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

The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the …
Jun 242016
 

In 1803 a distinguished Virginia jurist named St. George Tucker published the first extended analysis and commentary on the recently adopted U.S. Constitution. Though it is mostly forgotten today, Tucker’s View of the Constitution of the United States was a major work in its time. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, generations of lawyers and scholars would reach for Tucker’s View as a go-to constitutional law textbook.

I was reminded of Tucker’s dusty tome in recent days after reading one liberal pundit after another smugly assert that the original meaning of the Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, for example, denounced the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment as a “a hoax” peddled in recent years by the conniving National Rifle Association. Likewise, Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson complained that “the NRA’s politicking has warped the Constitution itself” by tricking the Supreme Court into “recast[ing] the Second Amendment as a guarantee of individual gun rights.”

Old St. George Tucker never encountered any “politicking” by the NRA. A veteran of the Revolutionary war and a one-time colleague of James Madison, Tucker watched in real time as Americans publicly debated whether or to ratify the Constitution, and then watched again as Americans debated whether or not to amend the Constitution by adopting the Bill of Rights. Afterwards Tucker sat down and wrote the country’s first major constitutional treatise. And as far Tucker was concerned, there was simply no doubt that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to arms. “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty,” Tucker wrote of the Second Amendment. “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature.”

The individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment was widely held during the founding era. How do we know this? Because the historical evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction. For example, consider the historical context in which the Second Amendment was first adopted.

When the Constitution was ratified in 1789 it lacked the Bill of Rights. Those first 10 amendments came along a few years later, added to the Constitution in response to objections made during ratification by the Anti-Federalists, who wanted to see some explicit protections added in order to safeguard key individual rights. As the pseudonymous Anti-Federalist pamphleteer “John DeWitt” put it, “the want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system, is a solid objection to it.”

Library of CongressJames Madison, the primary architect of the new Constitution, took seriously such Anti-Federalist objections. “The great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution],” Madison told Congress in 1789, “dislike it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights.” To remove such objections, Madison said, supporters of the Constitution should compromise and agree to include “such amendments in the constitution as will secure those rights, which [the Anti-Federalists] consider as not sufficiently guarded.” Madison then proposed the batch of amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights.

What “particular rights” did the Anti-Federalists consider to be “not sufficiently guarded” by the new Constitution? One right that the Anti-Federalists brought up again and again was the individual right to arms.

For example, Anti-Federalists at the New Hampshire ratification convention wanted it made clear that, “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to “be never construed…to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms.”

Meanwhile, in the Anti-Federalist stronghold of Pennsylvania, critics at that state’s ratification convention wanted the Constitution to declare, “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”

One of the central purposes of the Second Amendment was to mollify such concerns by enshrining the individual right to arms squarely within the text of the Constitution. Just as the First Amendment was added to address fears of government censorship, the Second Amendment was added to address fears about government bans on private gun ownership.

Like it or not, the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is as old as the Second Amendment itself.

Read more from the original source:
The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the …

 Posted by at 7:24 am  Tagged with:

Conservative vs Liberal – Difference and Comparison | Diffen

 Liberal  Comments Off on Conservative vs Liberal – Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Jun 212016
 

Social Issues

In terms of views on social issues, conservatives oppose gay marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Liberals on the other hand, are more left-leaning and generally supportive of the right of gay people to get married and women’s right to choose to have an abortion, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade.

With regard to the right to bear arms, conservatives support this right as it applies to all US citizens, whereas liberals oppose civilian gun ownership – or at the very least, demand that restrictions be places such as background checks on people who want to buy guns, requiring guns to be registered etc.

The different schools of economic thought found among conservatives and liberals are closely related to America’s anti-federalist and federalist history, with conservatives desiring little to no government intervention in economic affairs and liberals desiring greater regulation.

Economic conservatives believe that the private sector can provide most services more efficiently than the government can. They also believe that government regulation is bad for businesses, usually has unintended consequences, and should be minimal. With many conservatives believing in “trickle-down” economics, they favor a small government that collects fewer taxes and spends less.

In contrast, liberals believe many citizens rely on government services for healthcare, unemployment insurance, health and safety regulations, and so on. As such, liberals often favor a larger government that taxes more and spends more to provide services to its citizens.

See Also: Comparing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s Tax Plans

Some good examples of this policy split are the Environmental Protection Agency, which liberals think is vital and some conservatives want to abolish or scale down, and the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which liberals want to expand and conservatives believe should be partially or completely privatized through a voucher system connected to private health insurers.

In the early part of the twentieth century, liberals – especially those in Britain – were those who stood for laissez fair capitalism. In more recent times, however, the nomenclature seems to have reversed. The exception to this is found in Australia, where the mainstream conservative party is called the Liberal Party and the mainstream non-conservative party is called the Labour Party.

Political liberals believe that parties motivated by self-interest are willing to behave in ways that are harmful to society unless government is prepared- and empowered to constrain them. They believe regulation is necessitated when individuals-, corporations-, and industries demonstrate a willingness to pursue financial gain at an intolerable cost to society–and grow too powerful to be constrained by other social institutions. Liberals believe in systematic protections against hazardous workplaces, unsafe consumer products, and environmental pollution. They remain wary of the corruption- and historic abuses–particularly the oppression of political minorities–that have taken place in the absence of oversight for state- and local authorities. Liberals value educators and put their trust in science. They believe the public welfare is promoted by cultivating a widely-tolerant and -permissive society.

Political conservatives believe commercial regulation does more harm than good–unnecessarily usurping political freedoms, potentially stifling transformative innovations, and typically leading to further regulatory interference. They endorse the contraction of governmental involvement in non-commercial aspects of society as well, calling upon the private sector to assume their activities. Conservatives call for the devolution of powers to the states, and believe locally-tailored solutions are more appropriate to local circumstances. They promulgate individual responsibility, and believe a strong society is made up of citizens who can stand on their own. Conservatives value the armed forces and place their emphasis on faith. Conservatives believe in the importance of stability, and promote law and order to protect the status quo.

Liberals believe in universal access to health care–they believe personal health should be in no way dependent upon one’s financial resources, and support government intervention to sever that link. Political conservatives prefer no government sponsorship of health care; they prefer all industries to be private, favour deregulation of commerce, and advocate a reduced role for government in all aspects of society–they believe government should be in no way involved in one’s healthcare purchasing decisions.

Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, has examined the values of liberals and conservatives through paired moral attributes: harm/care, fairnesss/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity. He outlines the psychological differences in the following TED talk:

Haidt has also written a book, The Righteous Mind, based on his studies conducted over several years on liberal and conservative subjects. Nicholas Kristof, an avowed liberal, offered an unbiased review of the book and cited some interesting findings such as:

Liberals should not be confused with libertarians. Libertarians believe that the role of the government should be extremely limited, especially in the economic sphere. They believe that governments are prone to corruption and inefficiencies and that the private sector in a free market can achieve better outcomes than government bureaucracies, because they make better decisions on resource allocation. Liberals, on the other hand, favor more government involvement because they believe there are several areas where the private sector — especially if left unregulated — needs checks and balances to ensure consumer protection.

The primary focus of libertarians is the maximization of liberty for all citizens, regardless of race, class, or socio-economic position.

See original here:

Conservative vs Liberal – Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Space Exploration News — ScienceDaily

 Space Exploration  Comments Off on Space Exploration News — ScienceDaily
Jun 122016
 

June 9, 2016 Future manned missions to the Mars will rely heavily on training at sites here on Earth that serve as analogues to the red planet, such Utah’s Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), run by the … read more June 1, 2016 Using an “intuitive” approach, a new study confirms a recent hypothesis on the formation of galaxies, according to which the larger elliptical galaxies formed in very ancient times through … read more Studying Life on the Rocks May 31, 2016 Researchers have developed an apparatus to meet the growing need for measuring ice as it changes in response to external forces, a process ice scientists call ‘deformational … read more May 31, 2016 Astronomers show that it is highly likely that the so-called Planet 9 is an exoplanet. This would make it the first exoplanet to be discovered inside our own solar system. The theory is that our sun, … read more May 27, 2016 Ingredients crucial for the origin of life on Earth, including the simple amino acid glycine and phosphorus, key components of DNA and cell membranes, have been discovered at Comet … read more May 27, 2016 A distant ‘super-Earth’ size planet known as Kepler-62f could be habitable, a team of astronomers reports. The planet, which is about 1,200 light-years from Earth in the direction of the … read more May 26, 2016 In contradiction to the long-standing idea that larger planets take longer to form, astronomers have announced the discovery of a giant planet in close orbit around a star so young that it still … read more A Look Beyond the Horizon of Events May 26, 2016 Black holes are still very mysterious celestial bodies which, according to the majority of physicists, do not, however, escape the laws of thermodynamics. As a result, these physical systems possess … read more Decoding Light for Clues About Dark Matter May 29, 2016 An international team of researchers is developing an instrument that will decode the light of the night sky to understand the nature of dark … read more May 25, 2016 On Sept. 8, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft is scheduled to launch for terra incognita: the unknown surface of the near-Earth asteroid Bennu. Like expeditions of old, OSIRIS-REx’s mission … read more May 25, 2016 Fewer than predicted planets may be capable of harboring life because their atmospheres keep them too hot, new research … read more May 25, 2016 Researchers are offering a new explanation as to how cracks on icy moons, such as Pluto’s Charon, formed. Until now, it was thought that the cracks were the result of geodynamical processes, … read more May 24, 2016 An intriguing alternative view is that dark matter is made of black holes formed during the first second of our universe’s existence, known as primordial black holes. A scientist suggests that … read more May 24, 2016 Astrophysicists have taken a major step forward in understanding how supermassive black holes formed. Using data from Hubble and two other space telescopes, researchers have found the best evidence … read more May 24, 2016 Astronomers have detected for the first time the most luminous gamma-ray emission from the merging galaxy Arp 220 — the nearest ultraluminous infrared galaxy to Earth reveals the hidden extreme … read more May 23, 2016 Scientists have detected and confirmed the faintest early-universe galaxy ever, using the W. M. Keck Observatory on the summit on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. The team detected the galaxy as it was 13 … read more May 23, 2016 Scientists have discovered two geologically young craters — one 16 million, the other between 75 and 420 million, years old — in the Moon’s darkest … read more May 20, 2016 A team of National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported researchers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) discovered new evidence about how the Earth’s … read more May 19, 2016 On May 12, 2016, astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope captured this striking image of Mars, when the planet was 50 million miles from Earth. The photo reveals details as small as 20 … read more May 19, 2016 The origin of many of the most precious elements on the periodic table, such as gold, silver and platinum, has perplexed scientists for more than six decades. Recently, however, a team of … read more

Read the original post:

Space Exploration News — ScienceDaily

 Posted by at 12:40 am  Tagged with:

Harvard’s eugenics era | Harvard Magazine

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Harvard’s eugenics era | Harvard Magazine
Jun 062016
 

In August 1912, Harvard president emeritus Charles William Eliot addressed the Harvard Club of San Francisco on a subject close to his heart: racial purity. It was being threatened, he declared, by immigration. Eliot was not opposed to admitting new Americans, but he saw the mixture of racial groups it could bring about as a grave danger. Each nation should keep its stock pure, Eliot told his San Francisco audience. There should be no blending of races.

Eliots warning against mixing raceswhich for him included Irish Catholics marrying white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Jews marrying Gentiles, and blacks marrying whiteswas a central tenet of eugenics. The eugenics movement, which had begun in England and was rapidly spreading in the United States, insisted that human progress depended on promoting reproduction by the best people in the best combinations, and preventing the unworthy from having children.

The former Harvard president was an outspoken supporter of another major eugenic cause of his time: forced sterilization of people declared to be feebleminded, physically disabled, criminalistic, or otherwise flawed. In 1907, Indiana had enacted the nations first eugenic sterilization law. Four years later, in a paper on The Suppression of Moral Defectives, Eliot declared that Indianas law blazed the trail which all free states must follow, if they would protect themselves from moral degeneracy.

He also lent his considerable prestige to the campaign to build a global eugenics movement. He was a vice president of the First International Eugenics Congress, which met in London in 1912 to hear papers on racial suicide among Northern Europeans and similar topics. Two years later, Eliot helped organize the First National Conference on Race Betterment in Battle Creek, Michigan.

None of these actions created problems for Eliot at Harvard, for a simple reason: they were well within the intellectual mainstream at the University. Harvard administrators, faculty members, and alumni were at the forefront of American eugenicsfounding eugenics organizations, writing academic and popular eugenics articles, and lobbying government to enact eugenics laws. And for many years, scarcely any significant Harvard voices, if any at all, were raised against it.

Harvards role in the movement was in many ways not surprising. Eugenics attracted considerable support from progressives, reformers, and educated elites as a way of using science to make a better world. Harvard was hardly the only university that was home to prominent eugenicists. Stanfords first president, David Starr Jordan, and Yales most acclaimed economist, Irving Fisher, were leaders in the movement. The University of Virginia was a center of scientific racism, with professors like Robert Bennett Bean, author of such works of pseudo-science as the 1906 American Journal of Anatomy article, Some Racial Peculiarities of the Negro Brain.

But in part because of its overall prominence and influence on society, and in part because of its sheer enthusiasm, Harvard was more central to American eugenics than any other university. Harvard has, with some justification, been called the brain trust of twentieth-century eugenics, but the role it played is little remembered or remarked upon today.It is understandable that the University is not eager to recall its part in that tragically misguided intellectual movementbut it is a chapter too important to be forgotten.In part because of its overall prominence and influence on society, and in part because of its sheer enthusiasm, Harvard was more central to American eugenics than any other university.

Eugenics emerged in England in the late 1800s, when Francis Galton, a half cousin of Charles Darwin, began studying the families of some of historys greatest thinkers and concluded that genius was hereditary. Galton invented a new wordcombining the Greek for good and genesand launched a movement calling for society to take affirmative steps to promote the more suitable races or strains of blood. Echoing his famous half cousins work on evolution, Galton declared that what Nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly.

Eugenics soon made its way across the Atlantic, reinforced by the discoveries of Gregor Mendel and the new science of genetics. In the United States, it found some of its earliest support among the same group that Harvard had: the wealthy old families of Boston. The Boston Brahmins were strong believers in the power of their own bloodlines, and it was an easy leap for many of them to believe that society should work to make the nations gene pool as exalted as their own.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.A.B. 1829, M.D. 36, LL.D. 80, dean of Harvard Medical School, acclaimed writer, and father of the future Supreme Court justicewas one of the first American intellectuals to espouse eugenics. Holmes, whose ancestors had been at Harvard since John Oliver entered with the class of 1680, had been writing about human breeding even before Galton. He had coined the phrase Boston Brahmin in an 1861 book in which he described his social class as a physical and mental elite, identifiable by its noble physiognomy and aptitude for learning, which he insisted were congenital and hereditary.

Holmes believed eugenic principles could be used to address the nations social problems. In an 1875 article in The Atlantic Monthly, he gave Galton an early embrace, and argued that his ideas could help to explain the roots of criminal behavior. If genius and talent are inherited, as Mr. Galton has so conclusively shown, Holmes wrote, why should not deep-rooted moral defectsshow themselvesin the descendants of moral monsters?

