the dead and the yet unborn. The true interests of the individual are to be identified with the interests of this whole, and individuals can and should be coerced into fulfilling these interests, for they would not resist coercion if they were as rational and wise as their coercers. Once I take this view, Berlin says, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture in the name, and on behalf, of their real selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the true goal of man … must be identical with his freedom (Berlin 1969, pp. 13233).

Those in the negative camp try to cut off this line of reasoning at the first step, by denying that there is any necessary relation between one’s freedom and one’s desires. Since one is free to the extent that one is externally unprevented from doing things, they say, one can be free to do what one does not desire to do. If being free meant being unprevented from realizing one’s desires, then one could, again paradoxically, reduce one’s unfreedom by coming to desire fewer of the things one is unfree to do. One could become free simply by contenting oneself with one’s situation. A perfectly contented slave is perfectly free to realize all of her desires. Nevertheless, we tend to think of slavery as the opposite of freedom. More generally, freedom is not to be confused with happiness, for in logical terms there is nothing to stop a free person from being unhappy or an unfree person from being happy. The happy person might feel free, but whether they are free is another matter (Day, 1970). Negative theorists of freedom therefore tend to say not that having freedom means being unprevented from doing as one desires, but that it means being unprevented from doing whatever one might desire to do.

Some theorists of positive freedom bite the bullet and say that the contented slave is indeed free that in order to be free the individual must learn, not so much to dominate certain merely empirical desires, but to rid herself of them. She must, in other words, remove as many of her desires as possible. As Berlin puts it, if I have a wounded leg there are two methods of freeing myself from pain. One is to heal the wound. But if the cure is too difficult or uncertain, there is another method. I can get rid of the wound by cutting off my leg (1969, pp. 13536). This is the strategy of liberation adopted by ascetics, stoics and Buddhist sages. It involves a retreat into an inner citadel a soul or a purely noumenal self in which the individual is immune to any outside forces. But this state, even if it can be achieved, is not one that liberals would want to call one of freedom, for it again risks masking important forms of oppression. It is, after all, often in coming to terms with excessive external limitations in society that individuals retreat into themselves, pretending to themselves that they do not really desire the worldly goods or pleasures they have been denied. Moreover, the removal of desires may also be an effect of outside forces, such as brainwashing, which we should hardly want to call a realization of freedom.

Read the original:
Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of …

Reading Jokes – ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Reading Jokes – ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED – Video
Apr 142015
 



Reading Jokes – ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
Sorry you couldn't really read the coming out joke it said Daughter: Dad, I have been waiting for the right moment to tell you that I am a lesbian. Its very difficult for me to tell you something…

By: Keikeiandalli

See the original post:
Reading Jokes – ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED – Video

Watch Cleveland police officer take the Fifth in Michael Brelo trial sparking heated debate (video)

 Fifth Amendment  Comments Off on Watch Cleveland police officer take the Fifth in Michael Brelo trial sparking heated debate (video)
Apr 112015
 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cleveland police detective Michael Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination shortly after being called to the witness stand Wednesday to testify in the trial of fellow officer Michael Brelo. A heated argument ensued.

Demchak, who was involved in the 22-minute chase and fired some shots at the car driven by Russell, was granted his right by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John P. O’Donnell.

Prosecutor Timothy McGinty filed a motion saying he wanted to treat any Cleveland police officers that might testify during the trial as hostile witnesses. The motionargues police officers were not fully cooperative with investigators during interviews with the Ohio Attorney General’s Bureau of Investigations and with prosecutors’ efforts leading up to the trial.

Brelo is the only officer to face criminal charges in the November 2012 chase that ended with 13 officers firing 137 shots into a car fatally shooting unarmed Russell and Williams.

Brelo, who prosecutors have said fired 49 of the shots, waived his right to a jury. O’Donnell will ultimately render a verdict in the case.

Continued here:
Watch Cleveland police officer take the Fifth in Michael Brelo trial sparking heated debate (video)

RWW News: Cruz: Gay ‘Jihad’ Threatening Religious Freedom – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on RWW News: Cruz: Gay ‘Jihad’ Threatening Religious Freedom – Video
Apr 112015
 



RWW News: Cruz: Gay 'Jihad' Threatening Religious Freedom
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-gay-community-waging-jihad-against-religious-freedom Right Wing Watch reports on the extreme rhetoric and activities of key right-wing figures…

By: RWW Blog

Read the rest here:
RWW News: Cruz: Gay ‘Jihad’ Threatening Religious Freedom – Video

Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech – Video
Apr 112015
 



Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech
The President of the Virginia Fraternal Order of Police said, “Free speech doesn't say you have the right to insult somebody,” and that using bad language online should also be considered a…

By: THElNFOWARRlOR

Read the original:
Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech – Video

Free Game Tip – Frozen Islands – Video

 Islands  Comments Off on Free Game Tip – Frozen Islands – Video
Apr 082015
 



Free Game Tip – Frozen Islands
Choose the right fighters in Frozen Islands and destroy all the icy enemeis. Good looking game for sure. SUBSCRIBE – http://www.youtube.com/user/Coffeesipgame FACEBOOK …

By: CoffeeSipGame

Here is the original post:
Free Game Tip – Frozen Islands – Video

2nd Amendment Keychain – RTBA – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on 2nd Amendment Keychain – RTBA – Video
Apr 082015
 



2nd Amendment Keychain – RTBA
“Shall Not Be Infringed” – The wording is clear! The Right to Bear Arms is an INALIENABLE right that extends to ALL people and now, the Second Amendment is available on a dog tag keychain!…

By: RTBA

Excerpt from:
2nd Amendment Keychain – RTBA – Video

Dr. Rand Paul on the Second Amendment – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Dr. Rand Paul on the Second Amendment – Video
Apr 082015
 



Dr. Rand Paul on the Second Amendment
There are too many in Washington who give lip service to the Second Amendment, but vote to restrict gun ownership. I do not support any proposed gun control which would limit the right to gun…

By: Rand Paul

See the original post here:
Dr. Rand Paul on the Second Amendment – Video

Jacksonville SEO Company – Hire the Right SEO in Jacksonville – Video

 SEO  Comments Off on Jacksonville SEO Company – Hire the Right SEO in Jacksonville – Video
Apr 072015
 



Jacksonville SEO Company – Hire the Right SEO in Jacksonville
Jacksonville SEO Company – Hire The Right Jacksonville SEO http://seofullyloaded.com/case-studies/ Jacksonville SEO Company – Having trouble getting your website ranked on Google search …

By: Stanford Pelage

Read more here:
Jacksonville SEO Company – Hire the Right SEO in Jacksonville – Video

Volokh Conspiracy: Religious freedom laws should not exempt antidiscrimination provisions

 Freedom  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Religious freedom laws should not exempt antidiscrimination provisions
Apr 032015
 

Below, co-blogger Dale celebrates the fact that Indiana is going to exempt civil rights (antidiscrimination) laws from its state religious freedom act.

I dont think antidiscrimination laws presumptively deserve special status, and I therefore dont think they should be exempted from state RFRAs, or should otherwise be exempted from civil liberties protections, statutory or constitutional. In other words, state RFRAs shouldnt exempt antidiscrimination laws, and when courts are enforcing constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, they should not find that antidiscrimination laws constitute compelling government interests sufficient to override those rights.

I argued this point in great detail in my 2003 book, You Cant Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws. The first twenty-six pages of the book can be found here. Some of the arguments from that book appear in this essay in the North Carolina Law Review. this essay in the Missouri Law Review, this article in the University of Chicago Legal Forum, this article in Social Philosophy and Policy, and this article in The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. A chapter dealing with the ACLUs abandonment of civil liberties in favor of antidiscrimination laws is excerpted here.

As a historical aside, the liberal lefts hostility to RFRA didnt start with gay rights, but with cases in the 1990s in which religious landlords who owned a few rental units declined to rent to unmarried, heterosexual individuals. This ran afoul in some states of laws banning discrimination on the basis of marital status.

At the time, liberal civil libertarian groups like the ACLU didnt claim that this was just bigotry disguised as religion, but rather that though it was the exercise of religion, (a) antidiscrimination concerns, even ones as trivial as heterosexual couples being denied an apartment in a huge metro area with many other willing landlords, should trump religious freedom; and (b) given that courts might not always agree that antidiscrimination concerns are a compelling interest sufficient to trump statutory religious freedom rights, they would no longer supports RFRAs that didnt exempt antidiscrimination laws.

Thus, liberal opposition to RFRA seems to have originated as a combination of treating antidiscrimination as a trump over almost any other right (the national ACLUbut not all state ACLUshas so far exempted pure speech), and hostility to assertions of rights by traditional Christians, as opposed to the peyote-smoking Native Americans, Sabbatarians, Amish, and other groups more traditionally associated with free exercise claims.

In any event, gay rights advocates do have a legitimate concern that religious conservatives are seeking to target laws protecting people on the basis of sexual orientation rather than protect religious freedom, as such.

I have heard a very prominent religious conservative argue that religious freedom should protect the right of someone to not photograph a gay marriage because of religious objections to such a marriage, but should not protect the right of someone to not photograph an interracial marriage because of religious objections. This individual may have a coherent reason for believing that, but if so it wasnt apparent from his remarks, beyond the possibility that he thinks it would be politically infeasible to defend the latter.

So heres my suggestion: instead of exempting antidiscrimination laws from state RFRAs, instead write into the laws a provision that the compelling interest test should be applied with the same rigor regardless of which group an antidiscrimination law protects. Therefore, a photographer should have the same right, but only the same right, to refuse on religious grounds to photograph a gay wedding as an interracial wedding, or a wedding between a Jew and a Gentile, or whatever.

If RFRA advocates arent willing to defend the right of someone who believes that interracial or interreligious marriages are against Gods will to refuse to participate in such weddings, then they dont have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to gay marriage. But the better position is to allow exemptions in all those situations.

See original here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Religious freedom laws should not exempt antidiscrimination provisions

Algernon D'Ammassa: New Mexico's forfeiture act is a bold achievement

 Fifth Amendment  Comments Off on Algernon D'Ammassa: New Mexico's forfeiture act is a bold achievement
Mar 312015
 

A good bill has slipped through the gridlock of partisan dysfunction in the Roundhouse. Perhaps we ought to have it bronzed.

Now the Forfeiture Act needs public support. As of this writing, Governor Martinez has been non-committal about signing the bill. Here is why it deserves to become law.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides, in seemingly straightforward language, that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Yet it has been a common practice for law enforcement to seize property even without a criminal conviction. The practice became a prominent weapon during the Reagan era and the “war on drugs,” a way to take money away from drug lords and use it to fund law enforcement. New York City, under the authoritarian mayor Rudy Giuliani, later introduced its use against drunk drivers. Cities claim forfeiture as a deterrent, but revenue is clearly a major attraction.

Revenue certainly seemed uppermost in the mind of Las Cruces’s former city attorney, Harry “Pete” Connelly, when he was videotaped at a law enforcement conference last September describing a well-written forfeiture complaint as a “masterpiece of deception” and describing police officers’ excitement when pulling over a DWI suspect in a luxury car. Connelly tacitly acknowledged the class nature of forfeiture by admitting most of the cars seized under civil forfeiture were older cars that weren’t as valuable.

The excesses of forfeiture are frightening. In Connelly’s infamous lecture, he described a case in Philadelphia where a couple had their home seized because their son was involved in a $40 drug transaction on their porch. The city grabbed $4 million from 8,000 forfeiture cases in the year 2010 alone.

Criminal and civil forfeitures are different things. Criminal forfeiture follows a criminal conviction, whereas civil forfeiture, a concept created by statute, does not require a conviction or even necessarily a criminal charge against the property owner. It circumvents the Constitution in part by supposing that the property itself has broken the law, and may be seized regardless of whether the human being owning the property is charged with anything.

It makes sense that reforming forfeiture laws in New Mexico would pass our divided Legislature. It is a rare opportunity to correct injustices that matter to both the right and the left. On the right, the main concern has to do with property rights, and the power of government to take your stuff arbitrarily. Forbes contributor George Leef went as far as to argue that the plunder of forfeiture proves that “the state is our enemy.” Take that, authoritarian wing of the Republican Party. On the left, forfeiture is also a matter of human rights and social inequality, as forfeiture falls hardest on the poor and non-white.

Gramercy! How often do we see the ACLU and the Rio Grande Foundation working together?

The Forfeiture Act effectively eliminates civil forfeiture, and enacts measures for proper accounting and transparency regarding criminal forfeitures. Moreover, the proceeds from seized assets would go to the general fund, not the agencies’ own budgets, thus eliminating the profit motive from the agencies’ priorities.

See the original post:
Algernon D'Ammassa: New Mexico's forfeiture act is a bold achievement

The A to Z of Freedom of Expression – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on The A to Z of Freedom of Expression – Video
Mar 312015
 



The A to Z of Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Expression in India is provided by the Constitution under articles 19, 20, 21 and 22. It simply means that every citizen has the right to put forward their thoughts in public without…

By: fame comedy

Excerpt from:
The A to Z of Freedom of Expression – Video

The Right of Free Speech, it’s an American thing – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on The Right of Free Speech, it’s an American thing – Video
Mar 292015
 



The Right of Free Speech, it's an American thing
Just something that has gone on since the 20th of march, Today is the 26th, It did hit the national news, however the Gutless press did not really cover it. So I did!! http://video.foxnews.com/v/41…

By: navythomas8

Read more here:
The Right of Free Speech, it’s an American thing – Video

Gerakan: Does IGP really know the law?

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Gerakan: Does IGP really know the law?
Mar 282015
 

More pressing matters for police instead of clamping down on free speech, says Andy Yong.

KUALA LUMPUR: Gerakan Youth has questioned whether the Inspector-General of Police truly understands the law, while carrying out a crackdown on free speech and peaceful assembly, and criticised his misplaced priorities.

Andy Yong, deputy leader of the youth wing, said the IGP appeared to be defning seditious tendency according to his own wishes, Malaysiakini reported.

He said the security of the country, and illegal activities, were more pressing matters for the police rather than sedition as defined by the IGP and peaceful protests.

I urge the police to concentrate more on reducing crime instead of being perceived as being used as a political tool, he was quoted as saying.

Yong pointed out that the Peaceful Assembly Act provided every citizen the right to assemble, whether or not notice was given to the police.

Yong questioned the police forces intent in criminalising the right to assemble. Until there actually is a report of violence escalating during the rally, there is no need for the police to enforce the PAA, he was reported to have said.

Malaysia should emulate countries Hong Kong or Britain, where police were present to ensure public order and security.

Read more:
Gerakan: Does IGP really know the law?

How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate – Video
Mar 272015
 



How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate
Does the state of Texas have the right to issue specialty license plates featuring a Confederate flag? Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal fills in Gwen Ifill on the case being argued…

By: PBS NewsHour

See the article here:
How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate – Video

Buy nsa 300whr whole house water filter – Video

 NSA  Comments Off on Buy nsa 300whr whole house water filter – Video
Mar 252015
 



Buy nsa 300whr whole house water filter
WebSite : http://bit.ly/1bkZeYh NSA 300whr Whole House Water Filter is what many people looking for these days. Are you also one of them? Well, you've come to the right site today. Why? Because…

By: The KuOuch StOre

See the original post:
Buy nsa 300whr whole house water filter – Video

Ep. 49: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with David Kopel) – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Ep. 49: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with David Kopel) – Video
Mar 252015
 



Ep. 49: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with David Kopel)
David Kopel joins us this week for a discussion on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: the right to keep and bear firearms.Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus introduce the debate over…

By: bosco telu

The rest is here:
Ep. 49: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with David Kopel) – Video

AT THE CROSSROADS OF FREEDOM- MAX IGAN- PART1 – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on AT THE CROSSROADS OF FREEDOM- MAX IGAN- PART1 – Video
Mar 222015
 



AT THE CROSSROADS OF FREEDOM- MAX IGAN- PART1
http://www.kalki-movies.com/ PRESENTER AND PRODUCER MAX IGAN GIVES AN IMPORTANT INTERVIEW ON THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND ENQUIRY IN A WORLD INCREASING WITH …

By: KALKI MOVIES

Read the original here:
AT THE CROSSROADS OF FREEDOM- MAX IGAN- PART1 – Video

F*CK Artisitc Freedom, Right? #SaveTheCover – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on F*CK Artisitc Freedom, Right? #SaveTheCover – Video
Mar 182015
 



F*CK Artisitc Freedom, Right? #SaveTheCover
OPEN THIS FOR LINKS!! Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/FatedLime Friend me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FatedLime Follow my FB Page: …

By: Fated Lime

View post:
F*CK Artisitc Freedom, Right? #SaveTheCover – Video




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