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

Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 312016

Eugenics in California is a notable part of eugenics in America.

As an early leading force in the field of eugenics, California became the third state in the United States to enact a sterilization law. By 1921, California had accounted for 80% of the sterilizations nationwide. This continued until World War II, after which the number of sterilizations began to decrease, largely due to the fallout of Hitler’s eugenics movement.[1] There were about 20,000 forced sterilizations in California between 1909 and 1963.[2]

Records of eugenics practices in California are held at the following agencies and institutions. The records are still protected for confidentiality reasons.

In California, [eugenics] was always linked to the use of land: to agriculture and plant hybridization.[3] Many of the powerful social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, and biologists, sought to hurt many of Californias Mexican, Indian, and Asian populations through the exclusionary laws that those scientists propose. In addition to the conquest to hurt the undesirables in the state, the California Eugenics plan also was a way to save the state money so they could eliminate the money the state spends on welfare and other programs that help the less fortunate.[3] Eugenics takes take three forms in California:

Dolores Madrigal entered the University of Southern Californias medical center on October 12, 1973, in order to give birth to her second child. During her time in labor, she was given a consent form and coerced by doctors into having a tubal ligation, effectively sterilizing her. Madrigal insisted that No one at the medical center informed me that a tubal ligation operation was going to performed on me. No one at the medical center informed me of what a tubal ligation operation consists nor of its permanent effects (Enoch, 5). Rebecca M. Kluchin found while researching the case that Physicians preferred to perform cesarean sections and tubal ligations in tandem to minimize risks associated with infection and anesthesia, as well as to reduce medical costs. It appears that at this hospital physicians who performed emergency cesarean sections sometimes used the opportunity to persuade a woman to accept permanent contraception.[10]

In July 1976 Madrigal sued the University of Southern California medical center, accompanied by Guadalupe Acosta, Estela Benavides, Consuelo Hermosillo, Georgina Hernandez, Maria Hurtado, Maria Figueroa, Rebecca Figueroa, Jovita Rivera, and Helena Orozco. Each of the nine other women who joined the class action lawsuit complained of similar proceedings. Together, these 10 chicanas decided to sue the USC medical center, contending that they had never given their informed consent to have the tubal ligation procedure performed. Karen Benker testified that poor minority women in L.A. County were having too many babies; that it was a strain on society; and that it was good that they be sterilized”.[11]

Despite Benkers testimony and other corroborating evidence, Judge Jesse Curtis ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that there had been nothing more than a breakdown in communication between the patients and the doctors (Stern 1135). He went on to say that it was appropriate for an obstetrician to believe that a tubal ligation could help diminish overpopulation as long as they did not attempt to overpower the will of his patients.[11]

In 1909 a eugenics law was passed in California allowing for state institutions to sterilize those deemed unfit or feeble-minded.[12] As one of the leading states in forced sterilization victims, Californias sterilization procedures primarily took place in state mental hospitals. Dr. Leo Stanley was one of the first people to bring the eugenics movement to Californias prisons.

Stanley was San Quentin penitentiarys chief surgeon and was particularly interested in eliminating those deemed unfit for society. His avid eugenic-based surgeries were the first of its kind to been seen in a prison. Taking place between 1930 and 1959, the peak of the eugenics movement, Stanley’s surgeries were driven by the idea of purifying criminals. Through testicular surgeries, he believed he could cultivate socially fit individuals by replacing a prisoners testicles with those of a deceased male previously deemed socially fit. His practices spawned early ideologies of white manhood,” which stemmed from his belief that he could “help a new, ideal man emerge”.[13]

Use of human and even animal testicles made Stanleys procedures highly unsuccessful and all around bizarre. His desire to restore social morality, along with his fascination with the endocrine system, fueled his research. Throughout the time of his procedures, criminals were believed to have something anatomically off that drove them to commit crimes. This belief inspired Stanley to explore the endocrine systems role in the criminology of a person. By persuading inmates that his testicular surgeries would produce favorable results in their sex lives he sterilized more than 600 prisoners by the end of his career.[13] Stanleys prison work concluded upon the start of World War II where he served overseas, only to retire as a eugenic pioneer.

The Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) was established in Pasadena, California in 1928. Led by E.S. Gosney it researched with an aim to foster and aid constructive and educational forces for the protection and betterment of the human family in body, mind, character, and citizenship. In 1929 E.S. Gosney set up the Human Betterment Foundation and gathered twenty-five of the leading scientists, philanthropists, and community leaders to carry out research on the effects of sterilization for thirteen years (Valone). Gosney also used the HBF to distribute the product of his research, Sterilization for Human Betterment which attracted attention from the nearby university, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). Robert A. Millikan, a leading faculty member and proponent of Caltech, was looking for potential donors to the university and shared many of Gosneys views in his work decided to join the HBF board.

Lois Gosney Castle and the board of trustees eventually liquidated the foundation and turned the proceeds over to Caltech. Thirteen years after publishing the 1929 report entitled “Sterilization for Human Betterment, the HBF continued to carry out research on the effects of sterilization and undertook widespread distribution of the report to individuals, public libraries, and schools. After the liquidation files were found in 1968, but since they contained personal medical information, they were legally closed to researchers.[14]

Go here to see the original:
Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 2:44 am  Tagged with:

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own …
Sep 192015

On blacks, immigrants and indigents: “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage: “This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable – these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill: In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery: A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex: “The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,” Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God’s view on the matter: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion: “Criminal’ abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women.” The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA: “…brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!”), The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church’s view of contraception: “…enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR.” The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood: “I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine.” What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep… for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.” (Luke 23:24)]

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world.

Her goal in life: Sanger admitted her entire life’s purpose was to promote birth control. An Autobiography, p. 194

Helped to establish the research bureau that financed “the pill,” she contributed toward the work of the German doctor who developed the IUD. “Ernst Graefenberg and His Ring,” Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine, July-Aug. 1975, p. 345, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, by Elasah Drogin

Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists — similar to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” — but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80

On mandatory sterilization of the poor: One of Sanger’s greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis, by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88

On eradicating ‘bad stocks’: The goal of eugenicists is “to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks,” wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to “restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate.”

Sanger featured in Life magazine, 1937, “Margaret Sanger celebrates Birth Control Victory.”

This page is under construction.


“We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity.” Faye Wattleton, President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 1986 _______

“If your parents are stupid enough to deny you access to birth control, and you are under 18, you can get it on your own. Call Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood advertisement, Dallas Observer, Jan. 30, 1986 _______

“There are only 2 basic kinds of sex: sex with victims and sex without. Sex with victims is always wrong. Sex without is ALWAYS right.” You’ve Changed The Combination,Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. _______

“The question of whether or not to sell ourselves to men is a false one: The real question is how to sell ourselves in the way that is least destructive to ourselves and our sisters. Prostitutes don’t need our condescension. What they need is our alliance. And we need theirs.” The New Our Bodies, Ourselves,Boston Women’s Health Collective, p 113 _______

“Sex is too important to glop up with sentiment. If you feel sexy, for heaven’s sake admit it to yourself. If the feeling and the tension bother you, you can masturbate. Masturbation cannot hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed.” The Perils of Puberty,Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. ______

“At Planned Parenthood you can also get birth control without the consent or knowledge of your parents. So, if you are 14, 15 or 16 and you come to Planned Parenthood, we won’t tell your parents you’ve been there. We swear we won’t tell your parents.” Planned Parenthood employee lecturing students of Ramona High School, Riverside, Calif., April 21-22, 1986


FACTS on Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood on Adoption: Of 6,000 clinic visit records examined from a Texas PP clinic, only 3 referred for adoption. (Aborting Planned Parenthood, by Robert H. Ruff, New Vision Press, 1988)

Planned Parenthood’s on Homosexuality & Marital Rights: PP has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970) ______________

Planned Parenthood’s Goal: Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood’s purpose and planned course of action: “… to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these … feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy.” (Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953) .” (“Psycho-Sexual Development,” quoted in Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953, pg. 10) ________

Planned Parenthood on Pregnancy: PP has an unhealthy concept of pregnancy, as it views the state of gestation as an abnormal condition or disease. Speaking for the organization, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as “an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition … May be defined as an illness … Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents…”(“Is Pregnancy Really Normal?” Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)

Read the original post:
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own …

 Posted by at 2:44 am  Tagged with:

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …
Jul 212015

Eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[1] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[2] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[3]

Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Khl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]

During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered[by whom?] a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements[citation needed] (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics.

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 races 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 Breeders 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 Womens Clubs, the Womans 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, womens 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 womens 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 Womens 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.

See the original post:

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Posted by at 1:01 pm  Tagged with:

Crazy! Two Men Dressed as Women Shot By NSA – Video

 NSA  Comments Off on Crazy! Two Men Dressed as Women Shot By NSA – Video
Apr 112015

Crazy! Two Men Dressed as Women Shot By NSA
A man is dead after two men dressed as women tried to gain unauthorized entry with a stolen SUV at a National Security Agency gate at Fort Meade, Maryland, Monday morning. If you like this…


Read more:
Crazy! Two Men Dressed as Women Shot By NSA – Video

Why Do Women Just Stop Talking to Me? Libertarianism and Divorce – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Why Do Women Just Stop Talking to Me? Libertarianism and Divorce – Video
Apr 112015

Why Do Women Just Stop Talking to Me? Libertarianism and Divorce
Britain's crazy prostitution laws: … 0:17 – Do you expect a gradual change into anarchism going through libertarianism or do you think a revolution would take us from statism to anarchism?…

By: Erma Nort

Follow this link:
Why Do Women Just Stop Talking to Me? Libertarianism and Divorce – Video

2 Men dressed as Women crash NSA gate. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. – Video

 NSA  Comments Off on 2 Men dressed as Women crash NSA gate. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. – Video
Apr 022015

2 Men dressed as Women crash NSA gate. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. An investigative look into the Gate Crashing Shooting at the NSA headquarters. Revelation 13 King.

By: TheGroxt1

Originally posted here:
2 Men dressed as Women crash NSA gate. Illuminati Freemason Symbolism. – Video

Men shot outside NSA were dressed as women – Video

 NSA  Comments Off on Men shot outside NSA were dressed as women – Video
Apr 012015

Men shot outside NSA were dressed as women
Men shot outside NSA were dressed as women Men Dressed as Women Shot Outside NSA Gate – ABC News – Go … Men shot outside NSA were dressed as women – CNN Video Shooting outside NSA …

By: New News

Originally posted here:
Men shot outside NSA were dressed as women – Video

Why Parks and Recreations Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope could agree on Indianas religious freedom law

 Misc  Comments Off on Why Parks and Recreations Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope could agree on Indianas religious freedom law
Apr 012015

By Russell Moore March 31 at 7:29 PM

In all the furor over Indianas controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, perhaps the answer to the culture war impasse wont be found in Indianapolis but in Pawnee. Pawnee, of course, is the fictional town inhabited by long-running NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation, which orbited around the often clashing visions of Parks director Ron Swanson and his crusading deputy Leslie Knope. The two could agree on little, but I think they could agree on Indianas RFRA as it originally passed, and so should we.

Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope are relevant to this discussion not despite the fact that they are fictional Hoosiers but precisely because they are. They stand in for two powerful impulses in American cultural and political life: leave me alone libertarianism and common good progressivism. Both of these strains are part of the rich heritage of religious freedom, and neither strain should go wobbly on that heritage now.

Swanson, of course, was the grumpy, just-this-side-of-cynical libertarian who feels guilty for working for the government. What he wanted to see done, more than anything, within his tiny towns parks department is for it to do just this side of nothing. He kept his money in gold, buried somewhere in the yard. His hatred of government regulations and government expenditures, of almost any kind, were second only to his hatred for skim milk (which he famously called water, lying about being milk).

Swanson, like most libertarians, probably would support same-sex marriage, if he supported any sort of government-recognized marriage at all. But his libertarianism wouldnt want the government dictating either the prohibitionor the celebrationof such unions.

The libertarian vision is one that recognizes that pluralism in the public square is not an evil to be stamped out by government fiat. And that vision is especially true when it comes to the most personal arena of a persons life: his or her conscience. We may disagree on how much government is necessary, but libertarians have consistently warned us that a government that takes upon itself the burden of paving over consciences is a government that can do anything.

The libertarian vision is true in the area of religious liberty both on the Right (when some have wanted state-written school prayers or mosques zoned out of existence) or on the Left (where now many want to force celibate nuns to pay for birth control insurance or force evangelical adoption agencies out of existence).

The federal RFRA and its counterparts in the states were designed to protect individual consciences from a Leviathan government. The point of RFRA, from the beginning, was to assert that unpopular religious views (whether of peyote-smoking native Americans, hijab-wearing Muslims or something similar) ought to be protected by more than just the whim of the majority.

Leslie Knope, on the other hand, was the office progressive, fueled by idealism about what government can do, if only given the chance. With her office filled with pictures of her women heroes from Madeleine Albright to Hillary Clinton, Knope wanted to break glass ceilings, to fill in sand pits and build parks for the sake of the flourishing of her community.

Now, as a liberal Democrat, Knope, too, probably would support same-sex marriage. But its hard to imagine that Knope would feel comfortable with the hysteria weve seen over the Indiana RFRA. The primary pressure to abandon this act, along with the (flat-out misrepresented) line that it is a freedom to discriminate bill has come from big corporate interests threatening to boycott the state.

Here is the original post:
Why Parks and Recreations Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope could agree on Indianas religious freedom law

 Posted by at 2:43 pm  Tagged with:

(#60) Freedom Rider (Pt. 3) WHISKEY. WEED. WOMEN. with Steve Jessup – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on (#60) Freedom Rider (Pt. 3) WHISKEY. WEED. WOMEN. with Steve Jessup – Video
Mar 282015

(#60) Freedom Rider (Pt. 3) WHISKEY. WEED. WOMEN. with Steve Jessup
On show 60, Steve is back on the Freedom Rider Build for part 3. It's all about putting new wheels, tires and jacking up the stance.The Rider Build rages on the last Friday of every month….

By: Steve Jessup

(#60) Freedom Rider (Pt. 3) WHISKEY. WEED. WOMEN. with Steve Jessup – Video

Within the Suffering, There is Freedom – Tyffany Howard – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on Within the Suffering, There is Freedom – Tyffany Howard – Video
Mar 272015

Within the Suffering, There is Freedom – Tyffany Howard
Presentation at WECON 2015 Women's Conference in Austin, Texas on March 8, 2015. Through the suffering and pain, she learned to love herself. The message is for “you” to love yourself. Tyffany…

By: Tyffany Howard

Go here to see the original:
Within the Suffering, There is Freedom – Tyffany Howard – Video

Lawsuit Challenges NSA Internet Dragnets

 NSA  Comments Off on Lawsuit Challenges NSA Internet Dragnets
Mar 132015

By John P. Mello Jr. 03/13/15 11:02 AM PT

The American Civil Liberties Union earlier this week filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the National Security Agency from indiscriminately snooping on United States Internet traffic.

Using a technique called “upstream” surveillance, the NSA does a spinal tap of the Internet’s U.S. backbone, which carries the communications of millions of Americans, the ACLU explained in its complaint filed with a federal district court in Maryland.

“In the course of this surveillance, the NSA is seizing Americans’ communications en masse while they are in transit,” the complaint alleges, “and it is searching the contents of substantially all international text-based communications — and many domestic communications as well — for tens of thousands of search terms.”

That kind of surveillance violates federal law, the First and Fourth Amendments and Article III of the Constitution, maintained the ACLU, which is representing in the lawsuit the Wikimedia Foundation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, the Global Fund for Women, The Nation magazine, The Rutherford Institute and the Washington Office on Latin America.

This lawsuit is similar to one filed in the past involving NSA Director James R. Clapper and Amnesty International. That case was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Backers of the latest lawsuit, however, believe their case has stronger legs than the previous litigation.

“Thanks to the Snowden disclosures and government acknowledgments over the last 18 months, we now know more about government surveillance than we did in Clapper v. Amnesty,” explained Ashley Gorski, an attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.

“That, for us, makes all the difference,” she told the E-Commerce Times, “and we think that will make a difference in court as well.”

In the Amnesty case, the Supreme Court ruled that the parties bringing the lawsuit lacked standing — that is, they couldn’t prove they were harmed by the behavior alleged in their complaint. The reason they couldn’t prove harm was that they didn’t know enough about what the NSA was doing to make the connection between harm and behavior.

“Prior to the Snowden revelations and the government acknowledgments, the public did not know anything at all about upstream surveillance — least of all that the NSA was copying entire streams of Internet traffic and searching through them for information about its targets,” Gorski said.

See original here:
Lawsuit Challenges NSA Internet Dragnets

Wikipedia suing NSA over spy program

 NSA  Comments Off on Wikipedia suing NSA over spy program
Mar 122015

March 11, 2015

In America, the Internet browses you. (Credit: Flickr/Light Brigading)

Chuck Bednar for @BednarChuck

The Wikimedia Foundation, owners and operators of the popular crowd-edited reference website Wikipedia, has filed a lawsuit against the US National Security Agency (NSA) in response to the organizations surveillance program.

According to BBC News, the lawsuit also names the US Department of Justice and accuses the two groups of violating the Constitutions right to free speech, as well as laws protecting citizens of the United States from unreasonable search and seizure.

[STORY: Storing data offshore won’t protect it from NSA]

In a blog entry posted Tuesday, Wikimedias Michelle Paulson and Geoff Brigham wrote that the lawsuit challenges the NSAs large-scale search and seizure of internet communications frequently referred to as upstream surveillance. Our aim in filing this suit is to end this mass surveillance program in order to protect the rights of our users around the world.

The Foundation has been joined by eight other organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Global Fund for Women, and The Rutherford Institute and the Washington Office on Latin America. Their case will be handled by attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

[STORY: Your smartphone may be an NSA surveillance tool]

Were filing suit today on behalf of our readers and editors everywhere, said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. Surveillance erodes the original promise of the internet: an open space for collaboration and experimentation, and a place free from fear.

Wikipedia suing NSA over spy program

 Posted by at 7:52 am  Tagged with:

Karhu Women’s Running Shoes Steady3 Fulcrum Liberty Purple/Sheer Lilac 11 – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on Karhu Women’s Running Shoes Steady3 Fulcrum Liberty Purple/Sheer Lilac 11 – Video
Mar 102015

Karhu Women's Running Shoes Steady3 Fulcrum Liberty Purple/Sheer Lilac 11
Karhu Women's Running Shoes Steady3 Fulcrum Liberty Purple/Sheer Lilac 11 Karhu Women's Running Shoes Steady3 Fulcrum …

By: Lynton Dacre Micah

Read more here:
Karhu Women’s Running Shoes Steady3 Fulcrum Liberty Purple/Sheer Lilac 11 – Video

 Posted by at 2:45 am  Tagged with:

'The decision to remove Black Watch from the classroom curtails the right of pupils to study one of Scotland's most …

 Free Speech  Comments Off on 'The decision to remove Black Watch from the classroom curtails the right of pupils to study one of Scotland's most …
Mar 072015

They burn hot and bright. Right now, it is Angus that is feeling the heat. Last week, the Sunday Herald reported that one headteacher in Kirriemuir had pulled Black Watch off the Highers syllabus because it is “offensive”. Parents are angry at the decision, and have demanded an explanation.

Freedom of expression does not just mean the freedom to write or say what you please, but also the freedom to read and to hear what you choose. The decision to remove Black Watch from the classroom curtails the right of the pupils to read and study one of Scotland’s most culturally significant plays. Moreover, the essays that they have already written on the play will not be assessed.

It is entirely right that prominent figures in Scottish literature have written an open letter, urging the head to reverse her decision (in signing the letter they, too, are exercising their right to free speech). This decision may just affect one school, but that is enough to set a precedent. The free speech issues have been raised and must be debated before any more books are removed from shelves and school-bags.

It is particularly important that we challenge ‘offence’ as the justification for such decisions. If we do not, we run the risk that ‘offence’ becomes ingrained as a legitimate reason for censorship. We put a veto-power in the hands of whoever says they are upset. Offence, and its sibling, indecency, are the perennial free speech battleground in British society, and often it is literature over which we fight. Think of the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses; think of Mary Whitehouse’s crusading legal actions against plays and poems that depicted homosexuality; think of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, prosecuted for obscenity.

During the Chatterley trial, the prosecutor Mervyn Griffith-Jones was criticised for asking whether the book was something “you would wish your wife or servants to read”. This paternalism is often at the heart of classroom censorship – the idea that the kids are too young to comprehend the subtleties of art. Scotland had this debate in the 1990s when Edwin Morgan’s Stobhill sequence of poems, which depict rape and abortion, were the target of a campaign to have them banned from schools. Down in England, ‘Education for Leisure’, Carol Ann Duffy’s chilling poem about a frustrated young man with a knife, was pulled from the GCSE textbooks after critics said it ‘glorified’ knife-crime.

The United States, where even the most parochial levels of government are highly politicised, has endured many battles over what books should be read by children. Since its publication in 1900, various public libraries and parents groups have sought to suppress The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and in recent years the Harry Potter series has been attacked because it promotes witchcraft. Another book that is frequently a source of contention is Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It is often described as the first great novel of American literature, and yet it also carries 219 instances of the N word. The characters that use it are undoubtedly racist by modern standards, but the book itself-the story of an escaped slave -is far more humane than the people it describes.

In Black Watch, the contentious word is ‘c**t’ which the characters use routinely. C-bombs are dropped into conversation with far more regularity than the sound of actual bombs falling on the Basra military compound where the play is set. Sometimes, the word seems benign, as if the soldiers think it is synonymous with ‘man’ or ‘person’. But this is not always the case, and often it is deployed as an insult. The c-word has a sexist history and meaning and there is no escape from that legacy.

Worse, the characters talk constantly about various sex acts with the women they have met, and use derogatory language about gay men. There is no denying that the characters are offensive. Perhaps they will corrupt the morals of our young people? Will the swearing instil negative values in those who read and watch the play?

In all these attempts to shield young eyes from bad words-whether its Huckleberry Finn, or Black Watch-there sits an implication that children cannot grasp the full meaning of the text. For primary school children, there might be some merit to that argument, but it is patronising when applied to teenagers studying for Highers. Last year, 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland were asked to vote on the complex question of Scottish Independence. To suggest that these same citizens cannot be trusted to read about characters doing offensive things, is just bizarre.

Moreover, drawing a distinction between what a character says in a play, and the playwright’s message, is surely the very essence of literature studies. In a classroom, the offensive words are not presented alone, but within a highly specific context that a teacher must explain. Indeed, I would suggest that a school is the best place to uncover that context. Those who say that the kids can always read it at home if they want are denying them the chance of a deeper understanding of the play and the issues it raises.

Excerpt from:
'The decision to remove Black Watch from the classroom curtails the right of pupils to study one of Scotland's most …

 Posted by at 8:42 pm  Tagged with:

2015 Kuwait Open Ws-QF: LI Xiaoxia – SEO Hyowon [HD] [Full Match/Chinese] – Video

 SEO  Comments Off on 2015 Kuwait Open Ws-QF: LI Xiaoxia – SEO Hyowon [HD] [Full Match/Chinese] – Video
Feb 182015

2015 Kuwait Open Ws-QF: LI Xiaoxia – SEO Hyowon [HD] [Full Match/Chinese]
2015 ITTF World Tour Kuwait Open, Feb 11-15, Kuwait KUW Women's Singles – 1/4 Finals: LI Xiaoxia (CHN) – SEO Hyowon (KOR) Many Thanks ELTA HD Waha Sports # Credits.

By: janus770

2015 Kuwait Open Ws-QF: LI Xiaoxia – SEO Hyowon [HD] [Full Match/Chinese] – Video

 Posted by at 3:43 am  Tagged with:

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment
Feb 072015

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment:


The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

For a definition of today’s militia as defined, by statute, in the United States Code, click here.

A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A “private” militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

Some argue that since the militias are “owned,” or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not “owned,” rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

A brief summary of early U.S. militia history.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

Read more from the original source:
The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

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