As eugenics grew in popularity, it took hold at the highest levels of Harvard. A. Lawrence Lowell, who served as president from 1909 to 1933, was an active supporter. Lowell, who worked to impose a quota on Jewish students and to keep black students from living in the Yard, was particularly concerned about immigrationand he joined the eugenicists in calling for sharp limits. The need for homogeneity in a democracy, he insisted, justified laws resisting the influx of great numbers of a greatly different race.

Lowell also supported eugenics research. When the Eugenics Record Office, the nations leading eugenics research and propaganda organization, asked for access to Harvard records to study the physical and intellectual attributes of alumni fathers and sons, he readily agreed. Lowell had a strong personal interest in eugenics research, his secretary noted in response to the request.

The Harvard faculty contained some of nations most influential eugenics thinkers, in an array of academic disciplines. Frank W. Taussig, whose 1911 Principles of Economics was one of the most widely adopted economics textbooks of its time, called for sterilizing unworthy individuals, with a particular focus on the lower classes. The human race could be immensely improved in quality, and its capacity for happy living immensely increased, if those of poor physical and mental endowment were prevented from multiplying, he wrote. Certain types of criminals and paupers breed only their kind, and society has a right and a duty to protect its members from the repeated burden of maintaining and guarding such parasites.

Harvards geneticists gave important support to Galtons fledgling would-be science. Botanist Edward M. East, who taught at Harvards Bussey Institution, propounded a particularly racial version of eugenics. In his 1919 book Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Their Genetic and Sociological Significance, East warned that race mixing would diminish the white race, writing: Races have arisen which are as distinct in mental capacity as in physical traits. The simple fact, he said, was that the negro is inferior to the white.

East also sounded a biological alarm about the Jews, Italians, Asians, and other foreigners who were arriving in large numbers. The early settlers came from stock which had made notable contributions to civilization, he asserted, whereas the new immigrants were coming in increasing numbers from peoples who have impressed modern civilization but lightly. There was a distinct possibility, he warned, that a considerable part of these people are genetically undesirable.

In his 1923 book, Mankind at the Crossroads, Easts pleas became more emphatic. The nation, he said, was being overrun by the feebleminded, who were reproducing more rapidly than the general population. And we expect to restore the balance by expecting the latter to compete with them in the size of their families? East wrote. No! Eugenics is sorely needed; social progress without it is unthinkable.

Easts Bussey Institution colleague William Ernest Castle taught a course on Genetics and Eugenics, one of a number of eugenics courses across the University. He also published a leading textbook by the same name that shaped the views of a generation of students nationwide. Genetics and Eugenics not only identified its author as Professor of Zoology in Harvard University, but was published by Harvard University Press and bore the Veritas seal on its title page, lending the appearance of an imprimatur to his strongly stated views.

In Genetics and Eugenics, Castle explained that race mixing, whether in animals or humans, produced inferior offspring. He believed there were superior and inferior races, and that racial crossing benefited neither. From the viewpoint of a superior race there is nothing to be gained by crossing with an inferior race, he wrote. From the viewpoint of the inferior race also the cross is undesirable if the two races live side by side, because each race will despise individuals of mixed race and this will lead to endless friction.

Castle also propounded the eugenicists argument that crime, prostitution, and pauperism were largely due to feeblemindedness, which he said was inherited. He urged that the unfortunate individuals so afflicted be sterilized or, in the case of women, segregated in institutions during their reproductive years to prevent them from having children.

Like his colleague East, Castle was deeply concerned about the biological impact of immigration. In some parts of the country, he said, the good human stock was dying outand being replaced by a European peasant population. Would this new population be a fit substitute for the old Anglo-Saxon stock? Castles answer: Time alone will tell.

One of Harvards most prominent psychology professors was a eugenicist who pioneered the use of questionable intelligence testing. Robert M. Yerkes, A.B. 1898, Ph.D. 02, published an introductory psychology textbook in 1911 that included a chapter on Eugenics and Mental Life. In it, he explained that the cure for race deterioration is the selection of the fit as parents.

Yerkes, who taught courses with such titles as Educational Psychology, Heredity, and Eugenics and Mental Development in the Race, developed a now-infamous intelligence test that was administered to 1.75 million U.S. Army enlistees in 1917. The test purported to find that more than 47 percent of the white test-takers, and even more of the black ones, were feebleminded. Some of Yerkess questions were straightforward language and math problems, but others were more like tests of familiarity with the dominant culture: one asked, Christy Mathewson is famous as a: writer, artist, baseball player, comedian. The journalist Walter Lippmann, A.B. 1910, Litt.D. 44, said the results were not merely inaccurate, but nonsense, with no more scientific foundation than a hundred other fads, vitamins, or correspondence courses in will power. The 47 percent feebleminded claim was an absurd result unless, as Harvards late professor of geology Stephen Jay Gould put it, the United States was a nation of morons. But the Yerkes findings were widely accepted and helped fuel the drives to sterilize unfit Americans and keep out unworthy immigrants.The Yerkes findings were widely accepted and helped fuel the drives to sterilize unfit Americans and keep out unworthy immigrants.

Another eugenicist in a key position was William McDougall, who held the psychology professorship William James had formerly held. His 1920 book The Group Mind explained that the negro race had never produced any individuals of really high mental and moral endowments and was apparently incapable of doing so. His next book, Is America Safe for Democracy (1921), argued that civilizations declined because of the inadequacy of the qualities of the people who are the bearers of itand advocated eugenic sterilization.

Harvards embrace of eugenics extended to the athletic department. Dudley Allen Sargent, who arrived in 1879 to direct Hemenway Gymnasium, infused physical education at the College with eugenic principles, including his conviction that certain kinds of exercise were particularly important for female students because they built strong pelvic muscleswhich over time could advantage the gene pool. In giving birth to a childno amount of mental and moral education will ever take the place of a large well-developed pelvis with plenty of muscular and organic power behind it, Sargent stated. The presence of large female pelvises, he insisted, would determine whether large brainy children shall be born at all.

Sargent, who presided over Hemenway for 40 years, used his position as a bully pulpit. In 1914, he addressed the nations largest eugenic gathering, the Race Betterment Conference, in Michigan, at which one of the main speakers called for eugenic sterilization of the worthless one tenth of the nation. Sargent told the conference that, based on his long experience and careful observation of Harvard and Radcliffe students, physical educationis one of the most important factors in the betterment of the race.

If Harvards embrace of eugenics had somehow remained within University confinesas merely an intellectual school of thoughtthe impact might have been contained. But members of the community took their ideas about genetic superiority and biological engineering to Congress, to the courts, and to the public at largewith considerable effect.

In 1894, a group of alumni met in Boston to found an organization that took a eugenic approach to what they considered the greatest threat to the nation: immigration. Prescott Farnsworth Hall, Charles Warren, and Robert DeCourcy Ward were young scions of old New England families, all from the class of 1889. They called their organization the Immigration Restriction League, but genetic thinking was so central to their mission that Hall proposed calling it the Eugenic Immigration League. Joseph Lee, A.B. 1883, A.M.-J.D. 87, LL.D. 26, scion of a wealthy Boston banking family and twice elected a Harvard Overseer, was a major funder, and William DeWitt Hyde A. B. 1879, S.T.D. 86, another future Overseer and the president of Bowdoin College, served as a vice president. The membership rolls quickly filled with hundreds of people united in xenophobia, many of them Boston Brahmins and Harvard graduates.

Their goal was to keep out groups they regarded as biologically undesirable. Immigration was a race question, pure and simple, Ward said. It is fundamentally a question as towhat races shall dominate in the country. League members made no secret of whom they meant: Jews, Italians, Asians, and anyone else who did not share their northern European lineage.

Drawing on Harvard influence to pursue its goalsrecruiting alumni to establish branches in other parts of the country and boasting President Lowell himself as its vice presidentthe Immigration Restriction League was remarkably effective in its work. Its first major proposal was a literacy test, not only to reduce the total number of immigrants but also to lower the percentage from southern and eastern Europe, where literacy rates were lower. In 1896the league persuaded Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, A.B. 1871, LL.B. 74, Ph.D. 76, LL.D. 04, to introduce a literacy bill. Getting it passed and signed into law took time, but beginning in 1917, immigrants were legally required to prove their literacy to be admitted to the country.

The league scored a far bigger victory with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924. After hearing extensive expert testimony about the biological threat posed by immigrants, Congress imposed harsh national quotas designed to keep Jews, Italians, and Asians out. As the percentage of immigrants from northern Europe increased significantly, Jewish immigration fell from 190,000 in 1920 to 7,000 in 1926; Italian immigration fell nearly as sharply; and immigration from Asia was almost completely cut off until 1952.

While one group of alumni focused on inserting eugenics into immigration, another prominent alumnus was taking the lead of the broader movement. Charles Benedict Davenport, A.B. 1889, Ph.D. 92, taught zoology at Harvard before founding the Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, in 1910. Funded in large part by Mrs. E.H. Harriman, widow of the railroad magnate, the E.R.O. became a powerful force in promoting eugenics. It was the main gathering place for academics studying eugenics, and the driving force in promoting eugenic sterilization laws nationwide.Davenport explained that qualities like criminality and laziness were genetically determined.

Davenport wrote prolifically. Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, published in 1911,quickly became the standard text for the eugenics courses cropping up at colleges and universities nationwide, and was cited by more than one-third of high-school biology textbooks of the era. Davenport explained that qualities like criminality and laziness were genetically determined. When both parents are shiftless in some degree, he wrote, only about 15 percent of their children would be industrious.

But perhaps no Harvard eugenicist had more impact on the public consciousness than Lothrop Stoddard, A.B. 1905, Ph.D. 14. His bluntly titled 1920 bestseller, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, had 14 printings in its first three years, drew lavish praise from President Warren G. Harding, and made a mildly disguised appearance in The Great Gatsby, when Daisy Buchanans husband, Tom, exclaimed that civilizations going to piecessomething hed learned by reading The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard.

When eugenics reached a high-water mark in 1927, a pillar of the Harvard community once again played a critical role. In that year, the Supreme Court decided Buck v. Bell, a constitutional challenge to Virginias eugenic sterilization law. The case was brought on behalf of Carrie Buck, a young woman who had been designated feebleminded by the state and selected for eugenic sterilization. Buck was, in fact, not feebleminded at all. Growing up in poverty in Charlottesville, she had been taken in by a foster family and then raped by one of its relatives. She was declared feebleminded because she was pregnant out of wedlock, and she was chosen for sterilization because she was deemed to be feebleminded.

By an 8-1 vote, the justices upheld the Virginia law and Bucks sterilizationand cleared the way for sterilizations to continue in about half the country, where there were similar laws. The majority opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., A.B. 1861, LL.B. 66, LL.D. 95, a former Harvard Law School professor and Overseer. Holmes, who shared his fathers deep faith in bloodlines, did not merely give Virginia a green light: he urged the nation to get serious about eugenics and prevent large numbers of unfit Americans from reproducing. It was necessary to sterilize people who sap the strength of the State, Holmes insisted, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. His opinion included one of the most brutal aphorisms in American law, saying of Buck, her mother, and her perfectly normal infant daughter: Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

In the same week the Supreme Court decided Buck v. Bell, Harvard made eugenics news of its own. It turned down a $60,000 bequest from Dr. J. Ewing Mears, a Philadelphia surgeon, to fund instruction in eugenics in all its branches, notably that branch relating to the treatment of the defective and criminal classes by surgical procedures.

Harvards decision, reported on the front page of The New York Times, appeared to be a counterweight to the Supreme Courts ruling. But the Universitys decision had been motivated more by reluctance to be coerced into a particular position on sterilization than by any institutional opposition to eugenicswhich it continued to embrace.

Eugenics followed much the same arc at Harvard as it did in the nation at large. Interest began to wane in the 1930s, as the field became more closely associated with the Nazi government that had taken power in Germany. By the end of the decade, Davenport had retired and the E.R.O. had shut down; the Carnegie Institution, of which it was part, no longer wanted to support eugenics research and advocacy. As the nation went to war against a regime that embraced racism, eugenics increasingly came to be regarded as un-American.

It did not, however, entirely fade awayat the University, or nationally. Earnest Hooton, chairman of the anthropology department, was particularly outspoken in support of what he called a biological purge. In 1936, while the first German concentration camps were opening, he made a major plea for eugenic sterilizationthough he emphasized that it should not target any race or religion.

Hooton believed it was imperative for society to remove its worthless people. Our real purpose, he declared in a speech that was quoted in The New York Times, should be to segregate and to eliminate the unfit, worthless, degenerate and anti-social portion of each racial and ethnic strain in our population, so that we may utilize the substantial merits of its sound majority, and the special and diversified gifts of its superior members.Our real purposeshould be to segregate and to eliminate the unfit, worthless, degenerate and anti-social portion of each racial and ethnic strain in our population, so that we may utilize the substantial merits of its sound majority.

None of the news out of Germany after the war made Hooton abandon his views. There can be little doubt of the increase during the past fifty years of mental defectives, psychopaths, criminals, economic incompetents and the chronically diseased, he wrote in Redbook magazine in 1950. We owe this to the intervention of charity, welfare and medical science, and to the reckless breeding of the unfit.

The United States also held onto eugenics, if not as enthusiastically as it once did. In 1942, with the war against the Nazis raging, the Supreme Court had a chance to overturn Buck v. Bell and hold eugenic sterilization unconstitutional, but it did not. The court struck down an Oklahoma sterilization law, but on extremely narrow groundsleaving the rest of the nations eugenic sterilization laws intact. Only after the civil-rights revolution of the 1960s, and changes in popular views toward marginalized groups, did eugenic sterilization begin to decline more rapidly. But states continued to sterilize the unfit until 1981.

Today, the American eugenics movement is often thought of as an episode of national follylike 1920s dance marathons or Prohibitionwith little harm done. In fact, the harm it caused was enormous.

As many as 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized for eugenic reasons, while important members of the Harvard community cheered andas with Eliot, Lowell, and Holmescalled for more. Many of those 70,000 were simply poor, or had done something that a judge or social worker didnt like, oras in Carrie Bucks casehad terrible luck. Their lives were changed foreverBuck lost her daughter to illness and died childless in 1983, not understanding until her final years what the state had done to her, or why she had been unable to have more children.

Also affected were the many people kept out of the country by the eugenically inspired immigration laws of the 1920s. Among them were a large number of European Jews who desperately sought to escape the impending Holocaust. A few years ago, correspondence was discovered from 1941 in which Otto Frank pleaded with the U.S. State Department for visas for himself, his wife, and his daughters Margot and Anne. It is understood today that Anne Frank died because the Nazis considered her a member of an inferior race, but few appreciate that her death was also due, in part, to the fact that many in the U.S. Congress felt the same way.

There are important reasons for remembering, and further exploring, Harvards role in eugenics. Colleges and universities today are increasingly interrogating their paststhinking about what it means to have a Yale residential college named after John C. Calhoun, a Princeton school named after Woodrow Wilson, or slaveholder Isaac Royalls coat of arms on the Harvard Law School shield and his name on a professorship endowed by his will.

Eugenics is a part of Harvards history. It is unlikely that Eliot House or Lowell House will be renamed, but there might be a way for the University community to spare a thought for Carrie Buck and others who paid a high price for the harmful ideas that Harvard affiliates played a major role in propounding.

There are also forward-looking reasons to revisit this dark moment in the Universitys past. Biotechnical science has advanced to the brink of a new era of genetic possibilities. In the next few years, the headlines will be full of stories about gene-editing technology, genetic solutions for a variety of human afflictions and frailties, and even designer babies. Given that Harvard affiliates, again, will play a large role in all of these, it is important to contemplate how wrong so many people tied to the University got it the first timeand to think hard about how, this time, to get it right.

Read more here:
Harvard’s eugenics era | Harvard Magazine

 Posted by at 4:44 pm  Tagged with:

Second Amendment – lawbrain.com

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment – lawbrain.com
May 192016
 

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment, a provision of the U.S. Constitution, was ratified on December 15, 1791, forming what is known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution[1] reads:

The subject matter and unusual phrasing of this amendment led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have long been decided by the Supreme Court.

Firearms played an important part in the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.

In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that “a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.” After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that

The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a “right” of the people, whereas others called it a “duty” of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.

Pennsylvania was not alone in its express discouragement of a standing (professional) army. Many of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected standing armies, preferring instead the model of a citizen army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense. According to Framers such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason of Virginia a standing army was susceptible to tyrannical use by a power-hungry government.

At the first session of Congress in March 1789, the Second Amendment was submitted as a counterweight to the federal powers of Congress and the president. According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states. The Revolutionary War had, after all, been fought in large part by a citizen army against the standing armies of England.

The precise wording of the amendment was changed two times before the U.S. Senate finally cast it in its present form. As with many of the amendments, the exact wording proved critical to its interpretation.

In 1791 a majority of states ratified the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. In its final form, the amendment presented a challenge to interpreters. It was the only amendment with an opening clause that appeared to state its purpose. The amendment even had defective punctuation; the comma before shall seemed grammatically unnecessary.

Legal scholars do not agree about this comma. Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative words of the amendment are “[a] well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words of the sentence are “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Under this reading, the first part of the sentence is the rationale for the absolute, personal right of the people to own firearms. Indeed, the historical backdrophighlighted by a general disdain for professional armieswould seem to support this theory.

Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that “a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.”

Prior to the courts ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia[2], 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)(see infra), the Supreme Court had made the ultimate determination of the Constitution’s meaning, and it defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. This interpretation first came in United States v. Cruikshank,[3] 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875). In Cruikshank, approximately one hundred persons were tried jointly in a Louisiana federal court with felonies in connection with an April 13, 1873, assault on two AfricanAmerican men. One of the criminal counts charged that the mob intended to hinder the right of the two men to bear arms. The defendants were convicted by a jury, but the circuit court arrested the judgment, effectively overturning the verdict. In affirming that decision, the Supreme Court declared that “the second amendment means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”

In Presser v. Illinois,[4] 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886), Herman Presser was charged in Illinois state court with parading and drilling an unauthorized militia in the streets of Chicago in December 1879, in violation of certain sections of the Illinois Military Code. One of the sections in question prohibited the organization, drilling, operation, and parading of militias other than U.S. troops or the regular organized volunteer militia of the state. Presser was tried by the judge, convicted, and ordered to pay a fine of $10.

On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Presser argued, in part, that the charges violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court disagreed and upheld Presser’s conviction. The Court cited Cruikshank for the proposition that the Second Amendment means only that the federal government may not infringe on the right of states to form their own militias. This meant that the Illinois state law forbidding citizen militias was not unconstitutional. However, in its opinion, the Court in Presser delivered a reading of the Second Amendment that seemed to suggest an absolute right of persons to bear arms: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”

Despite this generous language, the Court refused to incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, states may not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities of citizens are listed in the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is part. Presser had argued that states may not, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge the right to bear arms. The Court refused to accept the argument that the right to bear arms is a personal right of the people. According to the Court, “The right to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship.”

The Presser opinion is best understood in its historical context. The Northern states and the federal government had just fought the Civil War against Southern militias unauthorized by the federal government. After this ordeal, the Supreme Court was in no mood to accept an expansive right to bear arms. At the same time, the Court was sensitive to the subject of federal encroachment on states’ rights.

Several decades later, the Supreme Court ignored the contradictory language in Presser and cemented a limited reading of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller,[5] 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939), defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged in federal court with unlawful transportation of firearms in violation of certain sections of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 (ch. 757, 48 Stat. 12361240 [26 U.S.C.A. 1132 et seq.]). Specifically, Miller and Layton had transported shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long, without the registration required under the act.

The district court dismissed the indictment, holding that the act violated the Second Amendment. The United States appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and sent the case back to the trial court. The Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment was fashioned “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia forces.”

The Miller opinion confirmed the restrictive language of Presser and solidified a narrow reading of the Second Amendment. According to the Court in Miller, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own a firearm unless the possession or use of the firearm has “a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”

However, in Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the Supreme Court reviewed a case where D.C. residents challenged an ordinace which banned the possession of handguns. The Supreme Court held that the constitution protects the right of individuals to possess a firearm.

The legislative measures that inspire most Second Amendment discussions are gun control laws. Since the mid-nineteenth century, state legislatures have been passing laws that infringe a perceived right to bear arms. Congress has also asserted the power to regulate firearms. No law regulating firearms has ever been struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Historically, the academic community has largely ignored the Second Amendment. However, gun control laws have turned many laypersons into scholars of the Second Amendment’s history. The arguments for a broader interpretation are many and varied. Most center on the original intent of the Framers. Some emphasize that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as granting an unconditional personal right to bear arms for defensive and sporting purposes. Others adhere to an insurrection theory, under which the Second Amendment not only grants the personal right to bear arms, it gives citizens the right to rebel against a government perceived as tyrannical.

In response to these arguments, supporters of the prevailing Second Amendment interpretation maintain that any right to bear arms should be secondary to concerns for public safety. They also point out that other provisions in the Constitution grant power to Congress to quell insurrections, thus contradicting the insurrection theory. Lastly, they argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with a changing society and that the destructive capability of semiautomatic and automatic firearms was not envisioned by the Framers.

In response to the last argument, critics maintain that because such firearms exist, it should be legal to use them against violent criminals who are themselves wielding such weapons.

In the 2000s, federal courts continue to revisit the scope and detail of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In particular federal courts have recast much of the debate as one over whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective” right or an “individual” right to bear arms. If the Second Amendment protects only a collective right, then only states would have the power to bring a legal action to enforce it and only for the purpose of maintaining a “well-regulated militia.” If the Second Amendment protects only an individual right to bear arms, then only individuals could bring suit to challenge gun-control laws that curb their liberty to buy, sell, own, or possess firearms and other guns.

Not surprisingly, courts are conflicted over how to resolve this debate. In United States v. Emerson,[6][7] 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the original intent of the Founding Fathers supported an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Nordyke v. King,[8] 319 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2003). Although no court has concluded that the original intent underlying the Second Amendment supports a claim for both an individual- and a collective rights based interpretation of the right to bear arms, the compelling historical arguments marshaled on both sides of the debate would suggest that another court faced with the same debate may reach such a conclusion.

Becker, Edward R. 1997. “The Second Amendment and Other Federal Constitutional Rights of the Private Militia.” Montana Law Review 58 (winter).

Bogus, Carl T., ed. 2000. The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms. New York: New Press.

Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. 1994. Guns in the United States. New York: Watts.

Dunlap, Charles J., Jr. 1995. “Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment.” Tennessee Law Review 62 (spring).

Hanson, Freya Ottem. 1998. The Second Amendment: The Right to Own Guns. Springfield, N.J.: Enslow.

Hook, Donald D. 1992. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Washington, D.C.: Second Amendment Foundation.

Hoppin, Jason. 2003. “Ninth Circuit Upholds Controversial Ruling on Second Amendment.” Legal Intelligencer (May 8).

. 2003. “Second Amendment Fight Steals Show in Gun Ban Case: Panel Enters Fray over Individual Rights.” San Francisco Recorder (February 19).

McAffee, Thomas B. 1997. “Constitutional Limits on Regulating Private Militia Groups.” Montana Law Review 58 (winter).

Failed to load RSS feed from http://search.yahooapis.com/WebSearchService/rss/webSearch.xml?appid=yahoosearchwebrss&query=second+amendment%20site:blogs.findlaw.com!

Read more here:
Second Amendment – lawbrain.com

Chincoteague Island – Virginia Is For Lovers

 Islands  Comments Off on Chincoteague Island – Virginia Is For Lovers
May 122016
 

Chincoteague Island, at the northeastern tip of Virginia’s Eastern Shore, is part of Accomack County. It’s known worldwide for wild ponies Marguerite Henry wrote about in the novel, “Misty of Chincoteague,” later made into a film.

Chincoteague Island, a tiny fishing town off Virginia’s Eastern Shore, is steps away from the Atlantic Ocean by bridge to Assateague Island. The famous Chincoteague ponies live in the Chincoteague National WildlifeRefuge on Assateague Island, easily reached by bike or car from town. The Chincoteague Refuge is Virginia’s entrance to an undeveloped 37-mile-long beach. The National Park Service and Refuge offer ranger-led programs seasonally. Spring and fall bird migrations are popular events but the biggest event for the area is held each July when the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Company’s Pony Swim and Auction brings scores of spectators to the island town. Saltwater cowboys have been rounding up ponies and swimming them across the channel from Assateague Island to Chincoteague Island for auction since 1926.

Visitors to Chincoteague love to dig clams, watch oystermen and compete in saltwater fishing tournaments for cash prizes. “Patriot Oysters,” so named when Abe Lincoln sent a Union ship to protect the island’s seafood trade, are a must when dining on the island. Water lovers enjoy kayaking, charter fishing and nature cruising. The Chamber hosts events year-round and a lively art scene plays out in galleries and at the restored Island Theatre. Next door on Wallops Island you can see rockets launched into space from the NASA Wallops Visitors Center.

With its variety of old-fashioned charms, Chincoteague has been called America’s #1 Beach Town; a “slam-dunk” for grandchildren and one of America’s best island towns.

Coastal Living Magazine voted Chincoteague Island “America’s Happiest Seaside Town”.

View original post here:
Chincoteague Island – Virginia Is For Lovers

Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming …

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming …
May 122016
 

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just been subpoenaed, as part of Al Gores Climate Witch hunt. This is a move which so blatantly reeks of McCarthyite abuse of power, even some proponents of climate action are horrified at the attack on freedom which this subpoena represents.

The following is the statement of the Competitive Enterprise Institute;

CEI Fights Subpoena to Silence Debate on Climate Change

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today denounced a subpoena from Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands that attempts to unearth a decade of the organizations materials and work on climate change policy. This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore.

CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group, said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. If Walker and his allies succeed, the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another, while scientific and policy debates are wiped out one subpoena at a time.

The subpoena requests a decades worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEIs work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.

On March 30, 2016, Attorney General Schneiderman, former Vice President Al Gore, and attorneys general from Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, as well as Attorney General Walker, held a press conference in New York City to announce an unprecedented coalition of top law enforcement officials committed to aggressively protecting and building upon the recent progress the United States has made in combating climate change. Schneiderman said that the group, calling itself AGs United for Clean Power, will address climate change by threatening criminal investigations and charges against companies, policy organizations, scientists, and others who disagree with its members climate policy agenda.

CEI has long been a champion of sound climate change policy, and opposed previous attempts to use McCarthy-style tactics by officials aiming to limit discussions between nonprofit policy groups and the private sector regarding federal policies. CEI is being represented in this matter by attorneys Andrew M. Grossman and David B. Rivkin, Jr., who recently founded the Free Speech in Science Project to defend First Amendment rights against government abuses.

Source: https://cei.org/content/cei-fights-subpoena-silence-debate-climate-change

The text of the subpoena is here.

Here is a response from Bloomberg, which frequently takes a pro climate action position;

Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, a decades worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEIs work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information.

My first reaction to this news was Um, wut? CEI has long denied humans role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. Its a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the laws the law.

(I pause to note, in the interests of full disclosure, that before we met, my husband briefly worked for CEI as a junior employee. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.)

Speaking of the law, why on earth is CEI getting subpoenaed? The attorney general, Claude Earl Walker, explains: We are committed to ensuring a fair and transparent market where consumers can make informed choices about what they buy and from whom. If ExxonMobil has tried to cloud their judgment, we are determined to hold the company accountable.

That wasnt much of an explanation. It doesnt mention any law that ExxonMobil may have broken. It is also borderline delusional, if Walker believes that ExxonMobils statements or non-statements about climate change during the period 1997 to 2007 appreciably affected consumer propensity to stop at a Mobil station, rather than tootling down the road to Shell or Chevron, or giving up their car in favor of walking to work.

Prosecutors know the damage they can do even when they dont have a leg to stand on. The threat of investigation can coerce settlements even in weak cases.

Read more: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming

In my opinion, this hysterical executive overreach will be the downfall of the climate alarmist movement in America, just as outrage at the excesses of the McCarthy era brought an end to that dark period of American history.

You dont have to be a climate skeptic, to recognise that an attack on freedom of speech, in whatever guise, is an attack on everything which America stands for.

More than anything, this authoritarian, un-American attempt to silence dissent betrays the weakness of those perpetrating this attack on the CEI. In a Republic, people who have a compelling case to offer, dont have to intimidate their political opponents into silence, to win the argument.

Like Loading…

.

More:
Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming …

Lynchburg, Virginia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Lynchburg, Virginia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apr 192016
 

Lynchburg is an independent city in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As of the 2010 census, the population was 75,568. The 2014 census estimates an increase to 79,047.[2] Located in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains along the banks of the James River, Lynchburg is known as the “City of Seven Hills” or the “Hill City”.[3] Lynchburg was the only major city in Virginia that was not captured by the Union before the end of the American Civil War.[4]

Lynchburg is the principal city of the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Lynchburg, near the geographic center of Virginia. It is the fifth largest MSA in Virginia with a population of 254,171[5] and hosts several institutions of higher education. Other nearby cities include Roanoke, Charlottesville, and Danville. Lynchburg’s sister cities are Rueil-Malmaison, France and Glauchau, Germany.

A part of Monacan country upon the arrival of English settlers in Virginia, the region had traditionally been occupied by them and other Siouan Tutelo-speaking tribes since ca. 1270, driving Virginia Algonquians eastward. Explorer John Lederer visited one of the Siouan villages (Saponi) in 1670, on the Staunton River at Otter Creek, southwest of the present-day city, as did Batts and Fallam in 1671. The Siouans occupied the area until c. 1702, when it was taken in conquest by the Seneca Iroquois. The Iroquois ceded control to the Colony of Virginia beginning in 1718, and formally at the Treaty of Albany in 1721.

First settled in 1757, Lynchburg was named for its founder, John Lynch, who at the age of 17 started a ferry service at a ford across the James River to carry traffic to and from New London. He was also responsible for Lynchburg’s first bridge across the river, which replaced the ferry in 1812. He and his mother are buried in the graveyard at the South River Friends Meetinghouse. The “City of Seven Hills” quickly developed along the hills surrounding Lynch’s Ferry. Thomas Jefferson maintained a home near Lynchburg, called Poplar Forest. Jefferson frequented Lynchburg and remarked “Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be useful to the town of Lynchburg. I consider it as the most interesting spot in the state.”

Lynchburg was established by charter in 1786 at the site of Lynch’s Ferry on the James River. These new easy means of transportation routed traffic through Lynchburg, and allowed it to become the new center of commerce for tobacco trading. In 1810, Jefferson wrote, “Lynchburg is perhaps the most rising place in the U.S…. It ranks now next to Richmond in importance…” Lynchburg became a center of commerce and manufacture in the 19th century, and by the 1850s, Lynchburg (along with New Bedford, Mass.) was one of the richest towns per capita in the U.S.[6] Chief industries were tobacco, iron and steel. Transportation facilities included the James River Bateau on the James River, and later, the James River and Kanawha Canal and, still later, four railroads, including the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad and the Norfolk and Petersburg Railroad.

Early on, Lynchburg was not known for its religiosity. In 1804, evangelist Lorenzo Dow wrote of Lynchburg “… where I spoke in the open air in what I conceived to be the seat of Satan’s Kingdom. Lynchburg was a deadly place for the worship of God.” This was in reference to the lack of churches in Lynchburg. As the wealth of Lynchburg grew, prostitution and other “rowdy” activities became quite common and, in many cases, ignored, if not accepted, by the “powers that be” of the time. Much of this activity took place in an area of downtown referred to as the “Buzzard’s Roost[citation needed].”

During the American Civil War, Lynchburg, which served as a Confederate supply base, was approached within 1-mile (1.6km) by the Union forces of General David Hunter as he drove south from the Shenandoah Valley. Under the false impression that the Confederate forces stationed in Lynchburg were much larger than anticipated, Hunter was repelled by the forces of Confederate General Jubal Early on June 18, 1864, in the Battle of Lynchburg. To create the false impression, a train was continuously run up and down the tracks while the citizens of Lynchburg cheered as if reinforcements were unloading. Local prostitutes took part in the deception, misinforming their Union clients of the large number of Confederate reinforcements.

From April 610, 1865, Lynchburg served as the Capital of Virginia. Under Governor William Smith, the executive and legislative branches of the commonwealth escaped to Lynchburg with the fall of Richmond. Then Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, roughly 20 miles east of Lynchburg, ending the Civil War.

In the latter 19th century, Lynchburg’s economy evolved into manufacturing (sometimes referred to as the “Pittsburgh of the South”) and, per capita, made the city one of the wealthiest in the United States. In 1880, Lynchburg resident James Albert Bonsack invented the first cigarette rolling machine. Shortly thereafter Dr. Charles Browne Fleet, a physician and pharmacological tinkerer, introduced the first mass marketed over-the-counter enema. About this time, Lynchburg was also the preferred site for the Norfolk & Western junction with the Shenandoah Valley Railroad. However, the citizens of Lynchburg did not want the junction due to the noise and pollution it would create. Therefore, it was located in what would become the City of Roanoke.

In the late 1950s, a number of interested citizens, including Virginia Senator Mosby G. Perrow, Jr., requested the federal government to change its long-planned route for the interstate highway now known as I-64 between Clifton Forge and Richmond.[7] Since the 1940s, maps of the federal interstate highway system depicted that highway taking a northern route, with no interstate highway running through Lynchburg, but the federal government assured Virginia that the highway’s route would be decided by the state.[8] A proposed southern route called for the Interstate to follow from Richmond via US-360 and US-460, via Lynchburg to Roanoke and US-220 from Roanoke to Clifton Forge, then west following US-60 into West Virginia. Although the State Highway Commission’s minutes reflected its initial approval of the northern route, the issue remained in play,[9] proponents of the southern route ultimately succeeded in persuading a majority of Virginia Highway Commissioners to support the change after a study championed by Perrow demonstrated that it would serve a greater percentage of the state’s manufacturing and textile centers. But in July 1961 Governor Lindsay Almond and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Luther Hodges announced that the route would not be changed.[10] This left Lynchburg as the only city with a population in excess of 50,000 (at the time) not served by an interstate.[11]

For several decades throughout the mid-20th century, the state of Virginia authorized compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded for the purpose of eugenics. The operations were carried out at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, now known as the Central Virginia Training School, located just outside Lynchburg in Madison Heights. An estimated 8,300 Virginians were sterilized and relocated to Lynchburg, known as a “dumping ground” of sorts for the feeble-minded, poor, blind, epileptic, and those otherwise seen as genetically “unfit”.[12]

Sterilizations were carried out for 35 years until 1972, when operations were finally halted. Later in the late 1970s, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit against the state of Virginia on behalf of the sterilization victims. As a result of this suit, the victims received formal apologies and counseling if they chose. Requests to grant the victims reverse sterilization operations were denied.

Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, was sterilized after being classified as “feeble-minded”, as part of the state’s eugenics program while she was a patient at the Lynchburg Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded.

The story of Carrie Buck’s sterilization and the court case was made into a television drama in 1994, Against Her Will: The Carrie Buck Story.

“Virginia State Epileptic Colony,” a song by the Manic Street Preachers on their 2009 album ‘Journal For Plague Lovers,’ addresses the state’s program of eugenics.

Downtown Lynchburg has seen a significant amount of revitalization since 2002 with hundreds of new loft apartments created through adaptive reuse of historic warehouses and mills. Since 2000, there has been more than $110 million in private investment in downtown and business activity increased by 205% from 2004 – 2014.[13] In 2014, 75 new apartments were added to downtown with 155 further units under construction increasing the number of housing units downtown by 48% from 2010 – 2014.[14] In 2015, the $5.8 million Lower Bluffwalk pedestrian street zone opened to the public in downtown which has seen a significant amount of residential and commercial development around the zone in recent years.[15] Notable projects underway in downtown by the end of 2015 include the $25 million Hilton Curio branded Virginian Hotel restoration project, $16.6 million restoration of the Academy Center of the Arts, and $4.6 million expansion of Amazement Square Children’s Museum. [16][17][18][19]

Over 40 sites in Lynchburg are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[20]

Lynchburg is located at 372413N 791012W / 37.40361N 79.17000W / 37.40361; -79.17000 (37.403672, 79.170205).

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 49.6 square miles (128.5km2), of which 49.2 square miles (127.4km2) is land and 0.5 square miles (1.3km2) (1.0%) is water.[21]

Lynchburg has a four-season humid subtropical climate (Kppen Cfa), with cool winters and hot, humid summers. The monthly daily average temperature ranges from 35.1F (1.7C) in January to 75.3F (24.1C) in July. Nights tend to be significantly cooler than days throughout much of the year due in part to the moderate elevation. In a typical year, there are 26 days with a high temperature 90F (32C) or above, and 7.5 days with a high of 32F (0C) or below.[22] Snowfall averages 12.9 inches (33cm) per season but this amount varies highly with each winter; the snowiest winter is 199596 with 56.8in (144cm) of snow, but the following winter recorded only trace amounts, the least on record.[23]

Temperature extremes range from 106F (41C), recorded on July 10, 1936, down to 11F (24C), recorded on February 20, 2015.[22] However, several decades may pass between 100F (38C) and 0F (18C) readings, with the last such occurrences being July 8, 2012 and February 20, 2015, respectively.[22]

As of the 2010 census,[31] there were 75,568 people, 25,477 households, and 31,992 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,321.5 people per square mile (510.2/km). There were 27,640 housing units at an average density of 559.6 per square mile (216.1/km). The racial makeup of the city was 63.0% White, 29.3% African American, 0.2% Native American, 2.5% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.63% from other races, and 1.7% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.0% of the population.

There were 25,477 households out of which 27.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 41.6% were married couples living together, 16.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 38.8% were non-families. 32.7% of all households were made up of individuals and 12.9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 2.92.

The age distribution of the city had: 22.1% under the age of 18, 15.5% from 18 to 24, 25.3% from 25 to 44, 20.8% from 45 to 64, and 16.3% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 35 years. For every 100 females there were 84.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 79.1 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $32,234, and the median income for a family was $40,844. Males had a median income of $31,390 versus $22,431 for females. The per capita income for the city was $18,263. About 12.3% of families and 15.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 22.4% of those under age 18 and 10.7% of those age 65 or over.

Lynchburg ranks below the 2006 median annual household income for the U.S. as a whole, which was $48,200, according to the US Census Bureau.[32]

The city’s population was stable for 25+ years: in 2006, it was 67,720; in 2000, it was 65,269; in 1990, it was 66,049; in 1980, it was 66,743.[33]

In 2009 almost 27% of Lynchburg children lived in poverty. The state average that year was 14 percent.[34]

Lynchburg features a skilled labor force, low unemployment rate,[35] and below average cost of living. Of Virginia’s larger metro areas, Forbes Magazine ranked Lynchburg the 5th best place in Virginia for business in 2006, with Virginia being the best state in the country for business.[36] Only 6 places in Virginia were surveyed and most of Virginia’s cities were grouped together by Forbes as “Northern Virginia”. Lynchburg achieved the rank 109 in the whole nation in the same survey.

Industries within the Lynchburg MSA include nuclear technology, pharmaceuticals and material handling. A diversity of small businesses with the region has helped maintain a stable economy and minimized the downturns of the national economy.[37][38] Reaching as high as 1st place (tied) in 2007, Lynchburg has been within the Top 10 Digital Cities survey for its population since the survey’s inception in 2004.

The Lynchburg News & Advance reports that while more people are working than ever in greater Lynchburg, wages since 1990 have not kept up with inflation. Central Virginia Labor Council President Walter Fore believes this is due to lack of white-collar jobs. According to the Census Bureau, adjusted for inflation, 1990 median household income was about $39,000 compared to 2009 median household income of $42,740. As of 2009 Forbes has named Lynchburg as the 70th best metro area for business and careers, ahead of Chicago and behind Baton Rouge. The reason for the decent ranking was due to the low cost of living and low wages in Lynchburg. In other areas, the region didn’t come in as strong. It ranked at 189 for cultural and leisure and at 164 for educational attainment.[39]

Virginia Business Magazine reports that Young Professionals in Lynchburg recently conducted a study that clearly showed how much of its young workforce has been lost.[40]

According to Lynchburg’s 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,[41] the top private employers in the city are:

The city is served by the Lynchburg City Public Schools. The school board is appointed by the Lynchburg City Council.

The city is also home to a number of mostly religious private schools, including Holy Cross Regional Catholic School, James River Day School, Liberty Christian Academy, New Covenant Classical Christian School, Appomattox Christian Academy, Temple Christian School, and Virginia Episcopal School.

Lynchburg is also home to the Central Virginia Governor’s School for Science and Technology located in Heritage High School. This magnet school consists of juniors and seniors selected from each of the Lynchburg area high schools. As one of eighteen Governor’s Schools in Virginia, the Central Virginia Governor’s School focuses on infusing technology into both the math and science curriculum.

Further education options include a number of surrounding county public school systems.

Colleges and universities in Lynchburg include Central Virginia Community College, Liberty University, Lynchburg College, Randolph College, Sweet Briar College, and Virginia University of Lynchburg.

The Greater Lynchburg Transit Company (GLTC) operates the local public transport bus service within the city. The GLTC additionally provides the shuttle bus service on the Liberty University campus.

The GLTC has selected a property directly across from Lynchburg-Kemper Street Station as its top choice of sites upon which to build the new transfer center for their network of public buses. They are interested in facilitating intermodal connections between GLTC buses and the intercity bus and rail services which operate from that location. The project is awaiting final government approval and funding, and is expected to be completed around 2013.[42]

Intercity passenger rail and bus services are based out of Kemper Street Station, a historic, three-story train station recently restored and converted by the city of Lynchburg to serve as an intermodal hub for the community. The station is located at 825 Kemper Street.[43]

Greyhound Lines located their bus terminal in the main floor of Kemper Street Station following its 2002 restoration.[43] Greyhound offers transport to other cities throughout Virginia, the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Amtrak’s long distance Crescent and a Northeast Regional connect Lynchburg with Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans and intermediate points.

In October 2009, Lynchburg became the southern terminus for a Northeast Regional that previously had overnighted in Washington. The forecast ridership was 51,000 for the 180-mile extension’s first year, but the actual count was triple that estimate, and the train paid for itself without any subsidy.[44] By FY 2015, the Regional had 190,000 riders. The Lynchburg station alone served a total of 85,000 riders in 2015. It is located in the track level ground floor of Kemper Street Station.[45]

Lynchburg has two major freight railroads. It is the crossroads of two Norfolk Southern lines. One is the former mainline of the Southern Railway, upon which Kemper Street Station is situated. NS has a classification yard located next to the shopping mall. Various yard jobs can be seen. Railfans who wish to visit the NS Lynchburg yard are advised to inquire with an NS official. CSX Transportation also has a line through the city and a small yard.

Lynchburg Regional Airport is solely served by American Eagle to Charlotte. American Eagle, a subsidiary of American Airlines, is the only current scheduled airline service provider, with seven daily arrivals and departures. In recent years air travel has increased with 157,517 passengers flying in and out of the airport in 2012, representing 78% of the total aircraft load factor for that time period.

Primary roadways include U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 501, U.S. Route 221, running north-south, and U.S. Highway 460, running east-west. While not served by an interstate, much of Route 29 has been upgraded to interstate standards and significant improvements have been made to Highway 460.

In a Forbes magazine survey, Lynchburg ranked 189 for cultural and leisure out of 200 cities surveyed.[39]

The following attractions are located within the Lynchburg MSA:

Lynchburg is home to sporting events and organizations including:

The first neighborhoods of Lynchburg developed upon seven hills adjacent to the original ferry landing. These neighborhoods include:

Other major neighborhoods include Boonsboro, Rivermont, Fairview Heights, Fort Hill, Forest Hill (Old Forest Rd. Area), Timberlake, Windsor Hills, Sandusky, Linkhorne, and Wyndhurst.

Notable residents of Lynchburg include:

Follow this link:
Lynchburg, Virginia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 7:44 am  Tagged with:

Patri Friedman – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Seasteading  Comments Off on Patri Friedman – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mar 272016
 

Patri Friedman

Patri Friedman of the Seasteading Institute in Helsinki on 13 May 2011.

Patri Friedman (born July 29, 1976 in Blacksburg, Virginia) is an American libertarian activist and theorist of political economy.[2] He founded the nonprofit Seasteading Institute, which explores the creation of sovereign ocean colonies.[3][4][5]

Friedman grew up in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a graduate of Upper Merion Area High School, class of 1994, where he went by the name Patri Forwalter-Friedman. He was named after Patri J. Pugliese, a close friend of his parents.[6] He graduated from Harvey Mudd College in 1998, and worked as a software engineer at Google.[7][8] As a poker player, he cashed in the World Series of Poker four times.[9]

Friedman was executive director of the Seasteading Institute, founded on April 15, 2008, with a half-million-dollar donation by PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel.[10] The Institute’s mission is “to establish permanent, autonomous ocean communities to enable experimentation and innovation with diverse social, political, and legal systems”.[11][12] This was initially a part-time project one day a week while working as a Google engineer the rest of the time[7] but Friedman left Google on July 29, 2008 to spend more time on seasteading.[13] He and partner Wayne Gramlich hoped to float the first prototype seastead in the San Francisco Bay by 2010.[14][15] At the October 2010 Seasteading social, it was announced that current plans were to launch a seastead by 2014.[16]

Since attending the Burning Man festival in 2000, Friedman imagined creating a water festival called Ephemerisle as a Seasteading experiment and Temporary Autonomous Zone. Through the Seasteading Institute, Friedman was able to start the Ephemerisle festival in 2009, aided by TSI’s James Hogan as event organizer and Chicken John Rinaldi as chief builder. The first Ephemerisle is chronicled in a documentary by Jason Sussberg.[17] Since 2010, the event has been annual and community-run.

On 31 July 2011, Friedman stepped down from the position as Executive Director of Seasteading Institute, but remained chairman of the board.[18] Later, he co-founded the Future Cities Development Corporation, a project to establish a self-governing charter city within the borders of Honduras.[19][20]

In 2012 it was announced the initiative would be halted due to the changing political climate of Honduras.[21]

During his poker career, Patri Freidman was predicted to become a world champion by Card Player Magazine.[22] He claims to have created AI bots for online poker.[23]

Patri is the grandson of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman[24] and economist Rose Friedman and son of economist and physicist David D. Friedman.[24][25] He is divorced and has two children. As of December 2015, he is engaged.[26]

Excerpt from:

Patri Friedman – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brian Holtz

 Extropianism  Comments Off on Brian Holtz
Mar 232016
 

Created 1996-04 Species Confidential – For Human Use Only Updated 2007-04-25 Brian Holtz At Work In April 2002 I joined Yahoo! to work on Yahoo! Personals, the leader in on-line matchmaking. Before Yahoo I was with Sun Microsystems for eleven years. On my last project at Sun Microsystems I led a team that built a document and folder synchronization service between the SunONE Webtop and clients for PalmOS and Java. From 1996 to 1999 my team added to the Solaris desktop new features like PC Launcher, Java media player, address mgr, process mgr, and file finder. From 1993 to 1996 I designed the integration of ToolTalk into CDE (the Sun/HP/IBM standard Unix desktop). From 1990 to 1993 I helped develop ToolTalk: Sun’s C++-based cross-platform middleware for IPC among persistent distributed objects. In The Past I received an M.S. from the University of Michigan in 1990 and a B.S. from the University of Southern Mississippi HonorsCollege in 1987. I graduated from Ocean Springs High School in 1983 after we settled there in 1978 to complete my father’s career as an anesthetist in the Air Force. Before that we lived in Japan, Arkansas, Ohio, Canada, Michigan, Washington, and Texas (where I was born in 1965). My ancestors were German and Irish farmers who immigrated to northeastern Iowa in the middle of the 19th century. We are of species sapiens, genus Homo, family Hominidae, superfamily Hominoidea, infraorder Catarrhini, order Primates, subclass Eutheria, class Mammalia, superclass Vertebrata, subphylum Craniata, phylum Chordata, kingdom Metazoa, domain Eukaryotae, bioclade Ribonucleica. In Thought These are some of the questions addressed in my book: My book asserts a synthesis of metaphysical naturalism, ontological materialism, epistemological empiricism and positivism, mental functionalism, theological atheism, axiological extropianism, political libertarianism, economic capitalism, constitutional federalism, biological evolutionism, evolutionary psychology, and technological optimism.

The writers that have influenced and persuaded me most are Robert Nozick, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Milton Friedman, Julian Simon, Jared Diamond, Desmond Morris, and George Gilder. Influential — but not necessarily as persuasive — have been Carl Sagan, Mortimer Adler, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, Henry George, and Arthur Clarke. Lately I’ve been reading and admiring the work of Robin Hanson, Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, David Friedman, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, Richard Carrier, Steven Pinker, Richard Posner, Virginia Postrel, and Brad DeLong.

Here is a library of interesting documents and images I’ve collected on the web.

At CSMIL in grad school, Dan O’Leary, Martin Sonntag and I designed and implemented a groupware editor called ShrEdit, which later inspired Sun’s CoEd ToolTalk demo.

Read more here:

Brian Holtz

 Posted by at 10:44 pm  Tagged with:

Freedom, PA – Freedom, Pennsylvania Map & Directions – MapQuest

 Freedom  Comments Off on Freedom, PA – Freedom, Pennsylvania Map & Directions – MapQuest
Mar 212016
 

Freedom is a borough in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, United States, along the Ohio River 25 miles (40km) northwest of Pittsburgh. In the early years of the twentieth century, the chief industries were the production of oil, caskets, and monuments. In 1900, 1,783 people lived in Freedom; in 1910, 3,060 people lived there. The population was 1,763 at the 2000 census. In 1824, the Harmony Society returned to Pennsylvania, from Indiana. The society settled in what is now Ambridge, Pennsylvania, five miles (8km) up the Ohio River. One of the reasons the society left Indiana was because of harassment for their abolitionist activities. Their settlement was in Beaver County along the Ohio River. There they founded “konomie,” now better known as Old Economy Village. Here the Society gained worldwide recognition for its religious devotion and economic prosperity. The Harmonites were abolitionists, and began placing signs along the Ohio River with one word, “FREEDOM”. The Harmonites selected this location because the river curves at this point. The river is actually flowing North, so runaway slaves from the South would be traveling up the river. The FREEDOM sign on the river bank was to let runaway slaves know that they had reached freedom (and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). If the runaway slaves were still in Illinois, Indiana, or Ohio, then slave hunters from Kentucky or Virginia could legally cross the river and capture them. Once in Pennsylvania, the slaves were free.

Continued here:
Freedom, PA – Freedom, Pennsylvania Map & Directions – MapQuest

First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikiquote

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikiquote
Mar 192016
 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, relating to the rights to free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition, and free exercise of religion, was enacted as part of the Bill of Rights, its ratification occuring on December 15, 1791 with the support of the Virginia Legislature.

The First Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

Reasonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religion Clauses in a given case. But the goal of the Clauses is clear: to carry out the Founders plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. […] Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

Link:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikiquote

Waldorf, Maryland – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Beaches  Comments Off on Waldorf, Maryland – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 142016
 

Waldorf is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Charles County, Maryland, United States. It is 23 miles (37km) south-southeast of Washington, D.C. The population of the census-designated area (now including the large planned community of St. Charles) was 67,752 at the 2010 census.[1] Waldorf was settled before 1900 as a rural crossroads with a train station and was called “Beantown” after a local family.

Waldorf’s original name was Beantown. During his post assassination flight, John Wilkes Booth told a road sentry he was headed to his home in Charles County near Beantown and was allowed to proceed.[2] In 1880, the General Assembly of Maryland by an act changed the name to “Waldorf” in honor of William Waldorf Astor (18481919), the great-grandson of John Jacob Astor (17631848), who was born in Walldorf, Palatinate, Germany.[3] On July 29, 1908, the city of Plumb Valley in Waseca County, Minnesota, changed its name to Waldorf after Waldorf, Maryland.[4]

Once a tobacco market village, Waldorf came to prominence in the 1950s as a gambling destination after slot machines were legalized in Charles County in 1949. The boom lasted until 1968 when gambling was once again outlawed.[5] Its subsequent substantial growth as a residential community began with a 1970 loan package from the Department of Housing and Urban Development which fueled the giant planned community of St. Charles, south of Waldorf.

St. Catharine, or the Dr. Samuel A. Mudd House, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974.[6]

Waldorf is predominantly a bedroom community for many residents who commute to work at other points in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, especially personnel at Andrews Air Force Base. Waldorf’s local jobs are primarily in the service and sales industry. Nearby St. Charles Towne Center, a 2-story shopping mall, opened in 1988[7] and was remodeled in 2007. St. Charles Towne Center draws shoppers and diners from several Maryland counties, Washington, and parts of Virginia, causing Charles County to be promoted as the “shopping capital of Southern Maryland.”[citation needed]U.S. Route 301, the main highway through the town, boasts the “Waldorf Motor Mile,”[citation needed] with car dealerships located primarily along the northbound side. In 2005, Waldorf opened its third public high school (North Point High School),[8] which has advanced science/technology programs; the Capital Clubhouse 24-hour indoor sports complex and ice rink also opened that year.[9] A fourth public high school opened in 2014 called St. Charles High School.[10] Thomas Stone and Westlake High Schools are also located in Waldorf. Waldorf has a branch of the College of Southern Maryland. In 2006, plans were announced to build two more shopping centers, including one with high-end stores and an attractive “lifestyle” town center design layout.[citation needed] Ground was also broken to build an office park with mid-rise office buildings at the intersection of Western Parkway and Route 228 (Berry Road); the Residence Inn opened there in 2010, and another new hotel has opened across the road.[citation needed] The Southern Maryland Blue Crabs baseball team is also in Waldorf.

Waldorf is located at 383846N 765354W / 38.64611N 76.89833W / 38.64611; -76.89833 (38.646173, -76.898217).[11]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 36.5 square miles (94.5km2), of which 36.2 square miles (93.8km2) is land and 0.27 square miles (0.7km2), or 0.72%, is water.[12]

Most of Waldorf is flat, particularly the eastern part of the city. There are small hills to the west, and much of the southern and eastern parts of the city are wetlands, featuring very diverse wildlife in ponds and streams. Waldorf is forested, mostly with oak and pine trees.

Even though Waldorf is a rapidly developing urbanized area, the community is surrounded by farms. These farms include:

Tobacco, once a dominant crop in Southern Maryland, has nearly disappeared as a crop grown by farmers, since most area farmers accepted buy-outs during the 1990s from the Maryland state government.

Waldorf’s neighbors are as follows: Prince George’s County (north), Bennsville (west), La Plata (south). On the east, from north to south there are Cedarville State Forest, Malcolm and Bryantown.

The climate in this area is characterized by hot, humid summers and generally mild to cool winters. According to the Kppen Climate Classification system, Waldorf has a humid subtropical climate, abbreviated “Cfa” on climate maps.[18]

As of the census[20] of 2000, there were 22,312 people, 7,603 households, and 5,991 families residing in the CDP. In the CDP, the population density was 1,746.0 people per square mile (674.1/km). There were 7,827 housing units at an average density of 612.5 per square mile (236.5/km). The racial makeup of the CDP was 61.11% White, 31.98% African American, 0.54% Native American, 2.59% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.88% from other races, and 2.88% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.91% of the population.

There were 7,603 households out of which 45.5% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 58.6% were married couples living together, 15.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 21.2% were non-families. 14.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 2.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.93 and the average family size was 3.24.

In the CDP the population was spread out with 30.6% under the age of 18, 7.5% from 18 to 24, 36.4% from 25 to 44, 20.7% from 45 to 64, and 4.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33 years. For every 100 females there were 94.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.8 males.

The median income for a household in the CDP was $68,869, and the median income for a family was $71,439 (these figures had risen to $86,901 and $94,432 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[21]). Males had a median income of $45,293 versus $35,386 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $24,728. About 2.7% of families and 4.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.4% of those under age 18 and 2.2% of those age 65 or over.

The major routes in Waldorf are:

The Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge on Route 301 provides a road connection from Waldorf to Virginia. Although the bridge is outmoded and narrow (2-lane), it is nevertheless used by some long-distance East Coast through-motorists as a travel alternative to Interstate 95/495 which often has major traffic backups (see Woodrow Wilson Bridge). In the years to come, due to traffic concerns, a bypass may be built through either western or eastern Waldorf, or the highway may continue on the same route through Waldorf with overpasses.[citation needed] This will give an interstate feel to the Waldorf area and ultimately take away traffic congestion to the north-south routes in Waldorf.

Public transportation is provided by Van-Go, a bus system administered by Charles County for most of the county, including Waldorf, and interconnecting to nearby St.Mary’s County Transit System buses.[22]MTA Maryland has four commuter routes (901, 903, 905, and 907, all operated by Dillons Transportation except the 903 which is serviced by Keller Transportation) that takes commuters to and from downtown Washington, D.C., and ridership is rapidly growing.[citation needed] Waldorf has seven park & ride lots served by MTA Maryland routes: two at St. Charles Towne Center, one at St. Charles Towne Plaza, one at Smallwood Drive and US 301, one on Mattawoman Beantown Road, one at Smallwood Village Center, and one at Regency Furniture Stadium.

Vehicular traffic in Waldorf is usually congested, and the state is still evaluating options for a U.S. Route 301 bypass around western Waldorf. Through Virginia and Maryland, US 301 along with U.S. Route 17 are used as alternate routes from I-95, due to I-95 vehicular traffic congestion.[citation needed] Due to Waldorf’s bedroom community nature and lack of any significant hometown industry, its highways can become very congested in the morning commutes north to Washington, and also on Friday through Sunday in every direction due to shoppers, many of them visiting from other counties. Much of the congestion is seen at the intersection of Route 228 and 301 and Community Drive, on Berry Road going westward to Western Parkway, near St. Patrick’s Drive, on Mall Circle surrounding St. Charles Towne Center, and on Smallwood Drive near the neighborhood of Carrington. Most vehicular traffic is in the southern areas of Waldorf.

Read more:
Waldorf, Maryland – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 10:44 pm  Tagged with:

History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University

 Eugenics  Comments Off on History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University
Jan 112016
 

In the same era, the idea of Social Darwinism became popular and was used to explain these social inequalities. Social Darwinism utilizes the concept of natural selection from Charles Darwin and applies it to society. Social Darwinism explains survival of the fittest in terms of the capability of an individual to survive within a competitive environment. This explains social inequalities by explaining that the wealthy are better individuals and therefore better suited to survive in the uncertain economy. In terms of survival of the fittest the wealthy are more likely to survive and produce more offspring than the poor.

Early Eugenicists

Eugenicists believed genetics were the cause of problems for the human gene pool. Eugenics stated that society already had paid enough to support these degenerates and the use of sterilization would save money. The eugenicists used quantitative facts to produce scientific evidence. They believed that charity and welfare only treated the symptoms, eugenic sought to eliminate the disease. The following traits were seen as degenerative to the human gene pool to which the eugenicists were determined to eliminate: poverty, feeble-mindedness-including manic depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, rebelliousness, criminality, nomadness, prostitution.

Before eugenics became internationally recognized in WWII, it was a very popular movement in the United States. In fact the American Eugenics Society set up pavilions and “Fitter Families Contest” to popularize eugenics at state fairs. The average family advocated for the utilization of eugenics while educational systems embraced eugenics, which was presented as science fact by the majority biology texts. In fact, eugenics became so popular that eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported study in 1911, to report the best practical means for eliminating defective genes in the Human Population. Although the eighth of the 18 solutions was euthanasia, the researchers believed it was too early to implement this solution. The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a lethal chamber, or gas chamber. Instead, the main solution was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as increased marriage restrictions. However, not everybody was in favor of eugenics, Punnett at the first international congress for Eugenics in 1911 stated, Except in very few cases, our knowledge of heredity in man at present is far to slight and far too uncertain to base legislation upon.

Sterilization and Marriage Laws

Although in 1942 the Supreme Court made a law allowing the involuntary sterilization of criminals, it never reversed the general concept of eugenic sterilization. In 2001, the Virginia General Assembly acknowledged that the sterilization law was based on faulty science and expressed its “profound regret over the Commonwealth’s role in the eugenics movement in this country and over the damage done in the name of eugenics. On May 2, 2002 a marker was erected to honor Carrie Buck in her hometown of Charlottesville.

This information was taken from http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/

This information was taken from http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a371ea64170ce.html and http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp

Visit link:
History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University

 Posted by at 7:46 am  Tagged with:

Beaches Resorts, Beaches Hotels, Beaches All-Inclusive …

 Beaches  Comments Off on Beaches Resorts, Beaches Hotels, Beaches All-Inclusive …
Dec 302015
 

Select Airport Abbotsford, BC (YXX) Aberdeen, SD (ABR) Abilene, TX (ABI ) Akron/Canton, OH (CAK) Akutan, AK (KQA) Alamogordo, MN (ALM) Alamosa, CO (ALS) Albany, GA (ABY) Albany, NY (ALB) Albuquerque, NM (ABQ) Alexandria, LA (AEX) Allentown, PA (ABE) Alliance, NE (AIA) Alpena, MI (APN) Altoona, PA (AOO) Amarillo, TX (AMA) Ambler, AK (ABL) Anchorage, AK (ANC) Aniak, AK (ANI) Appleton, WI (ATW) Asheville, NC (AVL) Aspen, CO (ASE) Athens, GA (AHN) Atlanta, GA (ATL) Atlantic City, NJ (ACY) Augusta, GA (AGS) Augusta, ME (AUG) Austin, TX (AUS) Bagotville, QC (YBG) Baie Comeau, QC (YBC) Bakersfield, CA (BFL) Baltimore, MD (BWI) Bangor, ME (BGR) Bar Harbor, ME (BHB) Barrow, AK (BRW) Bathurst, NB (ZBF) Baton Rouge, LA (BTR) Battle Creek, MI (BTL) Bay City, MI (MBS) Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX (BPT) Beaver Creek, CO (ZBV) Beckley, WV (BKW) Bedford, MA (BED) Bellingham, WA (BLI) Bemidji, MN (BJI) Benton Harbour, MI (BEH) Bethel, AK (BET) Bettles, AK (BTT) Big Lake, AK (BGQ) Billings, MT (BIL) Binghamton, NY (BGM) Birmingham, AL (BHM) Bismarck, ND (BIS) Bloomington, IL (BMI) Bluefield, WV (BLF) Boise, ID (BOI) Boston, MA (BOS) Boulder Hiltons Har H, CO (WHH) Boulder, CO (WBU) Bozeman, MT (BZN) Bradford, PA (BFD) Brainerd, MN (BRD) Branson, MO (BKG) Breckenridge, CO (QKB) Bridgeport, CT (BDR) Brookings, SD (BKX) Brownsville, TX (BRO) Brownwood, TX (BWD) Brunswick, GA (BQK) Buckland, AK (BKC) Buffalo, NY (BUF) Burbank, CA (BUR) Burlington, IA (BRL) Burlington, VT (BTV) Butte, MT (BTM) Calgary, AB (YYC) Campbell River, BC (YBL) Cape Girardeau, MO (CGI) Carlsbad, CA (CLD) Carlsbad, NM (CNM) Casper, WY (CPR) Castlegar, BC (YCG) Cedar City, UT (CDC) Cedar Rapids, IA (CID) Chadron, NE (CDR) Champaign/Urbana, IL (CMI) Charleston, SC (CHS) Charleston, WV (CRW) Charlotte, NC (CLT) Charlottesville, VA (CHO) Charlottetown, PE (YYG) Chattanooga, TN (CHA) Chevak, AK (VAK) Cheyenne, WY (CYS) Chibougamau, QC (YMT) Chicago Midway, IL (MDW) Chicago O’Hare, IL (ORD) Chico, CA (CIC) Cincinnati, OH (CVG) Clarksburg, WV (CKB) Clearwater, FL (CLW) Cleveland, OH (CLE) Clovis, NM (CVN) Cody/Yellowstone, WY (COD) Cold Bay, AK (CDB) College Station,TX (CLL) Colorado Springs, CO (COS) Columbia, MO (COU) Columbia, SC (CAE) Columbus AFB, MS (CBM) Columbus Rickenbacker, OH (LCK) Columbus, GA (CSG) Columbus, MS (GTR) Columbus, OH (CMH) Comox, BC (YQQ) Copper Mountain, CO (QCE) Cordova, AK (CDV) Corpus Christi, TX (CRP) Cortez, CO (CEZ) Corvallis, OR (CVO) Craig, AK (CGA) Cranbrook, BC (YXC) Crescent City, CA (CEC) Crested Butte, CO (CSE) Cumberland, MD (CBE) Dallas Love Field, TX (DAL) Dallas/Fort Worth, TX (DFW) Danville, Virginia (DAN) Dayton, OH (DAY) Daytona Beach, FL (DAB) Decatur, IL (DEC) Deer Lake, NL (YDF) Del Rio, TX (DRT) Delta Junction, AK (DJN) Denver, CO (DEN) Des Moines, IA (DSM) Detroit Metro, MI (DTW) Devils Lake, ND (DVL) Dickinson, ND (DIK) Dillingham, AK (DLG) Dodge City, KS (DDC) Dothan, AL (DHN) Dubois, PA (DUJ) Dubuque, IA (DBQ) Duluth, MN (DLH) Durango, CO (DRO) Dutch Harbor, AK (DUT) Eastsound, WA (ESD) Eau Claire, WI (EAU) Edmonton, AB (YEG) El Centro, CA (NJK) El Dorado, AR (ELD) El Paso, TX (ELP) Elko, NV (EKO) Ellington Field, TX (EFD) Elmira, NY (ELM) Ely, MN (LYU) Ely, NV (ELY) Emporia, KS (EMP) Enig, OK (WDG) Erie, PA (ERI) Escanaba, MI (ESC) Eugene, OR (EUG) Eureka Acarta, CA (ACV) Eureka Murray, CA (EKA) Evansville, IN (EVV) Fairbanks (Eielson), AK (EIL) Fairbanks, AK (FAI) Fairmont, MN (FRM) Fargo, ND (FAR) Farmington, NM (FMN) Fayetteville Drake, AR (FYV) Fayetteville, AR (XNA) Fayetteville, NC (FAY) Flagstaff, AZ (FLG) Flint, MI (FNT) Florence, SC (FLO) Franklin, PA (FKL) Fredericton, NB (YFC) Fresno, CA (FAT) Friday Harbour, Wasington (FRD) Ft. Collins, CO (QWF) Ft. Collins/Loveland, CO (FNL) Ft. Dodge, Iowa (FOD) Ft. Huachuca/Sierra Vista, AZ (FHU) Ft. Lauderdale, FL (FLL) Ft. Leonard Wood, MO (TBN) Ft. McMurray, AB (YMM) Ft. Myers, FL (RSW) Ft. Richardson, AK (FRN) Ft. Smith, AR (FSM) Ft. St. John, BC (YXJ) Ft. Walton Beach, FL (VPS) Ft. Wayne, IN (FWA) Gainesville, FL (GNV) Gallup, NM (GUP) Gander, NF (YQX) Garden City, KS (GCK) Gary, IN (GYY) Gaspe, QC (YGP) Gillette, WY (GCC) Glasgow, MT (GGW) Glendive, MT (GDV) Goodland, KS (GLD) Goose Bay, NF (YYR) Grand Canyon, AZ (GCN) Grand Forks, ND (GFK) Grand Island, NE (GRI) Grand Junction, CO (GJT) Grand Rapids, MI (GRR) Grand Rapids, MN (GPZ) Grande Prairie, AB (YQU) Great Bend, KS (GBD) Great Falls, MT (GTF) Green Bay, WI (GRB) Greenbrier, WV (LWB) Greensboro, NC (GSO) Greenville, MS (GLH) Greenville, NC (PGV) Greenville, SC (GSP) Gulfport/Biloxi, MS (GPT) Gunnison, CO (GUC) Gustavus, AK (GST) Hagerstown, MD (HGR) Haines, AK (HNS) Halifax, NS (YHZ) Hana Maui, HI (HNM) Hancock, MI (CMX) Harlingen, TX (HRL) Harrisburg, PA (MDT) Harrison, AZ (HRO) Hartford, CT (BDL) Havre, MT (HVR) Hays, KS (HYS) Helena, MT (HLN) Hibbings, MN (HIB) Hickory, NC (HKY) Hilo, HI (ITO) Hilton Head Island, SC (HHH) Hobbs, NM (HOB) Hollis, AK (HYL) Homer, AK (HOM) Honolulu, HI (HNL) Hoonah, AK (HNH) Hooper Bay, AK (HPB) Hot Springs, AR (HOT) Houston Hobby, TX (HOU) Houston Intercontinental, TX (IAH) Huntington, WV (HTS) Huntsville (Redstone), AL (HUA) Huntsville, AL (HSV) Huron, SD (HON) Huslia, AK (HSL) Hyannis, MA (HYA) Idaho Falls, ID (IDA) Iles-de-la Madeleine, QC (YGR) Iliamna, AK (ILI) Imperial, CA (IPL) Indianapolis, IN (IND) International Falls, MN (INL) Inykern, CA (IYK) Iron Mountain, MI (IMT) Ironwood, MI (IWD) Islip, NY (ISP) Ithaca, NY (ITH) Jackson Hole, WY (JAC) Jackson, MS (JAN) Jackson, TN (MKL) Jacksonville, FL (JAX) Jacksonville, NC (OAJ) Jamestown, ND (JMS) Jamestown, NY (JHW) Johnstown, PA (JST) Joliet, IL (JOT) Jonesboro, AR (JBR) Joplin, MO (JLN) Juneau, AK (JNU) Kake, AK (KAE) Kalamazoo, MI (AZO) Kalaupapa, HI (LUP) Kalispell/Glacier, MT (FCA) Kaltag, AK (KAL) Kamloops, BC (YKA) Kamuela, HI (MUE) Kansas City Municipal, MO (MKC) Kansas City, MO (MCI) Kapalua West, HI (JHM) Kearney, NE (EAR) Keene, NH (EEN) Kelowna, BC (YLW) Kenai, AK (ENA) Ketchikan, AK (KTN) Key West, FL (EYW) Keystone, CO (QKS) Killeen, TX (GRK) Killeen, TX (ILE) King Salomon, AK (AKN) Kingman, AZ (IGM) Kingston, ON (YGK) Kinston, NC (ISO) Kirksville, MO (IRK) Kitchener/Waterloo, ON (YKF) Kivalina, AK (KVL) Klamath Falls, OR (LMT) Knoxville, TN (TYS) Kodiak, AK (ADQ) Koliganek, AK (KGK) Kona, HI (KOA) Kotzbue, AK (OTZ) Koyukuk, AK (KYU) Kwethluk, AK (KWT) La Crosse, WI (LSE) Lafayette, IN (LAF) Lafayette, LA (LFT) Lake Charles, LA (LCH) Lake Havasu City, AZ (HII) Lake Tahoe, CA (TVL) Lanai, HI (LNY) Lancaster, PA (LNS) Lansing, MI (LAN) Laramie, WY (LAR) Laredo, TX (LRD) Las Cruces International, NM (LRU) Las Vegas North, NV (VGT) Las Vegas, NV (LAS) Latrobe, PA (LBE) Laughlin/Bullhead International, AZ (IFP) Laurel, MS (PIB) Lawton, OK (LAW) Lebanon, NH (LEB) Lethbridge, AB (YQL) Levelock, AK (KLL) Lewiston, ID (LWS) Lewiston, MT (LWT) Lexington, KY (LEX) Liberal, KS (LBL) Lihue, HI (LIH) Lincoln, NE (LNK) Little Rock, AR (LIT) London, ON (YXU) Long Beach, CA (LGB) Longview, TX (GGG) Lopez Island, WA (LPS) Los Angeles, CA (LAX) Louisville, KY (SDF) Lubbock, TX (LBB) Lynchburg, VA (LYH) Macon, GA (MCN) Madison, WI (MSN) Mammoth, CA (MMH) Manchester, NH (MHT) Manhattan, KS (MHK) Manistee, MI (MBL) Mankato, MN (MKT) Manteo, NC (MEO) Marathon, FL (MTH) Marion, IL (MWA) Marquette, MI (MQT) Marshall, NJ (MML) Martha’s Vineyard, MA (MVY) Mason City, IA (MCW) Massea/ Richards, NY (MSS) Maui, HI (OGG) McAllen, TX (MFE) McCook, NE (MCK) McGarth, AK (MCG) Medford, OR (MFR) Medicine Hat, AB (YXH) Melbourne, FL (MLB) Memphis, TN (MEM) Merced, CA (MCE) Meridian, MS (MEI) Metlakatla, AK (MTM) Miami Seaplane, FL (MPB) Miami, FL (MIA) Midland/Odessa, TX (MAF) Miles City, MT (MLS) Milwaukee, WI (MKE) Minneapolis, MN (MSP) Minot, ND (MOT) Missoula, MT (MSO) Moab, UT (CNY) Mobile, AL (MOB) Modesto, CA (MOD) Moline, IL (MLI) Molokai, HI (MKK) Moncton, NB (YQM) Monroe, LA (MLU) Mont Joli, QC (YYY) Mont Tremblant, QC (YTM) Monterey, CA (MRY) Montgomery, AL (MGM) Monticello, NY (MSV) Montreal, QC (YUL) Montrose/Delta, CO (MTJ) Morgantown, WV (MGW) Morristown, NJ (MMU) Moses Lake Larson AFB, WA (LRN) Moses Lake, WA (MWH) Mount Holly, NJ (LLY) Mountain Home, AR (WMH) Muscle Shoals, AL (MSL) Muskegon, MI (MKG) Myrtle Beach, SC (MYR) Nanaimo, BC (YCD) Nantucket, MA (ACK) Naples, FL (APF) Nashville, TN (BNA) New Bedford, MA (EWB) New Bern, NC (EWN) New Haven, CT (HVN) New London, CT (GON) New Orleans, LA (MSY) New York Kennedy, NY (JFK) New York LaGuardia, NY (LGA) Newark, NJ (EWR) Newport News,VA (PHF) Newport, OR (ONP) Newport, RI (NPT) Nome, AK (OME) Norfolk, NE (OFK) Norfolk, VA (ORF) North Bay, ON (YYB) North Bend, OR (OTH) North Platte, NE (LBF) Norwood, MA (OWD) Nulato, AK (NUL) Oak Harbor, WA (ODW) Oakland, CA (OAK) Ogden Municipal, UT Ogdensburg, NY (OGS) Oklahoma City, OK (OKC) Olympia, WA (OLM) Omaha, NE (OMA) Ontario, CA (ONT) Orange County, CA (SNA) Orlando Metropolitan, FL (ORL) Orlando, FL (MCO) Oshkosh, WI (OSH) Ottawa, ON (YOW) Ottumwa, IA (OTM) Owensboro, KY (OWB) Oxnard, CA (OXR) Paducah/Barkley, KY (PAH) Page Municipal, AZ (PGA) Palm Beach, FL (PBI) Palm Springs, CA (PSP) Palmdale, CA (PMD) Palmer, AK (PAQ) Panama City (County), FL (PFN) Panama City, FL (ECP) Parkersburg, WV (PKB) Pasco, WA (PSC) Pelican, AK (PEC) Pellston, MI (PLN) Pendleton, OR (PDT) Pensacola, FL (PNS) Penticton, BC (YYF) Peoria, IL (PIA) Perryville, AK (KPV) Petersburg, AK (PSG) Philadelphia, PA (PHL) Phoenix, AZ (PHX) Phoenix-Mesa Gateway (AZA) Pierre, SD (PIR) Pilot Point, AK (PIP) Pilot Point/Ugashnik Bay, AK (UGB) Pilot Station, AK (PQS) Pinehurst, NC (SOP) Pittsburgh, PA (PIT) Platinum, AK (PTU) Plattsburgh Intl, NY (PBG) Plattsburgh, NY (PLB) Pocatello, ID (PIH) Point Baker, AK (KPB) Point Hope, AK (PHO) Point Lay, AK (PIZ) Ponca City, OK (PNC) Port Alsworth, AK (PTA) Port Angeles, WA (CLM) Port Clarence, AK (KPC) Port Moller, AK (PML) Portland, ME (PWM) Portland, OR (PDX) Portsmouth, NH (PSM) Poughkeepsie, NY (POU) Prescott, AZ (PRC) Presque Isle, ME (PQI) Prince George, BC (YXS) Prince Rupert, BC (YPR) Princeton, NJ (PCT) Providence, RI (PVD) Provincetown, MA (PVC) Prudhoe Bay, AK (PUO) Prudhoe Bay, AK (SCC) Pueblo, CO (PUB) Pullman, WA (PUW) Purgatory, CO (ZPU) Quebec, QC (YQB) Quesnel, BC (YQZ) Quincy, IL (UIN) Raleigh-Durham, NC (RDU) Rampart, AK (RMP) Rapid City, SD (RAP) Reading, PA (RDG) Red Devil, AK (RDV) Redding, CA (RDD) Redmond, OR (RDM) Regina, SK (YQR) Reno, NV (RNO) Rhinelander, WI (RHI) Richmond, VA (RIC) Riverton, WY (RIW) Roanoke, VA (ROA) Roberval, QC (YRJ) Roche Harbor, WA (RCE) Rochester Municipal, MN (JRC) Rochester, MN (RST) Rochester, NY (ROC) Rock Springs, WY (RKS) Rockford, IL (RFD) Rockford, IL (ZRF) Rockland, ME (RKD) Rocky Mount, NC (RWI) Rosario, WA (RSJ) Roswell, NM (ROW) Rouyn, QC (YUY) Rutland, VT (RUT) Sacramento, CA (SMF) Salem, OR (SLE) Salina, KS (SLN) Salisbury, MD (SBY) Salt Lake City, UT (SLC) San Angelo, TX (SJT) San Antonio, TX (SAT) San Diego, CA (SAN) San Francisco, CA (SFO) San Jose, CA (SJC) San Juan, PR (SJU) San Luis Obispo County, CA (SBP) San Luis Obispo, CA (CSL) Sand Point, AK (SDP) Sandspit, BC (YZP) Sanford, FL (SFB) Santa Barbara, CA (SBA) Santa Fe, NM (SAF) Santa Maria, CA (SMX) Santa Monica, CA (SMO) Santa Rosa, CA (STS) Saranac Lake, NY (SLK) Sarasota, FL (SRQ) Sarnia, ON (YZR) Saskatoon, SK (YXE) Sault Ste Marie, MI (CIU) Sault Ste-Marie, ON (YAM) Saulte Ste. Marie (SSM) Savannah, GA (SAV) Scottsbluff, NE (BFF) Scottsdale, AZ (SCF) Scranton, PA (SCR) Seattle, WA (SEA) Seldovia, AK (SOV) Sept-Iles, QC (YZV) Seward, AK (SWD) Sheridan, WY (SHR) Show Low, AZ (SOW) Shreveport, LA (SHV) Sidney, MT (SDY) Silver City, NM (SVC) Sioux City, IA (SUX) Sioux Falls, SD (FSD) Sitka, AK (SIT) Skagway, AK (SGY) Smithers, BC (YYD) Soldotna, AK (SXQ) South Bend, IN (SBN) Sparta, IL (SAR) Spencer, IA (SPW) Spokane, WA (GEG) Springfield, IL (SPI) Springfield, MO (SGF) St. Cloud, MN (STC) St. George, UT (SGU) St. John, NB (YSJ) St. Johns, NF (YYT) St. Louis, MO (STL) St. Mary’s, AK (KSM) St. Michael, AK (SMK) St. Paul, AK (SNP) St. Petersburg, FL (PIE) State College, PA (SCE) Staunton, VA (SHD) Steamboat Springs, CO (SBS) Stebbins, AK (WBB) Stevens Village, AK (SUS) Stewart International, NY (SWF) Stockton, CA (SCK) Sudbury, ON (YSB) Sun Valley, ID (SUN) Sydney, NS (YQY) Syracuse, NY (SYR) Talkeetna, AK (TKA) Tallahassee, FL (TLH) Tampa, FL (TPA) Taos, NM (TSM) Tatitlek, AK (TEK) Telluride, CO (TEX) Terrace, BC (YXT) Terre Haute, IN (HUF) Teterboro, NJ (TEB) Texarkana, AR (TXK) Thief River Falls, MN (TVF) Thunder Bay, ON (YQT) Timmins, ON (YTS) Tin City, AK (TNC) Togiak, AK (TOG) Tok, AK (TKJ) Toksook, AK (OOK) Toledo, OH (TOL) Topeka, KS (FOE) Topp, AK (TOP) Toronto Metropolitan Area, ON (YTO) Toronto Pearson International, ON (YYZ) Traverse City, MI (TVC) Trenton, NJ (TTN) Tri-City Airport, TN (TRI) Tucson, AZ (TUS) Tulsa, OK (TUL) Tuluksak, AK (TLT) Tununak, AK (TNK) Tupelo, MS (TUP) Tuscaloosa, AL (TCL) Twin Falls, ID (TWF) Tyler, TX (TYR) Unalakleet, AK (UNK) Utica, NY (UCA) Vail/Eagle, CO (EGE) Val D’Or, QC (YVO) Valdez, AK (VDZ) Valdosta, GA (VLD) Vancouver, BC (YVR) Venetic, AK (VEE) Vernal, UT (VEL) Vero Beach, FL (VRB) Victoria, BC (YYJ) Victoria, TX (VCT) Visalia, CA (VIS) Wabush, NL (YWK) Waco, TX (ACT) Wainwright, AK (AIN) Walla Walla, WA (ALW) Washington Dulles, DC(IAD) Washington National, DC (DCA) Wasilla, AK (WWA) Waterfall, AK (KWF) Waterloo, IA (ALO) Watertown, NY (ART) Watertown, SD (ATY) Wausau, WI (AUW) Wausau/Stvns Pnt, WI (CWA) Wenatchee, WA (EAT) Westerly, RI (WST) Westsound, WA (WSX) White Mountain, AK (WMO) White Plains, NY (HPN) Whitehorse, YT (YXY) Wichita Falls, TX (SPS) Wichita, KS (ICT) Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, PA (AVP) Williams Lake, BC (YWL) Williamsport, PA (IPT) Williston, ND (ISN) Willow, AK (WOW) Wilmington, NC (ILM) Wilmington/New Castle, DE (ILG) Windsor, ON (YQG) Winnipeg, MB (YWG) Winston/Salem, NC (INT) Wolf Point, MT (OLF) Worcester, MA (ORH) Worland, WY (WRL) Wrangell, AK (WRG) Yakima, WA (YKM) Yakutat, AK (YAK) Yampa Valley, CO (HDN) Yankton, SD (YKN) Yellowstone, MT (WYS) Yosemite, CA (YOS) Youngstown, OH (YNG) Yuma, AZ (YUM)

The perfect getaway awaits you at Beaches resorts in Turks & Caicos and Jamaica. More than just all-inclusive, Beaches Resorts offers a Luxury Included Vacation experience with paramount quality inclusions. Beaches Resorts includes all the fun, adventure, and luxury that guests want most, elevating the vacation experience to world-class standards on the Caribbean’s best beaches.

At Beaches, the best of everything is includedluxurious accommodations, gourmet dining at up to 16 restaurants per resort, anytime snacks, premium brand drinks including Beringer Wines, daily and nightly entertainment, supervised kids camps, teen and tween programs, unlimited play Xbox 360 Play Lounges with new Kinect systems, Pirates Island waterparks with waterslides and lazy rivers, character activities with Elmo and Friends with Beaches’ exclusive Caribbean Adventure with Sesame Street, an endless array of land and water sports, including tennis, sailing, snorkeling and even scuba diving, full-service Red Lane Spas with services and treatments inspired by the region, state-of-the-art fitness centers, airport transfers, gratuities and much more! Beaches is part of the Sandals company of all-inclusive resorts.

Click any Beaches hotel or resort name below for more information or an online quote.

The rest is here:
Beaches Resorts, Beaches Hotels, Beaches All-Inclusive …

 Posted by at 12:41 am  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: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

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:

ARTICLE THE SECOND

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. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm, 16 January 2000.

2. Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_scom.htm, 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. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg, 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. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/billofrt.jpg, 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. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/f16b1234.jpg, 17 February 2000.

15. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm, 18 February 2000.

16. Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html, 2 February 2000.

17. Statutes at Large 1845, 21.

18. Second Amendment–Bearing Arms. The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html, 18 February 2000.

19. Text of the Amendments (Literal Print). The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/conamt.html, 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:

Ocean Beaches Near Pennsylvania | eHow

 Beaches  Comments Off on Ocean Beaches Near Pennsylvania | eHow
Oct 162015
 

Follow

Pennsylvania and ocean beaches might not seem to go together, but the Keystone State has had a long and happy association with the New Jersey Shore and its beaches. Throughout much of the last century special trains traveled from Philadelphia to the Jersey Shore, mainly to the Atlantic City area. Today, the Atlantic City Expressway and Highways 55 and 49 link Pennsylvania residents to south Jersey Shore beaches. Other beach going opportunities are in Maryland and Delaware.

Atlantic City, New Jersey, is the traditional beach destination for people from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The coast is easily accessible and has miles of beaches surrounding its famous Boardwalk. Brigantine, north of the city, offers six miles of beaches that are much less crowded. Ocean City and Margate, to the south, has both Atlantic and inlet beaches. Lifeguards are on hand at many beaches and some areas allow surfing. Fishing is permitted on all non-bathing beaches, either from the beach or from the many piers and jetties along the shore.

South of Atlantic City are miles and miles of beach, with relatively few towns along the way. Wildwood and Cape May, at the extreme southern tip of New Jersey, are the best-known communities, but Sea Isle City and Avalon are also nearby. Cape May is famous for its bird-watching. Beach-side motels and cabins are scattered throughout the area. This region is readily accessible from Pennsylvania, mainly from Highways 55 and 49.

The area north of Atlantic City offers miles of beaches reaching up to Asbury Park and Long Branch. This includes such places as Island Beach State Park, Long Beach Island and communities like Spring Lake and Belmar. The latter two locales have many luxurious homes. Asbury Park and nearby communities offer a noted beach and recreational area with many entertainment options beyond sand and sun.

Maryland and Delaware also offer ocean beach options for Pennsylvanians. Delaware beaches stretch from the mouth of Delaware Bay near Dover and south to the famous barrier islands like Chincoteague. The barrier islands south of Ocean City are government protected areas. They have no highways, communities or tourist facilities. Both Delaware and Maryland have beaches along Chesapeake Bay. The region north of Washington D.C. is densely populated but the southern extremes are less crowded.

Looking for a nude beach in Pennsylvania? Here are some helpful tips. Discover the expert in you. home; mom; style; food; tech…

How to Find a Nude Beach in Pennsylvania. Looking for a nude beach in Pennsylvania? Here are some helpful tips. Things to…

… Lake Erie borders the province of Ontario in Canada and the four states of New York, Pennsylvania, … at Virginia’s Beach…

Erie, Pa., offers natural beauty, historical significance and modern attractions. The region features a half-dozen wineries, … Beaches Nearest to Pennsylvania.

How to Find Sea Glass or Beach Glass. Look for beaches near where creeks, streams, … Pennsylvania is the state’s fourth largest…

At the Poconos Camel Beach Water Park in Camelback, PA, water park fun couldn’t be hotter! Pennsylvania’s Camel Beach, located in the…

Ocean Beaches Near Pennsylvania; Savannah, Georgia, Beach Campgrounds; Tourism in Atlanta, Georgia; ehow.com. About eHow; eHow Blog; How to by Topic; How…

Visit link:
Ocean Beaches Near Pennsylvania | eHow

 Posted by at 9:41 pm  Tagged with:

Repeal the Second Amendment – Baltimore Sun

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Repeal the Second Amendment – Baltimore Sun
Oct 042015
 

In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a civilian’s right to keep a gun in his home. In 2010, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of state and local governments to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. The vote in each case was five-to-four not exactly a ringing endorsement of the court’s reasoning in either case. But for now, the law of the land with regard to easy access to guns is settled.

The Second Amendment is enthroned mistakenly, but as a matter of law as a fundamental dimension of individual freedom. The practical result is that we must live with carnage by firearms as a daily fact of American life.

Surely, the timid voices of reason and humanity whisper, there is some limit to the atrocities that Americans will tolerate. When Adam Lanza, with no prior criminal history nor treatment for mental illness, killed 26 people including 20 first-grade students at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on December 14, 2012, the nation was riveted and horrified. Something this unspeakable, this ghastly, this straight-out-of-hell, changed exactly nothing in federal law.

Then, in June of this year, a gunman killed nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C. Two months later, a Virginia TV news crew was slaughtered on air, and the deed posted almost immediately to social media by the killer. And Thursday, a gunman killed at least 9 people and wounded others on the campus of Oregon’s Umpqua Community College.

What will it take to shock us out of our torpor? Another dead president? Not likely half the country will applaud it. How about a dozen people inspired by ISIS slipping simultaneously into the Mall of America and unveiling the assault weapons they have obtained in perfectly legal ways? I cannot imagine what level of gun violence will serve more to horrify than to entertain.

It is certainly a respectable idea to accept the Second Amendment and treat death by firearms as a public health issue. It is doomed to fail, however, because it isn’t the criminal or the psychotic who produces the murder, it’s the easy means to act out one’s fantasies that produces the criminal and the psychotic. Millions of guns, thousands of gun deaths.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, the leading dissenter in Heller and McDonald, has published a wise little book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” He suggests five words be added to the Second Amendment so that it reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

I say, let’s get rid of the Second Amendment altogether. Let the states and Congress regulate firearms as they see fit. Some states, most of them without big-city violence, will retain laws that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms. Gang-ridden Chicago will try again to crack down on guns. Congress will reconsider universal background checks and the prohibition of assault weapons.

As Justice Stevens informs us in his book, “legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.”

And we’ve all already seen enough harm.

Hal Riedl retired from the Maryland Division of Correction in 2010, and from the office of the state’s attorney for Baltimore City in December 2014. His email is halriedl@msn.com.

Continued here:
Repeal the Second Amendment – Baltimore Sun

 Posted by at 9:44 pm  Tagged with:

Liberty House Restaurant – Jersey City, NJ

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty House Restaurant – Jersey City, NJ
Oct 022015
 

Perfect Night Reviewed on 12/03/2012 Tracy S

The Liberty House was the site of our perfect Thanksgiving weekend wedding. Our family and friends were blown away at absolutely everything: the views, the gardens, the cocktail room, the reception space, and the food. Danielle was an AMAZING help for the year we planned our… Read More wedding and was always quick to respond to our many requests and the evening went off without a hitch. The staff at the Liberty House were phenomenal and worked so hard to make sure we were comfortable, fed, and filled with liquor! The space was beautiful and I can’t wait to return year after year to have an anniversary dinner at their restaurant.

I got married the week Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast. The entire state of New Jersey was in chaos and devastation. The Liberty House helped me have my dream wedding. Despite power loss and generator usage, they did everything in their power to make sure the wedding was as… Read More perfect as it could get. The entire venue was filled with candle light, the food was AMAZING, and the service was outstanding. My wedding turned out absolutely amazing – even without power!

I just had my wedding at the Liberty House and it was an AMAZING wedding. The staff, especially Danielle, Miriam and Virginia went above and beyond! Everything was great from the food to the service. My guests were raving to me all night (and still are) about how wonderful the… Read More place was. There really is no better backdrop for your wedding than the amazing views of NYC.

My wedding day was everything I hoped for, and more. I originally planned on having my wedding at a venue in Brooklyn, since that is where I reside. After my first walk through at the Liberty House I was convinced this was where I would marry the love of my life. Alex Argenio… Read More was my wedding coordinator and she was absolutely Amazing!!! She helped with planning all the details and made sure to be there on the big to ensure everything went as planned. We had the ceremony at the garden with 150 guest and I couldn’t be happier with how everything turned out. Having the ceremony and reception at the same location was the best decision for us, I think it helped in keeping everything on schedule and made it convenient for the guest to transition. I am so grateful for Vicky the maitre’d who took care of everything the groom and I needed for the night, she was phenomenal!!! I wanted a real wedding where family and friends could eat, drink and have a good time and The Liberty House was the perfect venue for such a special occasion. Following the wedding our guest were raving about the great customer service from the staff, how delicious the food was and the amazing back drop. The city view across the water combined with the greenery of the garden as well as the fire pits and modern chic outdoor decor made it for a stunning ambiance. Deciding where to have a once in a lifetime event it’s hard as It is, pick a place where they understand that notion and how much you’ll treasure these moments. Good luck bride to be !!!

The Liberty House is an amazingly beautiful venue for a wedding. The views of the city are breathtaking, and all our guests were blow away. We were married in the Liberty Room on the main level. What made our wedding unique is that during the reception we didnt have people… Read More all crammed on the dancefloor. Some people were dancing, some were sitting outside by the firepits toasting marshmallows, others were lighting sparklers, and others were enjoying a cigar and espresso. There was something for everyone. The food is also amazing, and there is tons of it! All our guests commented on how great the food was, and how wonderful and attentive the waitstaff was. The entire staff at the Liberty House was professional, helpful, and very kind. They are masters of creating an amazing wedding day and a countless number of our guests said it was the best wedding they have ever attended. It was the perfect venue for us, and I cant thank the Liberty House staff enough for helping create my dream wedding day!

Flawless Wedding First let me start by saying if Danielle Villa is not your coordinator then she should be! As she is AMAZING!! We had chosen the LH house due to the amazing views of NYC, which would allow for us to have a personal wedding with ~60 guests. The benefits… Read More that Danielle brought We are very busy with our jobs as both my wife and I do a lot of global travel, and we no longer live in NJ, so planning a remote wedding around our work schedules was hectic to say the least. So when we had a question we were delighted to get a quick and concise response from Danielle within 24 hours, and most of the time is was in less than 3 hrs. She was great at detailing out the next steps, as well as offering suggestions for the event. She set up the room, ceremony and our special champagne celebration perfectly! She made it a flawless, drama free day! Benefits of the Liberty house.our guests loved loved loved the food at the cocktail hour. And the views of Manhattan were amazing, especially since it was a blue moon that night. For our event we chose to do the cocktail hour first, this gave our guests time to get to know the venue and mingle with each other. From there we moved to the ceremony where we had the chairs set up in a heart shape, and a champagne bucket in each row allowing for an immediate toast after our I dos. We then moved back to cocktails for a short period before starting dinner. Dinner quickly moved to dancing, more pictures of the skyline, cake and Smores (which were a HUGE hit!). The service the day of our wedding was over the top. We had Chris that ensured things flowed as scheduled, and Elizabeth as our personal attendant and she made sure we had everything we needed. Our goal was to have an informal, fun event that our friends and family would rave about. And that is exactly what we got. Every guest could not say enough about the venue, food, view, and overall day. Overall, would not change a thing when it comes to the Liberty House. And can not stress enoughDanielle is a MUST to have in your corner!

Had our wedding reception at The Liberty House on June 7. Could not have asked for a better experience! Being an event planner, I had high expectations….Danielle Villa and the entire Liberty House staff blew me AWAY. I am more than thrilled with the way everything turned out…. Read More The view is to die for, the food is amazing, and the staff is so attentive (my bridal consultant, Leslie was a DOLL!). You don’t find this combination anywhere else. Our guests can’t stop talking about our wedding. Said it is the best they’ve ever been to! All thanks to the amazing Liberty House. To Danielle and team — thank you for EVERYTHING. it was my dream day!

Our wedding was almost a month ago and we are still getting compliments. All our guest raved about how beautiful the Liberty House was and how delicious the food tasted. My now husband and I had such a pleasant experience dealing with all the staff throughout our… Read More planning. On the day of our wedding, they made it such a special experience. We did not have to go to the bar once as our drinks were always being filled by the bridal attendant. My sister need a pin for my hair and the attendant appeared and had one for her to use. Everything was amazing and we are still talking about how much fun we had at the Liberty House.

When we visited the Liberty House for a friends wedding, we were in awe. We aspired that the venue would be our own one day and it was! We loved our wedding experience there too! We scheduled an appointment and got assigned Danielle. What a fire cracker! I loved her from the… Read More moment I met her. She was friendly, honest, professional, and REAL! When my fiance and I got home the appointment that night, we were still glowing! We called Danielle the next day and locked in our date! We got to know Danielle pretty well over the next few months, especially my husband who I assigned to our payments. We inundated her with silly questions, which were new to us, and she answered them all in a timely matter. She was always one step ahead and knew what documents/info to send over at the appropriate times. The days leading up to the wedding were stressful but having Danielle’s final meeting was soothing. We finalized all the details and made a checklist. She was so well organized that it made everything easy. The day of the wedding, everything went off without a hitch! Everything was set up where it was supposed to be and my bridal assistant, Leslie was a gem! Always pleasant and always asking if I needed anything! She was so accommodating; Ive never been so attended to and it felt great on such a special day! Thank you for the memories Liberty House! You are what we dreamt of! Lastly, leaving you with a few helpful tips: – Bring 4 people to your tasting trial. It makes it more fun and its a great way to include your bridal party. Six people was a little too crowded, especially when you had to share a salad. – You get what you pay for. Is the LH more than other locations, sure, but you cant beat the location. Perhaps, switch your wedding to the afternoon to save some bucks. We did. – Make a list of all supplies dropped off at the LH prior to the wedding. This ensures that nothing gets left behind!

My experience with the Liberty House was AMAZING! From beginning to end, Danielle was professional, knowledgeable, and extremely reliable. Throughout the planning process she was very helpful and easy to reach. We had both our ceremony and reception at the Liberty House. Our… Read More reception was in the Liberty Room downstairs, which also gave us access to the outdoor patio. I was very concerned about the weather, but Danielle continually assured me that they would make it work. We ended up having perfect weather, but I knew even if we didnt that Danielle would work hard to make sure everything was beautiful. You cant beat the food or atmosphere of the Liberty House. Our guests said it was the best food they ever tasted! The staff and service at the Liberty House is experienced and efficient. Leslie was my bridal assistant and I have to say that she was a life saver. From the second I stepped off the bus she was right there to help me with my dress and continued to be attentive until I stepped back on the bus at the end of the night. She was experienced and knowledgeable and helped the day to run smoothly for not only myself and my husband, but for our parents and the rest of the bridal party as well. Overall, the Liberty House was just wonderful! I would recommend them to anyone!

The Liberty House far exceeded all my expectations for our wedding reception. The room was stunning, the food was amazing, and the service was beyond compare. I worked closely with Danielle Villa through my two year engagement – she provided us great, responsive service and had… Read More amazing ideas on how to enhance our reception. We were fortunate enough to have a beautiful, clear, October night where people were able to hang out outside in the park during cocktail hour and on the balcony during the reception – and the view of NYC provided the perfect backdrop. Our bridal attendant Leslie was so amazing- she knew exactly what I needed before I knew I needed it!! I felt so taken care of all day and knew I was in capable hands from the moment we selected The Liberty House to host our reception. People are still raving about our beautiful wedding!!

Liberty House Restaurant was the perfect place for our wedding! The food was outstanding, the space is gorgeous, and the views of downtown Manhattan are stunning. Mara McMullen and her team kept me sane the months, weeks, and days leading up to our wedding and helped me with… Read More planning every step of the way. We could not have been happier with the Liberty House and look forward to spending our anniversaries at the restaurant year after year!

I got married at the Liberty House on November 7, 2014 and my guests are STILL talking about it. It was the most amazing wedding and it was everything I had ever dreamed of. I worked with Mara who was incredibly professional, responsive, and super sweet to deal with. She… Read More answered every question I had and worked with me on anything and everything I needed. I would highly recommend her to any bride looking for someone to help make your day a special one. The day/night was unbelievable. First of all the food is exceptional. My guests were raving about it (and still are). Everything from the cocktail hour to the main course and was just absolutely delicious. The view is unbeatable. I love Manhattan and having that be the backdrop of our wedding venue was magical. Walking into the room truly takes your breath away. I had Leslie as my bridal attendant that day and she was beyond amazing. She was there for anything I needed and was such a pleasure. Ladies ask for Leslie because she is amazing and such a wonderful person. She made every request I had and saw them through perfectly. I really cannot say enough about the wonderful experience I had at the Liberty House. Everyone there is amazing and the service the staff provided was outstanding. Here we are almost two weeks later and people who attended our wedding said two things: One, it was the best wedding they have ever been to, and two, the Liberty House was beautiful, the food was excellent, and its a one of a kind place. If you are a bride looking to steer clear from the typical catering hall feel, definitely look into Liberty House. Also the pictures you will get will blow you away. The backdrop of Manhattan is beautiful and my pictures came out amazing. Overall I was so incredibly happy with everything. It truly was the best day of our lives and we have to thank the wonderful staff there for all they did for us but especially to Mara, Leslie, and of course our maitre d Chris who made our day so special. We couldnt have asked for a better day and a better place to have our wedding.

The Liberty House was an amazing wedding venue from start to finish. I initially chose the wedding for the NYC skyline and it did not disappoint. My guest were all amazed with the view and all wanted to know how I found this venue space. In terms of the event the liberty house… Read More was great in adding little extras to my decorations and details to ensure a great reception look. They were very attentive during the entire event and made sure all of my needs and guests needs were met. I couldn’t be happier with the venue or service.

My daughter & son in law chose this venue for the breathtaking view of Manhattan. That turned out to be just one of the outstanding attributes of this venue. The food was exceptional, the service was above & beyond. We worked with Danielle as coordinator and Leslie as the… Read More bridal attendant. They both outdid themselves and couldn’t do enough for my daughter on the most important day of her life. Thank you to all at The Liberty House for a night we will never forget.

Our son and daughter in law held their wedding reception at The Liberty House in New Jersey earlier this month. We cannot say enough about the venue and the service. Our journey began with Danielle Villa as our coordinator and we were thrilled to be working with her. She was… Read More delightful and answered all of our questions. She responded almost immediately to every question or request. She was as happy as we were to be having this event. She made it oh so easy and fun. Stressless as it were. Jeanne Cretella, the owner of the venue also went out of her way to welcome us and make certain we were pleased with the service. The food was plentiful and very delicious. The service was a 10. The venue looked spectacular and the Manhattan view cannot be duplicated. We could not have asked for more. It was wonderful – a 15 out of 10 !!! We highly recommend this for your special day. Our guests would as well.

First things first.. My wedding was held on October 11th 2014. I am at a complete loss for words at how amazing it all turned out. The liberty house is a beautiful location and Danielle was amazing to work with. She helped bring my vision to life. From the beginning to the end I… Read More felt like a princess. My bridal attendant was on top of everything as well. My guests are still raving about the cocktail hour, dinner and viennese hour. I couldn’t be more happier that I chose the liberty house as the venue to work with and working with Danielle made it that much smoother. She is efficient and on top of things 110% and whoever else has their wedding here will feel the exact same way. Thank you landmark hospitality and Danielle for making my wedding fabulous!!

The Liberty House truly exceeded our expectations. To begin, the venue is spectacular with clear views of the downtown skyline. We worked with Danielle to coordinate and she was 100% on top of every last detail, helping to ease any concerns prior to the big day. Our maitre d and… Read More bridal attendant were phenomenal as well and the service was top notch from cocktail hour to end. We were so we’ll taken care of, I don’t know how anyone could do without this awesome team!

Our wedding coordinator Vivian was amazing! My friends and family loved the venue. The staff in the Liberty Room did a great job! A big thanks to the Liberty House Staff!!!!

We had both our wedding ceremony and reception at Liberty House and everything exceeded our expectations! Everyone we worked with was amazing, Mara was great, super helpful and easy to work with. The location and view are spectacular, add to that fantastic food, signature… Read More drinks, gorgeous fire pits, s’mores, people are still talking about it weeks later! I cannot recommend this venue enough, our day was magical and I couldn’t imagine having it anywhere else.

We had our wedding at the Liberty House and if you are at all considering having your wedding there, do it. NOW. Everything about it was amazing. Even if you can forget about the beautiful view and grounds (which you can’t), the food, staff, location – anything you can think… Read More of for a venue, was just perfect. We received so many compliments throughout the night and people are still talking about it days later. We loved every second of this experience and that is in large part thanks to the amazing people at Liberty House – especially Mara (our fantastic coordinator), Leslie (our amazing bridal attendant), Chris and another woman whose name I unfortunately can’t remember.

Liberty House was wonderful! It’s expensive but definitely worth it! The food, service, views and professionalism was outstanding. Our guest raved about the reception. Mara was our event coordinator and she was extremely personable, organized and professional. By husband and… Read More I had some last minute changes the week before the wedding and she was more than accommodating. My bridal attendant was fabulous! She brought us water a couple times while we were taking pictures and went above and beyond. Liberty House also packaged up all of our items for the reception and had them ready within 20 minutes. It was wonderful because we did not lose anything!

Danielle and the entire staff at The Liberty House made my wedding day the most amazing day of my life! No detail was left out and Danielle was incredible to work with. It was raining until 30 minutes before my wedding ceremony but Danielle had faith that everything would work… Read More out and it did! She had her entire staff wiping down chairs and tables up until minutes before guests arrived to ensure I had the wedding of my dreams. From the most delicious food to the most breathtaking grounds, I would recommend The Liberty House to anyone looking for the whole package. Thank you Danielle!

I have to say that I was nervous about this place, but my “Dreammaker” was the best ever. She never broke a sweat, and made our whole day amazing and flawless. They have the most attentive staff! My family is vegetarian, but they loved everything from the cocktail hour to the… Read More buffet dinner. There were soo many options for both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

I mean this place is truly amazing. From the views to the food to the service there was not a place they faltered even a little. Danielle was my coordinator and she was warm and helpful and answered all mine and my parents questions without a hint of annoyance. We had a bridal… Read More attendant the night of the event and let me tell you she was amazing as well. Never was my glass empty or my veil out of place. My wedding was perfect and I love that all of guests were able to enjoy the scenic views! Not a single complaint. I would also like to note that we were initially interested in Maritime Parc(across the parking lot) but have found their service lacking and of course their views are not as amazing. With the lawn at Liberty House as a wedding ceremony option, we are so so happy we chose Liberty House instead!

See the rest here:
Liberty House Restaurant – Jersey City, NJ

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




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution