Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Conscious Evolution
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Ethical Egoism
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Life Extension
- Mars Colonization
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- New Utopia
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Tag Archives: north
Posted: August 30, 2016 at 11:03 pm
Ai and surrounding area
Additional data from OpenBible.info
Genesis 13:3 He went on his journeys from the South even to Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai,
Joshua 7:2 Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven, on the east side of Bethel, and spoke to them, saying, “Go up and spy out the land.” The men went up and spied out Ai.
Joshua 7:3 They returned to Joshua, and said to him, “Don’t let all the people go up; but let about two or three thousand men go up and strike Ai. Don’t make all the people to toil there, for there are only a few of them.”
Joshua 7:4 So about three thousand men of the people went up there, and they fled before the men of Ai.
Joshua 7:5 The men of Ai struck about thirty-six men of them, and they chased them from before the gate even to Shebarim, and struck them at the descent. The hearts of the people melted, and became like water.
Joshua 8:1 Yahweh said to Joshua, “Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed. Take all the people of war with you, and arise, go up to Ai. Behold, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, with his people, his city, and his land.
Joshua 8:2 You shall do to Ai and her king as you did to Jericho and her king, except its spoil and its livestock, you shall take for a plunder for yourselves. Set an ambush for the city behind it.”
Joshua 8:3 So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up to Ai. Joshua chose thirty thousand men, the mighty men of valor, and sent them out by night.
Joshua 8:9 Joshua sent them out; and they went to set up the ambush, and stayed between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of Ai; but Joshua stayed among the people that night.
Joshua 8:10 Joshua rose up early in the morning, mustered the people, and went up, he and the elders of Israel, before the people to Ai.
Joshua 8:11 All the people, even the men of war who were with him, went up, and drew near, and came before the city, and encamped on the north side of Ai. Now there was a valley between him and Ai.
Joshua 8:12 He took about five thousand men, and set them in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city.
Joshua 8:14 It happened, when the king of Ai saw it, that they hurried and rose up early, and the men of the city went out against Israel to battle, he and all his people, at the time appointed, before the Arabah; but he didn’t know that there was an ambush against him behind the city.
Joshua 8:17 There was not a man left in Ai or Beth El who didn’t go out after Israel. They left the city open, and pursued Israel.
Joshua 8:18 Yahweh said to Joshua, “Stretch out the javelin that is in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your hand.” Joshua stretched out the javelin that was in his hand toward the city.
Joshua 8:20 When the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and behold, the smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that way. The people who fled to the wilderness turned back on the pursuers.
Joshua 8:21 When Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned again, and killed the men of Ai.
Joshua 8:23 They captured the king of Ai alive, and brought him to Joshua.
Joshua 8:24 It happened, when Israel had made an end of killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness in which they pursued them, and they had all fallen by the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all Israel returned to Ai, and struck it with the edge of the sword.
Joshua 8:25 All that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.
Joshua 8:26 For Joshua didn’t draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
Joshua 8:28 So Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap forever, even a desolation, to this day.
Joshua 8:29 He hanged the king of Ai on a tree until the evening, and at the sundown Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, and threw it at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised a great heap of stones on it that remains to this day.
Joshua 9:3 But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai,
Joshua 10:1 Now it happened when Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; as he had done to Jericho and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king; and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them;
Joshua 10:2 that they were very afraid, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty.
Joshua 12:9 the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one;
Ezra 2:28 The men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred twenty-three.
Nehemiah 7:32 The men of Bethel and Ai, a hundred twenty-three.
View original post here:
Posted: August 23, 2016 at 9:31 am
Cathelco will be providing a marine growth prevention system (MGPS) for the latest in a series of jackup rigs to be built by Lamprell, the UAE-based provider of fabrication, engineering and contracting services to the offshore and onshore oil & gas and renewable energy industries.
GE Oil & Gas has been awarded a multi-million-dollar Frame Agreement by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), Indias largest E&P company. Under the agreement, GE will provide an estimated 55 subsea wellheads (SG5) over next three years for the operators offshore drilling campaign, in shallow to medium waters offshore India.
Independent ROV service provider ROVOP is set to increase its Houston workforce as a result of further business growth including recent contract wins in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Seadrill has received a notice of termination from Pemex Exploracion y Servicios for the West Pegasus drilling contract effective Aug. 16. Seadrill has disputed the grounds for termination and is reviewing its legal options, the company said in a statement announcing the cancellation.
An Aberdeen-based well management firm has successfully completed the plug and abandonment of a platform well located offshore Italy.
Statoil and its partners have submitted the Plan for Development and Operation for the Byrding oil and gas discovery in the North Sea.
Lady Sponsor Gretchen H. Watkins, COO at Maersk Oil, has named Maersk Drillings newest asset at a ceremony in Invergordon, Scotland. The Maersk Highlander, a harsh environment jackup rig, is now ready for work.
Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Hess Corp. have agreed to bid together for rights to drill for crude in Mexicos deepwater oil areas, according to a person with direct knowledge of the plans.
Offshore oil explorer Cobalt International Energy Inc. jumped the most in four years after an analyst upgraded the stock and said it could be a takeover target for bigger drillers.
Sparrows Group and SPIE Oil & Gas Services have strengthened their existing service portfolios by signing a global agreement to work in collaboration to support the energy sector.
Maersk Supply Service will reduce its fleet by up to 20 vessels over the next 18 months. The divestment plan is a response to vessels in lay-up, limited trading opportunities and the global over-supply of offshore supply ships.
Tullow Oil has announced first oil from the Tweneboa, Enyenra and Ntomme (TEN) fields offshore Ghana, to the FPSO Prof. John Evans Atta Mills.
Independent Oil & Gas (IOG) provided an update on the drilling of the appraisal well on the Skipper oil discovery, which lies in Block 9/21a in license P1609 in the North Sea, of which IOG is 100% owner and operator.
Inspectors of Lloyds Register are optimizing inspection regimes thanks to their accredited status, using the OVID web based inspection tool to reference inspection reports.
A drilling contract has been awarded to the Frigstad Shekou, which is the first of two ultra deepwater semisubmersible drilling rigs, which were ordered by Frigstad Deepwater Ltd in December 2012.
The petroleum industry, under the direction of the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association, today announced its ambition to implement CO2 reduction measures corresponding to 2.5 MMt on the Norwegian continental shelf (NCS) by 2030 compared with 2020.
Delek Drilling and Avner Oil Exploration, part of Israel’s leading integrated energy company, have signed a deal for the sale of 100% of their holdings in Karish and Tanin natural gas fields to Energean Oil & Gas.
GE Oil & Gas subsidiary, PT. VetcoGray Indonesia, has been awarded a field decommissioning contract with Premier Oil Indonesia, to support the shutdown of four subsea wells in Anoa field, offshore Indonesia.
JX Nippon Exploration and Production (UK) Limited has sold an 8.9% working interest in the Greater Mariner Area, including Mariner oil field, primarily located in UK license P335, to Siccar Point Energy UK Limited.
Aleksandar Milankovic, Ricardo Senne, Pablo E. Coronado, Halliburton
A high recovery rate and world record helped Petrobras achieve objectives, while saving 24 hr of deepwater drillship time, as well as operational costs.
See the original post here:
Posted: August 10, 2016 at 9:22 pm
However you arrived at this page, we welcome you. The Libertarian Party of North Carolina seeks to return the focus of those we elect to the people who elected them. We believe the only way we can achieve this is to recruit, support and elect libertarian candidates.
We cannot do this without the support of what we call the voiceless voters. Those voiceless voters — Libertarian and unaffiliated — make up nearly one-third of registered voters in our great state. So you’d think bringing about change to our broken political system should be relatively easy. The truth is the deck is severely stacked against those seeking to put people, not politics first.
Please spend some time looking through our site. A great place to start is on our news page. It is chock full of relevant and recent content, all just a click away.
Most importantly we want you to connect with us. Throughout the site there are places for you to reach out and get involved to whatever extent you desire and to whatever extent you are comfortable with. Just get involved.
Together we will be voiceless no more.
See the original post:
Posted: July 29, 2016 at 3:16 am
Community leaders from Brooklyn to Berkeleyare receiving support to make their community-building dreams a reality.
Hakhel, a partnership between Hazon and Nettiot, is the first-of-its-kind Jewish Intentional Communities incubator in North America. Derived from the Hebrew word for community, Hakhel means assemble, a term which alludes to the projects two-fold aim of encouraging and developing young communities, and using these communities as a method for engaging young adults in Jewish life, learning and service. Finalists receive guidance from two expert mentors, Aharon Ariel Lavi and James Grant-Rosenhead, modest financial assistance, participation in Hazons Jewish Intentional Communities Tour in Israel, and peer-to-peer networking opportunities within the cohort, thanks to support from UJA Federation of New York.
The project is integrally linked with Makom, the parallel movement of Mission-Driven Communities in Israel, where more than 200 communities have been established in the last three decades. This years cohort, plus some additional members of the movement outside of the cohort, will be traveling to Israel this Marchto learn from the Israeli experience, expand their horizons to new and different models of communities, andestablish long-term, direct relationships between the American communities and their Israeli counterparts.
Lavi and Grant-Rosenhead, founder-members of intentional communities in Israel, are activists and leaders in the Makom movement. Together, they will assist the Hakhel projects in conducting feasibility studies, creating work plans, and honing their long-term vision of internal development and external outreach.
Work at Home Mom & Pop
WAHMP aims to create a communal space where Jewish parents of all denominations can come together, with young children in tow, to a shared office space, in order to pursue their creative or telecommuting endeavors. Our co-working environment, with on sight child engagement, will offer the standard amenities of a shared office environment, plus a kosher kitchen, private nursing space, and hours compatible with both parenting and Jewish lifestyles. Our space will provide not only office set-up and peer interaction for both adults and children, but also engaging networking opportunities, and workshops and lectures run by experts in Jewish spirituality, parenting, finance, and law. We also aim to provide an opportunity for our member artists to showcase and sell their work, and space for our members to collaborate on new projects.
Rabbi Debbi Bravo
Makom NY is a new kind of Jewish community on Long Island where all are welcome. They come from many backgrounds and are seeking Jewish learning, culture, connections and community.They are acommunity beyond any one movement where all people are personally welcomed and where social, denominational, faith and financial barriers do not exist. They look to embrace meaningful worship that uses the transcendent power of music toenable connection and spirituality; intergenerational programming of holiday celebrations, social justiceand Israel connection; immersive Jewish learning experiences for children that foster alifelong love of Judaism, an understanding of the modern Hebrewlanguage and preparation for Bnai Mitzvah; parallel adult and family learning experiences that allow families of allbackgrounds to discover and create their own Jewish identities; andJewish Life Cycle celebrations.
Haredi Tech Entrepreneurs
The ultimate dream of this community is a virtual kibutz of harediheads of families engaged in building, investing, and marketingtechnology products.The community will take in new members recently completing or in theirfinal years of yeshiva (or seminary), include training programs andguidance mentors directing new members in the right tech field andbuilding the right skills.The ideal is for the community to also provide housing for its members,in return for participation in its program, much like a kibutz.The biggest hurdle for a young family today is housing cost, andelevating this pain is a big value for joining this community.
As members create and participate in products, which are owned by thecommunity (which acts as a sort of a tech incubator and memberssharing equity), they become mentors and later leaders of thecommunity.
Rabbi Laurie Phillips & Daphna Mor
Beineinu is a New York City-based initiative dedicated to cultivating personal Jewish pathways that resonate with the unique needs of our modern world. They build community between them by offering meaningful experiences for all people of all ages. Whether youve long been a part of Jewish life, or are embarking on something utterly new, they invite you to join our gatherings and develop your own customized endeavor with them.
The concept behind Beineinu isthe Havurah model: our leadershipcultivates small communities formed from about 10 households, and implements a plan with each group. The group decides the content and the frequency of meetings, gathering throughout the year to explore and connect with Jewish learning and one another, developing and strengthening identity with relevance and meaning. Their first groups have come together in Brooklyn, Harlem, and on the Upper West Side.
David Kay, David Meyer, Leya Robinson, Morriah Kaplan, Noah Finkelstein, Tom Corcoran, Sara Zebovitz, Sarah Lerman-Sinkoff
Theyare a Jewish, social justice oriented group, hoping to create a network of communal Jewish life in America. They will be focused on our local communities by getting involved in neighborhood activities and taking action together with our neighbors. They host Shabbat dinners and share resources and thoughts on holidays with the Habonim Dror community, and hope to expand that. They see communal living and communal responsibility as essential to creating a world based on social justice and equality, and see our Jewish life as central to those values.
Amy Hannes, David Nidorf, Doree Lipson, Emily Abramson, Simon Abramson, Felice Winograd Holt, Rebecca Stacy, Alan Rothman, Ayelet Singer
Kol ai (which means all life) is an emerging, Jewish Renewal spiritual community in New Yorks Hudson Valley. We gather for music-filled, joyful Shabbat and holiday services, as well as meals and other shared community experiences. Our ecumenical, intergenerational community is comprised of a diversity of people including families, retirees, young farmers and NYC friends seeking shabbat in nature. We learn through chanting, prayer, ritual text study and immersive experiences in the regions natural landscape.
The Beis Community
Hart Levine, Yael Levine, Rebecca Mintz, Nathaniel Moldoff, Aryeh Canter, Jordana Burstein
We are a group of passionate young professionals committed to building a community that is socially progressive and Orthodox. A hallmark of our activities has been a focus on intentional prayer, creativity in ritual, and Torah study as well as an openness and warmth that welcomes all Jews. We focus on inreach, outreach, and up-reach, encouraging those who are actively engaged in Jewish life to strengthen and support less involved Jews who are in search of their own faith and practice. Our goal is to use the incredible human capital in our community and our position in New York City to create an aspirational model for the Modern Orthodox communities of the future.
Sara Shalva, Adam Simon, Nancy Cohen, Jennifer Zwilling Rosenwasser, Lori Simon, Alex Boyar, Jon Rosenwasser, Benjamin Shalva, Jeff Wetzler, Jennifer Goldman-Wetzler
Theircommunity grew out of a table of friends sitting at the Hkader Ohkel at Camp Yavneh in New Hampshire. As an emerging intentional community, they come together 6 8 times a year to celebrate Jewish life as families. Over some shabbatot or entire weekends or holidays they find inexpensive opportunities to gather to sing, hike, learn, discuss and live in community. At those times, when they manage to take the time and spare the expense to gather together at a family camp or small retreat, they realize how important it is for us to be with their chevra, especially on retreat: away from the business of usual life. There, they have the time to learn together and to take the time to reflect together on who they are and who they want to be.
Boulder Jewish Community Housing Initiative
The mission of the Boulder Jewish Community Housing Initiative (BJCHI) is to establish a Jewish Moshav (the Moshav) in Boulder, Colorado based on cooperative community, Jewish culture and religious practice, social justice, and sustainable environmental practices. The Moshav will be a denominationally unaffiliated, pluralistic, multi-generational community of households, united by a connection and commitment to Judaism, sustainability, and social justice, who have come together to live Jewish-inspired lives in community and in harmony with nature and Jewish and natural rhythms of the year. The Moshav will consist of two limited-equity cohousing communities one senior and one intergenerational totaling approximately 60 sustainably built housing units, 25 of which (40%) will be affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
Residents of Berkeley Moshav who ideally would constitute a village diverse in age, family composition, economic circumstance, and Jewish observance will engage together in Jewish ritual, study, and culture, creating a milieu in which daily Jewish life will be normal, rich, and fun. In short, Jewish life would strengthen community, and the community would nurture Jewish life. As a part of the surrounding community, we hope to engage neighbors in communal events, both those that share our traditions (such as a Sukkot meal) and those that simply create more community (such movie nights in our common house). The idea is both to develop the Jewish lives and identities of ourselves and our community and then to share these lives and identities as we engage the wider world.
Members include Roger Studley & Chai Levy, Asaf Shor & Hilla Abel, Bridget Wynne & Julia London, Chaim & Nell Mahgel-Friedman, Chasya-Uriel & Ahava Steinbauer, Daniel Barash & Mark Jacobs, Glenn Massarano, Harriet Schiffer, Jenny & Josh Kirsch, Judy Gussman, Michael & Rebecca Liskin, Shira & Yoav Potash, Tamar & Yossi Fendel, and Yari Mander.
Posted: July 25, 2016 at 3:58 pm
The Principality of Sealand (not to be confused with SeaWorld, who ignores our annexation requests) is a glorious country off the coast of England that is loved by many, and feared by all; at least it would be if not for the fact that no other nation recognizes its true sovereignty, probably out of envy. This land of hope and glory conveniently occupies the space of an abandoned sea fort, standing above the English Channel, and is ruled by the honorable Bates family. Prince Roy and Prince Regent Michael Bates shield the young nation from dangers foreign and internal alike. Though the Principality of Sealand has experienced innumerable hardships and trials, it has since emerged as a powerful and respected governmental entity, despite what everyone else says. They’re just jealous, the overbearing twits.
Not pictured is the massive, sprawling underwater city home to thousands of royal servants and citizens.
It isn’t proven that the Principality of Sealand didn’t originate from the very nethers of Venus herself, so we have to presume that this is so. History says that Sealand was originally an old WWII sea fort that was occupied by a less than sane Pirate Radio broadcaster in the late 1960’s, but we all know that history is a confusing, unclear subject, and any dissenter could fabricate fallacies to discredit others. It is in fact well known that Sealand was the true homeland of its now prince Paddy Roy Bates .
For several years, the nascent nation prospered, bringing in an era of peace and prosperity within all 0.55km2 of its land. Other than a few ramblers foolish enough to trespass its borders to spy under the guise of “fishing” or “buoy repairs”, Sealand was peaceful, thanks to the rule of the Bates family, and the hard work of its citizens (all two of them). Sadly, this peace was to be short lived; it was only a matter of time before someone tried to invade the country. While the Bates family was in a diplomatic trip in London, a group of German and Dutch mercenaries, led by the generally unpleasant Alexander Achenbach, self proclaimed Prime Minister of Sealand, temporarily occupied the fort, and took Roy Bates’ son Michael hostage. Through what we can only assume as a daring rescue mission involving spectacular heroics, Roy Bates retook his land and saved his son. To this day, the vile invaders still wait patiently for the day when Roy Bates dies, running their government-in-exile in their mother’s basement.
After the Achenbach Debacle of ’78, Sealand was again at peace. Benefiting from the lack of dirty foreigners poisoning the mother land with their “hopes” and “aspirations for the future”, the Principality expanded, eventually reaching the dark underbelly of Cyberspace! HavenCo, which was co-owned by Prince Regent Michael Bates and Ryan Lackey, was a titular haven of unregulated data and other technobabble terms, free from the chains of rules and petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, HavenCo could’ve became your Data Haven as well if not for its sudden closure in 2008.
A large number of counterfeit Sealand passports were in circulation, used by criminals to aide in their crimes and, worst of all, not serve the motherland. Because of this, the Royal Bates family had to revoke all Sealand passports, including ones officially issued by them over the past twenty two years.
On July of 2006, a fire which was allegedly caused by an electrical failure, almost threatened the existence of the young nation. The situation got so bad that a helicopter was needed to ferry citizens to safety. Luckily, the fire was stopped, and the fort was completely repaired by November of that year. Some fishermen were found within a mile of the fort right before the fire, and were executed following a thorough, one-hour investigation.
Unbeknownst to most, the Magna Carta was actually based on Sealand’s constitution, despite the mild time differences.
The Principality of Sealand is ruled by the Royal Bates family under a constitutional monarchy. All of the power is vested on the Royal Family and their associates. Anyone who says otherwise will be thrown off. Though this system of government may be somewhat similar to another certain island nation to the north, Sealand actually invented the concept of monarchy, and anyone using it owes Sealand large amounts of money. Claims that the Principality of Sealand is a fascist state are unsubstantiated and will be met with severe punishment from the police force. Currently, Michael Bates is Prince Regent, the head of state and the de facto ruler of the Principality, although Roy Bates still holds the title of Prince. The fact that Roy Bates would name himself “Prince” instead of “King” shows that he still considers humility a principal virtue, as do all of subjects that bask in his glory.
The Sealand Royal Family is to be addressed with utmost respect, and any signs of disrespect, such as not calling Roy Bates’s wife, Princess (she likes that, you know) will be met with deportation via defenestration.
No government has recognized Sealand’s state as a country. In fact, they believe that the Principality is merely a micronation run by a deranged pirate broadcaster that managed to evade the law by living in international waters, despite the fact that these claims are extremely silly and not-at-all true.
Since the only thing that Sealand has an abundance of is patriotism and sea watertwo things most people already have too much ofthe Principality of Sealand currently has nothing to export; the only things Sealand imports is porta-potties and food, and both items are only to be used by the royal family (royal servants are fed barnacles and sea water). Despite the setbacks in the economy (or lack thereof), the Principality of Sealand still issues currency for use in buying and selling goods within the country’s borders.
To help with the monetary costs of the maintenance needed to support the Principality, Sealand has recently begun selling T-shirts, mugs, pens, and other trinkets to online buyers. While supplies last, see store for details. The country has also started selling the titles of Lord, Lady, Baron, and Baroness to people, to fill the high demand of internet users wanting to be part of royalty. Tourists are occasionally welcomed into the motherland, mostly for sightseeing and good PR. Other times, we allow certain allies into the fort, but due to the Achenbach debacle, Sealand has much more strict immigration laws than other countries. Sealand has been attacked by terrorists before, and if the rest of the world had followed Sealand’s example, the Earth would’ve been completely free of suspicious foreigners.
Sealand has had amicable relations with its allies all around the world: all two of them!
Sealand has had a long and complicated history with the motherland, ranging from mild annoyance to unsympathetic apathy. Like all other nations, it does not recognize Sealand as a true country, but it does make sure not to trifle with Sealand’s business: the country lies in international waters, and it is much easier to ignore someone than to be completely hostile with them if they don’t directly antagonize you. The Royal Bates family originally hailed from England, and still has citizenship there, but during diplomatic visits to their previous homeland, they don’t seem to be treated with the same dignity and respect as other diplomats. Yes, it’s true that being a diplomat allows you free food at any restaurant franchise for life, regardless of what the manager says.
Sealand has had a somewhat complicated history with Germany: Alexander Achenbach came from Deutschland, and so did a lot of his cronies. On the other hand, Germany did send a diplomat to Sealand to petition for Achenbachs’ release, so according to rules set by Sealand, this was a diplomatic mission, and counts as a recognition of Sealand’s nationhood, right?
Russia scares us. No further comments.
The future is one thing that most Sealanders are quite wary of (not Prince Roy though, he can smell time), but uncertainty has never stopped the Principality of Sealand from reaching its lofty goals. Sealand already has a film in the works, and the space program is already burgeoning, despite minor setbacks involving catapult malfunctions. Though some might cower at the face of tomorrow, we spit in tomorrow’s face, tell it to cry to its mother while making an effigy of tomorrow, and then lighting it on fire with the decomposing stomach gases of tomorrow’s close relatives.
Posted: July 21, 2016 at 2:09 am
11 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Warsaw Declaration on Transatlantic Security Warsaw Summit Communiqu NATO-EU Joint Declaration Commitment to Enhance Resilience Cyber Defense Pledge NATO Policy for the Protection of Civilians
10 July | Fact Sheets, U.S. & NATO
FACT SHEET: U.S. and NATO Efforts in Support of NATO Partners, including Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova From The White House The United States strongly
10 July | Fact Sheets, U.S. & NATO
FACT SHEET: U.S. Contributions to Enhancing Allied Resilience From The White House At the NATO Warsaw Summit, heads of state and government will commit their
9 July | NATO Summits, President Barack Obama, Speeches, Transcripts
Remarks by President Obama at Press Conference After NATO Summit July 9,2016 PRESIDENT OBAMA:Good evening, everybody. Once again, I want to thank the government and
9 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Joint statement of the NATO-Ukraine Commission at the Level of Heads of State and Government We, the Heads of State and Government of the
9 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
The Warsaw Declaration on Transatlantic Security Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw
9 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Endorsed by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8-9 July 2016 I. INTRODUCTION 1.
9 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8-9 July 2016 1. We, the
9 July | Fact Sheets
FACT SHEET: NATOs Enduring Commitment to Afghanistan From The White House NATOs mission in Afghanistan has been the Alliances largest and one of its
9 July | NATO Summits, Speeches
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Opening Remarks Following the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the Level of Heads of State and Government in
9 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Issued by the Heads of State and Government of Afghanistan and Alliesand their Resolute Support Operational Partners We, the Heads of State and Government of
8 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Cyber Defence Pledge 1. In recognition of the new realities of security threats to NATO, we, the Allied Heads of State and Government, pledge to
8 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw, 8-9 July 2016 We, the Heads
8 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Joint statement of the NATO-Georgia Commission at the level of Foreign Ministers We, Allied Foreign Ministers and the Foreign Minister of Georgia, met today in
8 July | NATO Summits, Speeches, Transcripts
Press Statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Signing Ceremony of the EU-NATO Joint Declaration Followed by Statements by President Tuskand PresidentJuncker July
8 July | NATO Summits, President Barack Obama, Speeches
Remarks by President Obama, President Tusk of the European Council, and President Juncker of the European Commission After U.S.-EU Meeting July 8, 2016 PRESIDENT OBAMA:
8 July | Cooperative Security, Fact Sheets, U.S. & NATO
FACT SHEET: U.S. Assurance and Deterrence Efforts in Support of NATO Allies From The White House In the last 18 months, the United States
8 July | Key Documents, NATO Summits
Joint Declaration by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
U.S. Mission to NATO
Posted: July 12, 2016 at 6:20 am
Alternative title: NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joining the original signatories were Greece and Turkey (1952); West Germany (1955; from 1990 as Germany); Spain (1982); the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); and Albania and Croatia (2009). France withdrew from the integrated military command of NATO in 1966 but remained a member of the organization; it resumed its position in NATOs military command in 2009.
The heart of NATO is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the signatory members agree that
an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in 2001, after terrorist attacks organized by exiled Saudi Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., killing some 3,000 people.
Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty as covering an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America. Other articles commit the allies to strengthening their democratic institutions, to building their collective military capability, to consulting each other, and to remaining open to inviting other European states to join.
Barkley, Alben W.: North Atlantic Treaty signingEncyclopdia Britannica, Inc.After World War II in 1945, western Europe was economically exhausted and militarily weak (the western Allies had rapidly and drastically reduced their armies at the end of the war), and newly powerful communist parties had arisen in France and Italy. By contrast, the Soviet Union had emerged from the war with its armies dominating all the states of central and eastern Europe, and by 1948 communists under Moscows sponsorship had consolidated their control of the governments of those countries and suppressed all noncommunist political activity. What became known as the Iron Curtain, a term popularized by Winston Churchill, had descended over central and eastern Europe. Further, wartime cooperation between the western Allies and the Soviets had completely broken down. Each side was organizing its own sector of occupied Germany, so that two German states would emerge, a democratic one in the west and a communist one in the east.
In 1948 the United States launched the Marshall Plan, which infused massive amounts of economic aid to the countries of western and southern Europe on the condition that they cooperate with each other and engage in joint planning to hasten their mutual recovery. As for military recovery, under the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the United Kingdom, France, and the Low CountriesBelgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgconcluded a collective-defense agreement called the Western European Union. It was soon recognized, however, that a more formidable alliance would be required to provide an adequate military counterweight to the Soviets.
By this time Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that would serve as an alternative to the United Nations (UN), which was becoming paralyzed by the rapidly emerging Cold War. In March 1948, following a virtual communist coup dtat in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defense scheme that would enhance Western security and promote democratic values. These discussions were eventually joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway and in April 1949 resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.
Spurred by the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, the United States took steps to demonstrate that it would resist any Soviet military expansion or pressures in Europe. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the Allied forces in western Europe in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATOs governing body) in December 1950. He was followed as SACEUR by a succession of American generals.
The North Atlantic Council, which was established soon after the treaty came into effect, is composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year. At other times the council, chaired by the NATO secretary-general, remains in permanent session at the ambassadorial level. Just as the position of SACEUR has always been held by an American, the secretary-generalship has always been held by a European.
NATOs military organization encompasses a complete system of commands for possible wartime use. The Military Committee, consisting of representatives of the military chiefs of staff of the member states, subsumes two strategic commands: Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT). ACO is headed by the SACEUR and located at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Casteau, Belgium. ACT is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. During the alliances first 20 years, more than $3 billion worth of infrastructure for NATO forcesbases, airfields, pipelines, communications networks, depotswas jointly planned, financed, and built, with about one-third of the funding from the United States. NATO funding generally is not used for the procurement of military equipment, which is provided by the member statesthough the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force, a fleet of radar-bearing aircraft designed to protect against a surprise low-flying attack, was funded jointly.
A serious issue confronting NATO in the early and mid-1950s was the negotiation of West Germanys participation in the alliance. The prospect of a rearmed Germany was understandably greeted with widespread unease and hesitancy in western Europe, but the countrys strength had long been recognized as necessary to protect western Europe from a possible Soviet invasion. Accordingly, arrangements for West Germanys safe participation in the alliance were worked out as part of the Paris Agreements of October 1954, which ended the occupation of West German territory by the western Allies and provided for both the limitation of West German armaments and the countrys accession to the Brussels Treaty. In May 1955 West Germany joined NATO, which prompted the Soviet Union to form the Warsaw Pact alliance in central and eastern Europe the same year. The West Germans subsequently contributed many divisions and substantial air forces to the NATO alliance. By the time the Cold War ended, some 900,000 troopsnearly half of them from six countries (United States, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands)were stationed in West Germany.
Frances relationship with NATO became strained after 1958, as President Charles de Gaulle increasingly criticized the organizations domination by the United States and the intrusion upon French sovereignty by NATOs many international staffs and activities. He argued that such integration subjected France to automatic war at the decision of foreigners. In July 1966 France formally withdrew from the military command structure of NATO and required NATO forces and headquarters to leave French soil; nevertheless, de Gaulle proclaimed continued French adherence to the North Atlantic Treaty in case of unprovoked aggression. After NATO moved its headquarters from Paris to Brussels, France maintained a liaison relationship with NATOs integrated military staffs, continued to sit in the council, and continued to maintain and deploy ground forces in West Germany, though it did so under new bilateral agreements with the West Germans rather than under NATO jurisdiction. In 2009 France rejoined the military command structure of NATO.
From its founding, NATOs primary purpose was to unify and strengthen the Western Allies military response to a possible invasion of western Europe by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. In the early 1950s NATO relied partly on the threat of massive nuclear retaliation from the United States to counter the Warsaw Pacts much larger ground forces. Beginning in 1957, this policy was supplemented by the deployment of American nuclear weapons in western European bases. NATO later adopted a flexible response strategy, which the United States interpreted to mean that a war in Europe did not have to escalate to an all-out nuclear exchange. Under this strategy, many Allied forces were equipped with American battlefield and theatre nuclear weapons under a dual-control (or dual-key) system, which allowed both the country hosting the weapons and the United States to veto their use. Britain retained control of its strategic nuclear arsenal but brought it within NATOs planning structures; Frances nuclear forces remained completely autonomous.
A conventional and nuclear stalemate between the two sides continued through the construction of the Berlin Wall in the early 1960s, dtente in the 1970s, and the resurgence of Cold War tensions in the 1980s after the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the election of U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1980. After 1985, however, far-reaching economic and political reforms introduced by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev fundamentally altered the status quo. In July 1989 Gorbachev announced that Moscow would no longer prop up communist governments in central and eastern Europe and thereby signaled his tacit acceptance of their replacement by freely elected (and noncommunist) administrations. Moscows abandonment of control over central and eastern Europe meant the dissipation of much of the military threat that the Warsaw Pact had formerly posed to western Europe, a fact that led some to question the need to retain NATO as a military organizationespecially after the Warsaw Pacts dissolution in 1991. The reunification of Germany in October 1990 and its retention of NATO membership created both a need and an opportunity for NATO to be transformed into a more political alliance devoted to maintaining international stability in Europe.
After the Cold War, NATO was reconceived as a cooperative-security organization whose mandate was to include two main objectives: to foster dialogue and cooperation with former adversaries in the Warsaw Pact and to manage conflicts in areas on the European periphery, such as the Balkans. In keeping with the first objective, NATO established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991; later replaced by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) to provide a forum for the exchange of views on political and security issues, as well as the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program (1994) to enhance European security and stability through joint military training exercises with NATO and non-NATO states, including the former Soviet republics and allies. Special cooperative links were also set up with two PfP countries: Russia and Ukraine.
The second objective entailed NATOs first use of military force, when it entered the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 by staging air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions around the capital city of Sarajevo. The subsequent Dayton Accords, which were initialed by representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, committed each state to respecting the others sovereignty and to settling disputes peacefully; it also laid the groundwork for stationing NATO peacekeeping troops in the region. A 60,000-strong Implementation Force (IFOR) was initially deployed, though a smaller contingent remained in Bosnia under a different name, the Stabilization Force (SFOR). In March 1999 NATO launched massive air strikes against Serbia in an attempt to force the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Miloevi to accede to diplomatic provisions designed to protect the predominantly Muslim Albanian population in the province of Kosovo. Under the terms of a negotiated settlement to the fighting, NATO deployed a peacekeeping force called the Kosovo Force (KFOR).
The crisis over Kosovo and the ensuing war gave renewed impetus to efforts by the European Union (EU) to construct a new crisis-intervention force, which would make the EU less dependent on NATO and U.S. military resources for conflict management. These efforts prompted significant debates about whether enhancing the EUs defensive capabilities would strengthen or weaken NATO. Simultaneously there was much discussion of the future of NATO in the post-Cold War era. Some observers argued that the alliance should be dissolved, noting that it was created to confront an enemy that no longer existed; others called for a broad expansion of NATO membership to include Russia. Most suggested alternative roles, including peacekeeping. By the start of the second decade of the 21st century, it appeared likely that the EU would not develop capabilities competitive with those of NATO or even seek to do so; as a result, earlier worries associated with the spectre of rivalry between the two Brussels-based organizations dissipated.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization: flag-raising ceremony, 1999NATO photosDuring the presidency of Bill Clinton (19932001), the United States led an initiative to enlarge NATO membership gradually to include some of the former Soviet allies. In the concurrent debate over enlargement, supporters of the initiative argued that NATO membership was the best way to begin the long process of integrating these states into regional political and economic institutions such as the EU. Some also feared future Russian aggression and suggested that NATO membership would guarantee freedom and security for the newly democratic regimes. Opponents pointed to the enormous cost of modernizing the military forces of new members; they also argued that enlargement, which Russia would regard as a provocation, would hinder democracy in that country and enhance the influence of hard-liners. Despite these disagreements, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia were admitted in 2004; and Albania and Croatia acceded to the alliance in 2009.
Meanwhile, by the beginning of the 21st century, Russia and NATO had formed a strategic relationship. No longer considered NATOs chief enemy, Russia cemented a new cooperative bond with NATO in 2001 to address such common concerns as international terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and arms control. This bond was subsequently subject to fraying, however, in large part because of reasons associated with Russian domestic politics.
Events following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 led to the forging of a new dynamic within the alliance, one that increasingly favoured the military engagement of members outside Europe, initially with a mission against Taliban forces in Afghanistan beginning in the summer of 2003 and subsequently with air operations against the regime of Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya in early 2011. As a result of the increased tempo of military operations undertaken by the alliance, the long-standing issue of burden sharing was revived, with some officials warning that failure to share the costs of NATO operations more equitably would lead to unraveling of the alliance. Most observers regarded that scenario as unlikely, however.
Corrections? Updates? Help us improve this article! Contact our editors with your Feedback.
See the original post:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) | Britannica.com
Posted: at 6:19 am
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says State instead of Country (the Framers knew the difference see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginias vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the slave patrols, and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of CaliforniaLaw Reviewin 1998, The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.
Its the answer to the question raised by thecharacter played byLeonardo DiCaprio inDjango Unchainedwhen he asks, Why dont they just rise up and kill the whites? If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Sally E. Haden, in herbookSlave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller. There were exemptions so men in critical professions like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 including physicians and ministers had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.
And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.
By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband or even move out of the state those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.
These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.
This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. Liberty to Slaves was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washingtons army.
Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.
At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:
Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .
By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.
George Mason expressed a similar fear:
The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . .
Henry then bluntly laid it out:
If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.
And why was that such a concern forPatrick Henry?
In this state, he said, there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.
Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried theyd use the Constitution to free the Souths slaves (a process then called Manumission).
The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):
[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission, said Henry. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.
He added: This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.
I was struck with surprise,Madison said, when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not.
But the southern fears wouldnt go away.
Patrick Henry even argued that southerners property (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:
In this situation, Henry said to Madison, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.
So Madison, who had (at Jeffersons insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.
His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a freecountry[emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word country to the word state, and redrafted the Second Amendment into todays form:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState[emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as persons by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional,would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their right to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.
Read the rest here:
The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery