Monthly Archives: October 2015

NATO – U-S-History.com

Posted: October 28, 2015 at 11:44 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A continent evolves

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

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

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

Epilogue

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

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

Another excerpt from the same speech:

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

See the article here:
NATO - U-S-History.com

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO – U-S-History.com

First Amendment Center | Newseum Institute

Posted: at 4:44 am

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center, with offices at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. and at the John Seigenthaler Center, on the Vanderbilt University campus, in Nashville, Tenn., serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues through education, information and entertainment.

Founded by John Seigenthaler on Dec. 15, 1991, the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, the Center provides education and information to the public and groups, including First Amendment scholars and experts, educators, government policy makers, legal experts and students. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. It has become one of the most authoritative sources of news, information and commentary in the nation on First Amendment-related developments, as well as detailed reports about U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment, and commentary, analysis and special reports on free expression, press freedom and religious-liberty issues.

For older articles and commentary, please visit the First Amendment Centers archival site.

Find First Amendment research articles by topic or keyword.

More

Download or order publications on First Amendment issues.

More

Learn more about the five freedoms of the First Amendment.

More

One third of Americans still think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to the 2014 State of the First Amendment survey released June 24 by the Newseum Institute.

More

Learn more about the First Amendment Center and what we do.

More

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the cornerstone of American democracy is the focus of the Seigenthaler-Sutherland Cup National First Amendment Moot Court Competition.

More

John Seigenthaler founded the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.

More

See the original post here:
First Amendment Center | Newseum Institute

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment Center | Newseum Institute

Annotation 6 – First Amendment – FindLaw

Posted: at 4:44 am

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION--SPEECH AND PRESS

Adoption and the Common Law Background

Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference.

Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause and there is no record of debate in the Senate.5 In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers which would arise ''from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.''6 That the ''simple, acknowledged principles'' embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.''7

Whatever the general unanimity on this proposition at the time of the proposal of and ratification of the First Amendment,8 it appears that there emerged in the course of the Jeffersonian counterattack on the Sedition Act9 and the use by the Adams Administration of the Act to prosecute its political opponents,10 something of a libertarian theory of freedom of speech and press,11 which, however much the Jeffersonians may have departed from it upon assuming power,12 was to blossom into the theory undergirding Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence in modern times. Full acceptance of the theory that the Amendment operates not only to bar most prior restraints of expression but subsequent punishment of all but a narrow range of expression, in political discourse and indeed in all fields of expression, dates from a quite recent period, although the Court's movement toward that position began in its consideration of limitations on speech and press in the period following World War I.13 Thus, in 1907, Justice Holmes could observe that even if the Fourteenth Amendment embodied prohibitions similar to the First Amendment, ''still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,' and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare . . . . The preliminary freedom extends as well to the false as to the true; the subsequent punishment may extend as well to the true as to the false. This was the law of criminal libel apart from statute in most cases, if not in all.''14 But as Justice Holmes also observed, ''[t]here is no constitutional right to have all general propositions of law once adopted remain unchanged.''15

But in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in the opinion of the Court, while upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as prior restraint. ''It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.'' Justice Holmes along with Justice Brandeis soon went into dissent in their views that the majority of the Court was misapplying the legal standards thus expressed to uphold suppression of speech which offered no threat of danger to organized institutions.17 But it was with the Court's assumption that the Fourteenth Amendment restrained the power of the States to suppress speech and press that the doctrines developed.18 At first, Holmes and Brandeis remained in dissent, but in Fiske v. Kansas,19 the Court sustained a First Amendment type of claim in a state case, and in Stromberg v. California,20 a state law was voided on grounds of its interference with free speech.21 State common law was also voided, the Court in an opinion by Justice Black asserting that the First Amendment enlarged protections for speech, press, and religion beyond those enjoyed under English common law.22 Development over the years since has been uneven, but by 1964 the Court could say with unanimity: ''we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.''23 And in 1969, it was said that the cases ''have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.''24 This development and its myriad applications are elaborated in the following sections. The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress, and not to the actions of private persons. Supp.15 This leads to a ''state action'' (or ''governmental action'') limitation similar to that applicable to the Fourteenth Amendment. Supp.16 The limitation has seldom been litigated in the First Amendment context, but there is no obvious reason why analysis should differ markedly from Fourteenth Amendment state action analysis. Both contexts require ''cautious analysis of the quality and degree of Government relationship to the particular acts in question.'' Supp.17 In holding that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a governmental entity for purposes of the First Amendment, the Court declared that ''[t]he Constitution constrains governmental action 'by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken.'. . . [a]nd under whatever congressional label.''Supp.18 The relationship of the government to broadcast licensees affords other opportunities to explore the breadth of ''governmental action.''Supp.19

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] 1 Annals of Congress 434 (1789). Madison had also proposed language limiting the power of the States in a number of respects, including a guarantee of freedom of the press, Id. at 435. Although passed by the House, the amendment was defeated by the Senate, supra, p.957.

[Footnote 2] Id. at 731 (August 15, 1789).

[Footnote 3] The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1148-49 (B. Schwartz ed. 1971).

[Footnote 4] Id. at 1153.

[Footnote 5] The House debate insofar as it touched upon this amendment was concerned almost exclusively with a motion to strike the right to assemble and an amendment to add a right of the people to instruct their Representatives. 1 Annals of Congress 731-49 (August 15, 1789). There are no records of debates in the States on ratification.

[Footnote 6] Id. at 738.

[Footnote 7] 4 W. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52 (T. Cooley 2d rev. ed. 1872). See 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1874-86 (Boston: 1833). The most comprehensive effort to assess theory and practice in the period prior to and immediately following adoption of the Amendment is L. Levy, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History (1960), which generally concluded that the Blackstonian view was the prevailing one at the time and probably the understanding of those who drafted, voted for, and ratified the Amendment.

[Footnote 8] It would appear that Madison advanced libertarian views earlier than his Jeffersonian compatriots, as witness his leadership of a move to refuse officially to concur in Washington's condemnation of ''[c]ertain self-created societies,'' by which the President meant political clubs supporting the French Revolution, and his success in deflecting the Federalist intention to censure such societies. I. Brant, James Madison--Father of the Constitution 1787-1800, 416-20 (1950). ''If we advert to the nature of republican government,'' Madison told the House, ''we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.'' 4 Annals of Congress 934 (1794). On the other hand, the early Madison, while a member of his county's committee on public safety, had enthusiastically promoted prosecution of Loyalist speakers and the burning of their pamphlets during the Revolutionary period. 1 Papers of James Madison 147, 161-62, 190-92 (W. Hutchinson & W. Rachal eds. 1962). There seems little doubt that Jefferson held to the Blackstonian view. Writing to Madison in 1788, he said: ''A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing anything they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed.'' 13 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 442 (J. Boyd ed. 1955). Commenting a year later to Madison on his proposed amendment, Jefferson suggested that the free speech-free press clause might read something like: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property, or reputation of others or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations.'' 15 Papers, supra, at 367.

[Footnote 9] The Act, Ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596 (1798), punished anyone who would ''write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute.'' See J. Smith, Freedom's Fetters--The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties (1956).

[Footnote 10] Id. at 159 et seq.

[Footnote 11] L. Levy, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History, ch. 6 (Cambridge, 1960); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273-76 (1964). But compare L. Levy, Emergence of a Free Press (1985), a revised and enlarged edition of Legacy of Suppression, in which Professor Levy modifies his earlier views, arguing that while the intention of the Framers to outlaw the crime of seditious libel, in pursuit of a free speech principle, cannot be established and may not have been the goal, there was a tradition of robust and rowdy expression during the period of the framing that contradicts his prior view that a modern theory of free expression did not begin to emerge until the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[Footnote 12] L. Levy, Jefferson and Civil Liberties--The Darker Side (Cambridge, 1963). Thus President Jefferson wrote to Governor McKean of Pennsylvania in 1803: ''The federalists having failed in destroying freedom of the press by their gag-law, seem to have attacked it in an opposite direction; that is, by pushing its licentiousness and its lying to such a degree of prostitution as to deprive it of all credit. . . . This is a dangerous state of things, and the press ought to be restored to its credibility if possible. The restraints provided by the laws of the States are sufficient for this if applied. And I have, therefore, long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the presses. Not a general prosecution, for that would look like persecution; but a selected one.'' 9 Works of Thomas Jefferson 449 (P. Ford, ed. 1905).

[Footnote 13] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), provides the principal doctrinal justification for the development, although the results had long since been fully applied by the Court. In Sullivan, Justice Brennan discerned in the controversies over the Sedition Act a crystallization of ''a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment,'' id. at 273, which is that the ''right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials . . . [is] a fundamental principle of the American form of government.'' Id. at 275. This ''central meaning'' proscribes either civil or criminal punishment for any but the most maliciously, knowingly false criticism of government. ''Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. . . . [The historical record] reflect[s] a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.'' Id. at 276. Madison's Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and his Report in support of them brought together and expressed the theories being developed by the Jeffersonians and represent a solid doctrinal foundation for the point of view that the First Amendment superseded the common law on speech and press, that a free, popular government cannot be libeled, and that the First Amendment absolutely protects speech and press. 6 Writings of James Madison, 341-406 (G. Hunt. ed. 1908).

[Footnote 14] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907) (emphasis original). Justice Frankfurter had similar views in 1951: ''The historic antecedents of the First Amendment preclude the notion that its purpose was to give unqualified immunity to every expression that touched on matters within the range of political interest. . . . 'The law is perfectly well settled,' this Court said over fifty years ago, 'that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had from time immemorial been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.' That this represents the authentic view of the Bill of Rights and the spirit in which it must be construed has been recognized again and again in cases that have come here within the last fifty years.'' Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 521-522, 524 (1951) (concurring opinion). The internal quotation is from Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897).

[Footnote 15] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 461 (1907).

[Footnote 16] 249 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1919) (citations omitted).

[Footnote 17] Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466 (1920); Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920); United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921). A state statute similar to the federal one was upheld in Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920).

[Footnote 18] Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). The Brandeis and Holmes dissents in both cases were important formulations of speech and press principles.

[Footnote 19] 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[Footnote 20] 283 U.S. 359 (1931). By contrast, it was not until 1965 that a federal statute was held unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967).

[Footnote 21] And see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938).

[Footnote 22] Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263-68 (1941) (overturning contempt convictions of newspaper editor and others for publishing commentary on pending cases).

[Footnote 23] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

[Footnote 24] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

[Footnote 15 (1996 Supplement)] Through interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition extends to the States as well. See discussion on incorporation, main text, pp. 957-64.

[Footnote 16 (1996 Supplement)] See discussion on state action, main text, pp.1786-1802.

[Footnote 17 (1996 Supplement)] CBS v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 115 (1973) (opinion of Chief Justice Burger).

[Footnote 18 (1996 Supplement)] Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 115 S. Ct. 961, 971 (1995) (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346-47 (1880)). The Court refused to be bound by the statement in Amtrak's authorizing statute that the corporation is ''not . . . an agency or establishment of the United States Government.'' This assertion can be effective ''only for purposes of matters that are within Congress' control,'' the Court explained. ''It is not for Congress to make the final determination of Amtrak's status as a governmental entity for purposes of determining the constitutional rights of citizens affected by its actions.'' 115 S. Ct. at 971.

[Footnote 19 (1996 Supplement)] In CBS v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), the Court held that a broadcast licensee could refuse to carry a paid editorial advertisement. Chief Justice Burger, joined only by Justices Stewart and Rehnquist in that portion of his opinion, reasoned that a licensee's refusal to accept such an ad did not constitute ''governmental action'' for purposes of the First Amendment. ''The First Amendment does not reach acts of private parties in every instance where the Congress or the [Federal Communications] Commission has merely permitted or failed to prohibit such acts.'' Id. at 119.

Read the original here:
Annotation 6 - First Amendment - FindLaw

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Annotation 6 – First Amendment – FindLaw

First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikiquote

Posted: at 4:44 am

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?

Originally posted here:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikiquote

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikiquote

Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to …

Posted: at 4:41 am

Pierre Gosselin has a great post: Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles.

David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.

But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.

We can corroborate David Dilleys remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA. Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of gloom and doom due to rising temperatures is ridiculous.

So there are probably many skeptics at NOAA, but given the uniformly aggressive public stance of NOAA apparently none of them can speak until after they retire.

By P Gosselin on 26. August 2015

In the mid 1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions should show a connection to human activity as the cause for anthropogenic global warming. The result: most of the research published in journals became one-sided and this became the primary information tool for media outlets.

According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system. What a great way to manipulate researchers in Europe, Australia and the United States.

Dilley was invited to speak about natural cycles, but just before the event mysterious staff shortages meant his speech was canceled. Oddly, a different speech suddenly appeared in its place.

Its always the way, someone at an institution is keen, then just before the event, something changes:

All seemed well as I prepared for the lecture. Butthen came the manipulation and suppression of views. Just four days prior to the lecture, three people from the University of Maine viewed our web site (www.globalweatheroscillations.com). The next morning, just 3 days prior to the June 29th lecture, I received an email from Eagle Hill stating that my lecture is canceled due to a staffing shortage. Upon checking their web site, the calendar did show my lecture as being canceled, but carried the notation that we hope to have a different lecture on the 29th.

So what happened with the staffing shortage? A news service called The Maine Wire interviewed the President of Eagle Hill, and he said that the University of Maine felt some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilleys lecture.

Read it all Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles

Maybe the staff shortages meant they couldnt hire enough security staff to hold back the packs of students protesting someone who dared disagree with their programming. After all, this is a University.

h/t The Great ClimateDepot

UPDATE: David Dilley replied in comments. Perhaps you can ask him something about his work?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

Rating: 9.6/10 (137 votes cast)

Read more here:
Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to ...

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to …

Oklahoma NSA Softball

Posted: October 27, 2015 at 6:45 am

Welcome !2015 NSA Adult and YouthSoftball and BPA Youth Baseball

Adult Coaches

New for 2015, here are a few changes you need to know about.

1. Players will give the coach they want to play for their Player number.

2. Coach signs in to team account and starts building roster by putting in player numbers to be added automatically to the roster.

3. No more Coach sending invites and waiting for Player accept.

4. No more Players signing in to Accept to be on a roster.

5. Player is officially on the roster once they sign the printed online roster.

This is NSAs way to make the process easier and simpler for coaches and players.

We are looking for sponsors for the 2015 softball tournaments. If you, or anyone you know might be interested in sponsoring one tournament, or be a sponsor for a series of tournaments, please contact me. We are looking at some exciting changes to our tournament structure, and are sure that you will like what we have coming in 2015 with our Tournaments.

Weinvite you tosanction your teams here on-linefor the 2015 season, beginning in January, 2015. Look here for UpcomingLeague play,info for Tournaments, Updated National rules, Classification & Roster rules, Post season play, NSA points system, SUPER WORLD SERIES info, Hotels, NSA links and Sponsors.If you are interested in becoming a Tournament Director or run the NSA Program at your Ball Park, PleaseContact us at bhancock@playnsa.com,or call the NSA State Director Bill Hancock at 918-607-1661.We look forward to seeing yourSoftball Team on the Diamonds in 2015 !!

Indian Springs 2015 SUMMER LEAGUES

Clinton Oklahoma - Acme Brick Ballpark

Coweta Softball Complex

All Star Sports Complex- Batting Cages/Practice

Oklahoma NSA Headquarters

Bill Hancock

StateDirector

(918)607-1661

So, If you are looking for Post season play with an Association that works hard to put teams in their CORRECT Classification, Thenwe look forward to seeing your teamat many of the Ball Parks in Oklahoma this year. We want to see as many teams as possible qualify for World Series and "Super" World Series events in September and October.

Clarion Hotel

2600 N. Aspen Ave

Broken Arrow, OK

918-258-7085

Free HOT breakfast

Outdoor Swimming Pool

Pet Friendly

Ask for Oklahoma NSA Special Rate.

ECONOLODGE HOTEL

2600 N. Aspen Ave Building B

Broken Arrow, OK

918-251-1010

Free Continental Breakfast

Pet Friendly

Special Oklahoma NSA Rates

Sleep Inn and Suites, Tulsa Central/I44

8021 E. 33rd St South (I-44 and Memorial)

Tulsa, OK 74145

Tel: (918) 663-2777

Fax: (918) 858-4445

QUALITY INN

10829 e. 41ST ST.

918-665-0220

Free HOT breakfast

Free WIFI

Microwave and Refrigerator in every room

Outdoor Pool

Special Okahoma NSA Room Rates

Link:
Oklahoma NSA Softball

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Oklahoma NSA Softball

2013 Tournament Events – Oklahoma NSA Softball

Posted: at 6:45 am

Date Location Event/ Tournament Entry Contact Forms Jan. 10 Indian Springs Men's Early Bird 250 $235 includes sanction fee Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Jan. 24 Indian Springs COED Early Bird 250 $260 Includes Sanction Fee Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Feb. 7 Indian Springs Gorfam 1 Pitch Jersey 250 $225 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Feb. 28 Indian Springs Men's DBAT Wood Bat 250 $225 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Mar. 14 Indian Springs Worth Men's DuckDuck Soup $225 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Mar. 28 Indian Springs Umpire Training Tournament $135 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 April 11 Indian Springs 7/3 COEDGO BALD OR GO HOME FUNDRAISER $250 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 April 25 Springdale Arkansas Men's Border Wars, Leg 1 $300 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 May 9 Hat Box Field, Muskogee RAINED OUT Men's Cash Series Leg1 $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 May 16 Branson, Missouri Men's Border Wars Leg 2 $300 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 May 16 Indian Springs CANCELLED Women's Qualifier $250 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 May 23 Pittsburgh County SOftball Complex, McAlester, OK CANCELLED Men's Ca$h Series Leg2 $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 May 30 Indian Springs Combat Clash $250 Kindal Smith -918-409-1503 Jun. 6 Indian Springs Men's Border Wars Leg 3 $300 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Jun. 20 Indian Springs Men's Bronze Qualifier $250 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Jun. 20 Jun. 27 Stillwater, OK Men'sTournament $250 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Jul. 11 Indian Springs Men's Silver Qualifier $250 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Jul. 18 Indian Springs Men's 40 and over Masters $225 Brad Gordon - 918-636-9575 or Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Jul. 25 Indian Springs COED Qualifier $250 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Jul. 25 Aug. 1 Stillwater COED Qualifier $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Aug. 8 Indian Springs Men's Bronze Bi-State $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Aug.22 Indian Springs Men's Silver Bi-State $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Aug. 22 Indian Springs Men's Gold Bi-State $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Aug. 29 Branson Missouri Men's Bronze, Silver, and Gold Super Regional $275 Kindal SMith - 918-409-1503 Sept. 5-6 CANCELLED Oklahoma NSA introductory Youth Fast Pitch Tournament $100 (includes 2015-16 team sanction and team insurance Bill Hancock - 918-607-1661 Sept. 13-13 CANCELLED Oklahoma BPAIntroductory Youth Baseball Tournament $100 (includes 2015-16 team sanction and team insurance Bill Hancock - 918-607-1661 Sep.12 Kansas City, MO Silver World $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 or Bill Hancock - 918-607-1661 Sep. 12 Cookeville, TN. Bronze World $275 Kindal Smith -918-409-1503 or Bill Hancock - 918-607-1661 Sep. 19 Indian Springs COED State $275 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Sep. 26 CANCELLED First Annual Oklahoma NSACystic Fibrosis Golf Tournament $300 per team, or $75 per player Bill Hancock - 918-607-1661 Oct. 17 Indian Springs 5th Annual Tom Gordon Memorial Tournament $225 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Nov. 21 Indian Springs Men's Turkey and Ham 250 $250 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503 Dec. 12 Indian Springs Men's 5 on 5 on 5 250 $120 Kindal Smith - 918-409-1503

Read the rest here:
2013 Tournament Events - Oklahoma NSA Softball

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on 2013 Tournament Events – Oklahoma NSA Softball

UK Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium : Oxford …

Posted: at 6:43 am

Welcome to the website of the Oxford University Gene Medicine Research Group. We are a University of Oxford research group based in the Radcliffe Department of Medicine at the John Radcliffe Hospital.

We are focused on the development of clinical gene therapies for the treatment of lung diseases. Our primary focus has been Cystic Fibrosis (CF) lung disease.

Together with colleagues at the University of Edinburgh and Imperial College London we form the UK Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium, funded by the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research and the UK Cystic Fibrosis Trust.

The Consortium is currently undertaking one of the world's largest ever gene therapy clinical trials in CF patients based on our gene therapy research.

Patient Recruitment for the Muti-Dose Clinical Trial

We are pleased to announce the launch of new charity Just Gene Therapy with the specific aim of raising funds for gene therapy research for CF. The charity has been established by Rosie Barnes in conjunction with Professor Eric Alton, and is the only way in which donations can directly support the work of the Consortium.

See the original post here:
UK Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium : Oxford ...

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on UK Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium : Oxford …

AASM News Archive – American Academy of Sleep Medicine

Posted: at 6:43 am

Study of twins discovers gene mutation linked to short sleep duration American Academy of Sleep Medicine Thursday, July 31, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Lynn Celmer, 630-737-9700, ext. 9364, lcelmer@aasmnet.org

DARIEN, IL Researchers who studied 100 twin pairs have identified a gene mutation that may allow the carrier to function normally on less than six hours of sleep per night. The genetic variant also appears to provide greater resistance to the effects of sleep deprivation.

Results show that a participant with p.Tyr362His a variant of the BHLHE41 gene had an average nightly sleep duration of only five hours, which was more than one hour shorter than the non-carrier twin, who slept for about six hours and five minutes per night. The twin with the gene mutation also had 40 percent fewer average lapses of performance during 38 hours without sleep and required less recovery sleep afterward sleeping only eight hours after the period of extended sleep deprivation compared with his twin brother, who slept for 9.5 hours.

According to the authors, this is only the second study to link a mutation of the BHLHE41 gene also known as DEC2 - to short sleep duration. The study provides new insights into the genetic basis of short sleep in humans and the molecular mechanisms involved in setting the duration of sleep that individuals need.

This work provides an important second gene variant associated with sleep deprivation and for the first time shows the role of BHLHE41 in resistance to sleep deprivation in humans, said lead author Renata Pellegrino, PhD, senior research associate in the Center for Applied Genomics at The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. The mutation was associated with resistance to the neurobehavioral effects of sleep deprivation.

Study results are published in the Aug. 1 issue of the journal Sleep.

Pellegrino, along with co-author Ibrahim Halil Kavakli, from Koc University in Istanbul, Turkey, studied 100 twin pairs 59 monozygotic pairs and 41 dizygotic pairs who were recruited at the University of Pennsylvania. All twin pairs were the same sex and were healthy with no chronic conditions. Nightly sleep duration was measured at home by actigraphy for seven to eight nights. Response to 38 hours of sleep deprivation and length of recovery sleep were assessed in a sleep lab. During sleep deprivation, cognitive performance was measured every two hours using the Psychomotor Vigilance Test.

Although individual sleep needs vary, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends that adults get about seven to nine hours of nightly sleep. However, a small percentage of adults are normal short sleepers who routinely obtain less than six hours of sleep per night without any complaints of sleep difficulties and no obvious daytime dysfunction.

This study emphasizes that our need for sleep is a biological requirement, not a personal preference, said American Academy of Sleep Medicine President Dr. Timothy Morgenthaler. Most adults appear to need at least seven hours of quality sleep each night for optimal health, productivity and daytime alertness.

According to the AASM, most people who regularly get six hours of sleep or less are restricting their sleep and suffer from insufficient sleep syndrome, which occurs when an individual persistently fails to obtain the amount of sleep required to maintain normal levels of alertness and wakefulness. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 28 percent of U.S. adults report sleeping six hours or less in a 24-hour period. Insufficient sleep results in increased daytime sleepiness, concentration problems and lowered energy level, and it increases the risk of depression, drowsy driving, and workplace accidents.

The study involved a collaboration between researchers from The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia; Universidade Federal de So Paulo (UNIFESP) in So Paulo, Brazil; Koc University in Istanbul, Turkey; the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine; the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Washington State University. The research was supported in part by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Institutional Development Fund from the Center for Applied Genomics at The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia.

To request a copy of the study, A Novel BHLHE41Variant is Associated with Short Sleep and Resistance to Sleep Deprivation in Humans, or to arrange an interview with the study author or an AASM spokesperson, please contact Communications Coordinator Lynn Celmer at 630-737-9700, ext. 9364, or lcelmer@aasmnet.org.

The monthly, peer-reviewed, scientific journal Sleep is published online by the Associated Professional Sleep Societies LLC, a joint venture of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The AASM is a professional membership society that improves sleep health and promotes high quality patient centered care through advocacy, education, strategic research, and practice standards (www.aasmnet.org). A searchable directory of AASM accredited sleep centers is available at http://www.sleepeducation.org.

Read the rest here:
AASM News Archive - American Academy of Sleep Medicine

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on AASM News Archive – American Academy of Sleep Medicine

How Mankind Is Inching Ever Closer To Immortality Through …

Posted: at 6:42 am

The ubiquity of smartphones has fundamentally changed the way we live our lives. And now, thanks to advancements in wireless technology, smartphones are uniquely positioned to change the way we stay alive.

Today, many patients and doctors are using smartphones as a health care tool. Worried about that rash on your arm? You might be able to snap a photo and send it to your dermatologist. Need to go over your medical history with a new doctor? You could pull up your record on your phone for her perusal. Concerned about chest pains? Theres an EKG app for that.

The smartphone is the future of medicine, says cardiologist and digital medicine researcher Eric Topol. All of [your] medical data [can be] captured in the wild, in the real world. Relevant medical data is coming into your phone. That helps [doctors and patients] to get a handle on virtually all medical conditions and monitor them on a continuous basis.

To highlight the way smartphones and wireless technology are improving our health and saving lives, weve partnered with Qualcomm to take a look at just how much of the future of medicine is in the palm of our hands.

Changing the Model

In the past, doctors were seen as the sole gatekeepers to a patients well-being. They had the education and the experience to make the appropriate diagnosis, the thinking went. As such, they didnt need much input from their patients besides their test results.

But there was a shift in the 20th century to a more patient-focused brand of medicine. Care is better when it recognizes what patients' problems are rather than what the diagnosis is, a 2011 article in The Permanente Journal said. A major failure of primary care is the great underestimation of the importance of long-term relationships with patients independent of care for specific disease episodes.

Smartphones have now brought information into the hands of patients. Thanks to mobile sensors and an array of health-focused apps, people can now measure and monitor data that help make up their health profiles. Weve become inundated with apps that help us eat, travel and bank better. Now were beginning to see health care apps that provide similar types of guidance.

Changing the Way We Communicate

This level of insight and access to data is powerful. We can use data about our bodies to tell us a lot of things, statistician Talithia Williams said during a TED talk on owning your bodys data. Medical doctors [are] experts on the population, but you are the expert on yourself. And so when two of you come together, when two experts come together, the two of you are able to make a better decision than just your doctor alone.

Justin Williams, founder of Data Minded Solutions, a health care technology company, agrees: For the first time, we have the ability to have meaningful and evidence-based interactions with health care providers.

Patients can also have a deeper context for their health today. When his blood glucose lab results hadnt reached his doctor in time for a scheduled appointment, Steve Malik, founder of Medfusion, an app that displays your medical history at a swipe, could bring it up on his smartphone. So when I was getting that talk we all get from our doctors about the three or four things we need to do, I had context, Malik says. I think thats a big part of taking ownership of [your health].

Having that data can be very empowering for people they can begin to have informed discussions with their health care providers about their health and any necessary interventions from a position of greater awareness. They carry both their own and their familys health data in their hands.

Smartphones and wireless technology have also changed the way physicians communicate with their patients. An estimated 3 million people will have their health monitored via mobile networks, and 142 million health apps will be downloaded in 2016, according to Cognizant, a global consultant on business and technology services. E-visits having a doctors appointment via a smartphone or mobile on-demand app are not out of the ordinary. (Deloitte estimates there were 100 million such visits worldwide last year.)

Changing the Way We Receive Care

There are now multitudes of different apps and sensors that can be attached to your smartphone to retrieve your health data. As Topol puts it, The mobile device has just become a Swiss Army knife of tremendous potential.

California-based company Scanadu has developed a sensor that captures important physiological data -- from heart rate and temperature to detailed blood information -- simply by placing it to your forehead. The company is also working on a urine test kit that can provide data on your liver and kidney functions; a smartphone app quickly processes and explains the test results. The University of Washingtondeveloped ApneaApp can wirelessly test for sleep apnea while a patient is asleep by capturing sound waves through a phones speaker to track breathing patterns. (It is expected to be available to consumers within the next two years.)

Not only does this type of wireless technology have the potential to make health care more accessibleit could also make it cheaper for both consumers and insurance companies. This is especially important, as Americans spent around $2.9 trillion on health care in 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Topol recently had a patient who called him with concerns about his heart rate. Usually, Topol wouldve been able to diagnose his patient wirelessly with the help of a $69 electrocardiogram app. But the patient didnt have the app downloaded, and he went to the ER instead, where Topol met him.

Before he ever got into the actual emergency room, I had him put his fingers on my smartphone, did the cardiogram, and I diagnosed what it was, he said.

After a night at the hospital and a battery of tests, the patient was given the same medication Topol would have prescribed with the help of an app. His bill for the emergency room? We're talking several thousand dollars. And all of this could have been [avoided with] a $69 app that he has now, Topol said with a wry laugh.

Changing the Way We Monitor Our Health

With this type of data within our reach, were just at the beginning of a medical revolution. But its definitely coming, experts say.

Not only do people want a consolidated health record in their pocket, said Medfusion founder Malik, they also want to be notified on their wrist if it's time to take a med or that a lab result came in. When you add in the whole sensor capability, it really gives you an idea of where we're going.

And wheres that? A healthier and more empowered future for more people, thanks to the everyday wonder of a smartphone.

Qualcomm believes that we must challenge what we see today, so we can invent the technologies that will shape our tomorrow. To learn more about our Why Wait campaign, click here.

Visit link:
How Mankind Is Inching Ever Closer To Immortality Through ...

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on How Mankind Is Inching Ever Closer To Immortality Through …