text:
Pages tagged "homepage"
Posted by Ricardo Davis · January 12, 2022 5:23 PM
Thank you for your interest in the Constitution Party of Georgia (CP-Ga). Here you'll find events that the CP-Ga and its local party organizations are hosting or co-hosting, as well as events where we will have an active presence such as a booth. CP-Ga representatives are available to speak at your event, school, class, etc. Presentations include The American View of Law and Government, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the CP-Ga's vision, platform and goals. Please contact us via email or call (404) 994-3586 today!
Posted on News by Ricardo Davis · December 18, 2021 6:22 PM
December 2021 Cherokee County Meeting Cancelled
Posted by Constitution Party of Georgia · December 18, 2021 6:22 PM · 1 reaction
Merry Christmas from the Constitution Party of Georgia!
Posted by Ricardo Davis · December 18, 2021 6:10 PM · 1 reaction
Statewide Tele-Town Hall - 12/11/2021
Posted by Ricardo Davis · December 12, 2021 11:11 PM
The Link Between Two Birthdays
Posted on Library by Ricardo Davis · December 16, 2021 5:14 PM · 1 reaction
This oration by John Quincy Adams came from a very resourceful book by David Barton from Wallbuilders, "WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history". See bottom of this post for a PDF copy of the entire oration.
"In John Quincy Adams' oration on July 4, 1837, he first chronicled what led up to the Declaration of Independence and expounded on the subsequent development of American government, including the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution. He reminded Americans of fundamental principles: of how liberty was a gift from God and therefore why the Founders intended for slavery eventually to be abolished; and of how union was a first principle and therefore why secession and disunion were abhorrent to the Founders and should be repugnant to every generation. Adams' oration is an inspiring look at the reason that the Fourth of July had become such a celebrated day in America—a day on which we looked into our past history, and also a day when we looked at our present responsibilities and renewed our pledge to preserve the trust that had been given us by God and by our Founders.[1]
Say ye not, "At Confederacy," to all them to whom this people shall say "A Confederacy"; neither fear ye their fear nor be afraid. Isaiah 8:12
Why is it, friends and fellow citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it that entering upon the sixty-second year of our national existence, you have honored with an invitation to address you from this place a fellow citizen of a former age,1 bearing in the records of his memory the warm and vivid affections which attached him—at the distance of a full half century—to your town and to your forefathers, then the cherished associates of his youthful days? Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? And why is it that among the swarming myriads [countless numbers] of our population [that] thousands and tens of thousands among us (abstaining under the dictate of religious principle—from the commemoration of that birthday of Him Who brought life and immortality to light [2 timothy 1:10])2 yet unite with all their brethren of this community year after year in celebrating this, the birthday of the nation?
Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior?—that it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?—that it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable [absolute] pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?
Cast your eyes backwards upon the progress of time sixty-one years from this day, and in the midst of the horrors and desolations of civil war [the American Revolution] you behold an assembly of planters, shopkeepers, and lawyers—the representatives of the people of thirteen English colonies in North America—sitting in the city of Philadelphia. These fifty-five men on that day unanimously adopt and publish to the world a state paper under the simple title of "A Declaration."3
The object of this Declaration was twofold.
First, to proclaim the people of the thirteen united colonies One People; and in their name and by their authority, to dissolve the political bands which had connected them with another people—that is, the people of Great Britain.4
Secondly, to assume—in the name of this One People of the thirteen united Colonies—among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God entitled them.
With regard to the first of these purposes, the Declaration alleges a decent respect to the opinions of mankind as requiring that the one People separating themselves from another should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The specification of these causes and the conclusion resulting from them constitute the whole paper. The Declaration was a manifesto issued from a decent respect of the opinions of mankind to justify the people of the North American Union for their voluntary separation from the people of Great Britain by alleging the causes which rendered this separation necessary.…
For the second object of the Declaration (the assumption among the powers of the earth of the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled them), no reason was assigned—no justification was deemed necessary.…
Six years of war—cruel, unrelenting, merciless war—war at once civil and foreign—were waged, testing the firmness and fortitude of the One People in the inflexible adherence to that separation from the other which their representatives in Congress had proclaimed. By the signature of the preliminary Articles of Peace on the 30th of November 1782, their warfare was accomplished and the Spirit of the Lord—with a voice reaching to the latest of future ages—might have exclaimed (like the sublime prophet of Israel), Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, saith your God (isaiah 40:1).…
George the Third believed that the Parliament of Great Britain had the right to enact laws for the government of the people of the British Colonies in all cases. An immense majority of the people of the British Islands believed the same.… Here was a conflict between two first principles of government resulting from a defect in the British Constitution: the principle that sovereign power in human government is in its nature unlimited; and the principle that property can lawfully be taxed only with the consent of its owner. Now these two principles carried out into practice are utterly irreconcilable with each other.… [T]he King and Parliament [and t]he people of Great Britain appealed for the right to tax the Colonies to the unlimited and illimitable sovereignty of the Parliament, (and) [t]he Colonists appealed to the natural right of property and the articles of the Great Charter.5 The collision in the application of these two principles was the primitive [root] cause of the severance of the North American Colonies from the British Empire.
The grievances alleged in the Declaration of Independence6 were … causes amply sufficient to justify before God and man the separation itself; and that resolution—to the support of which the fifty-five representatives of the one people of the United Colonies pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor7—after passing through the fiery ordeal of a six years war, was sanctioned by the God of Battles and by the unqualified acknowledgment of the defeated adversary [Great Britain].…
The members of the Congress who signed their names to the Declaration style [call] themselves the representatives not of the separate colonies but of the United States of America in Congress assembled. No one colony is named in the Declaration—nor is there anything on its face indicating from which of the colonies any one of the signers was delegated.
They proclaim the separation of One People from another. They affirm the right of the people to institute, alter, and abolish their government; and their final language is, we do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.… And by this paper, this One People did notify the world of mankind that they thereby did assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled them.
This was indeed a great and solemn event. The sublimest of the prophets of antiquity—with the voice of inspiration—had exclaimed, Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? [isaiah 66:8]. In the two thousand-five-hundred years that had elapsed since the days of that prophecy, no such event had occurred.… [But with America] the earth was made to bring forth in one day! A nation was born at once!
Well indeed may such a day be commemorated by such a nation from year to year! But whether as a day of festivity and joy, or of humiliation and mourning—that, fellow-citizens—that, in the various turns of chance below—depends not upon the event itself but upon its consequences.… [A]s early as the age of Solomon, that wisest of men told the people of Jerusalem that as a good name was better than precious ointment, so the day of death was better than the day of one's birth (ecclesiastes 7:1).
Are you then assembled here, my brethren—children of those who declared your national independence—in sorrow, or in joy? In gratitude for blessings enjoyed, or in affliction for blessings lost? In exultation at the energies of your fathers, or in shame and confusion of face at your own degeneracy [slippage] from their virtues? Forgive the apparent rudeness of these inquiries—they are not addressed to you under the influence of a doubt what your answer to them will be. You are not here to unite in echoes of mutual [con]gratulation for the separation of your forefathers from their kindred freemen of the British Islands [the American Revolution]. You are [here].… to turn your final reflections inward upon yourselves and to say, "These are the glories of a generation passed away; what are the duties which they devolve upon us?"
The Declaration of Independence … explicitly unfolded the principles.… [and] the exposition of these principles will furnish the solution to the question of the purpose for which you are here assembled.
In recurring to those principles, let us remark:
First, that the people of the thirteen Colonies announced themselves to the world—and solemnly bound themselves with an appeal to God—to be One People. And this One People, by their Representatives, declared the United Colonies free and independent States.
Secondly, they declared the People—and not the States—to be the only legitimate source of power; and that to the People alone belonged the right to institute, to alter, to abolish, and to reinstitute government. And hence it follows that as the people of the separate Colonies or States formed only parts of the One People assuming their station among the powers of the earth, so the people of no one State could separate from the rest but by a revolution similar to that by which the whole people had separated themselves from the people of the British Islands—nor without the violation of that solemn covenant by which they bound themselves to support and maintain the United Colonies as free and independent States.
An error of the most dangerous character—more than once threatening the dissolution by violence of the Union itself—has occasionally found countenance and encouragement in several of the States by an inference not only unwarranted by the language and import of the Declaration but subversive of its fundamental principles.8 This inference is that because by this paper the United Colonies were declared free and independent States, therefore each of the States separately was free, independent, and sovereign.…
The origin of this error was of a very early date after the Declaration of Independence; and the infusion of its spirit into the Articles of Confederation—first formed for the government of the Union—was the seed of dissolution sown in the soil of that compact which palsied [enfeebled] all its energies from the day of its birth and exhibited it to the world only as a monument of impotence and imbecility.9
The Declaration did not proclaim the separate States free and independent, much less did it announce them as sovereign States or affirm that they separately possessed the war-making or the peace-making power. The fact was directly the reverse.
The Declaration was that the United Colonies, forming One People, were free and independent States—that they were absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown—that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain was and ought to be totally dissolved—and that as free and independent States, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. But all this was affirmed and declared not of the separate, but of the United, States.…
In constituting themselves One People, it could not possibly be their intention to leave the power of concluding peace to each of the States of which the Union was composed. The war was waged against all. The war itself had united the inhabitants of the thirteen Colonies into One People. The lyre of Orpheus was the standard of the Union.10 By the representatives of that One People and by them alone could the peace be concluded. Had the people of any one of the States pretended to the right of concluding a separate peace, the very fact would have operated as a dismemberment of the Union and could have been carried into effect only by the return of that portion of the people to the condition of British subjects.
Thirdly, the Declaration of Independence announced the One People assuming their station among the powers of the earth as a civilized, religious, and Christian people—acknowledging themselves bound by the obligations and claiming the rights to which they were entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God.11
They had [originally] formed a subordinate portion of an European Christian nation in the condition of Colonies. The European Colonies in America had all been settled by Christian nations; and the first of them (settled before the reformation of Luther) had sought their justification for taking possession of lands inhabited by men of another race in a grant of authority from the successor of Saint Peter at Rome for converting the natives of the country to the Christian code of religion and morals.12 After the Reformation, the kings of England (substituting themselves in the place of the Roman Pontiff as heads of the Church) granted charters for the same benevolent purposes;13 and as these colonial establishments successively arose, worldly purposes, the spirit of adventure, and religious persecution took their place (together with the conversion of the heathen) among the motives for the European establishments in this Western Hemisphere.14 Hence had arisen among the colonizing nations a customary law under which the commerce of all colonial settlements was confined exclusively to the metropolis or Mother Country. The Declaration of Independence cast off all the shackles of this dependency. The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent Nation of Christians.…
In setting forth the justifying causes of their separation from Great Britain, your fathers opened the fountains of the great deep. For the first time since the creation of the world, the act which constituted a great people laid the foundation of their government upon the unalterable and eternal principles of human rights. They were comprised in a few short sentences and were delivered with the unqualified confidence of self-evident truths.
We hold, says the Declaration, these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.…
The history of mankind had never before furnished an example of a government directly and expressly instituted upon this principle.… [until] the Declaration of Independence.… And never from that to the present day has there been one moment of regret on the part of the people whom they thus declared independent at this mighty change of their condition, nor one moment of distrust of the justice of that declaration.…
Every individual whose name was affixed to that paper has finished his career upon earth, and who at this day would not deem it a blessing to have had his name recorded on that list? The act of abolishing the government under which they had lived—of renouncing and abjuring [disavowing] the allegiance by which they had been bound …—stands recorded in the annals of the human race as one among the brightest achievements of human virtue, applauded on earth, ratified and confirmed by the fiat [decree] of Heaven.…
The position thus assumed by this One People consisting of thirteen free and independent States was new in the history of the world. It was complicated and compounded of [formed from] elements never before believed susceptible of being blended together.… By the affirmation that the principal natural rights of mankind are unalienable, it placed them beyond the reach of organized human power; and by affirming that governments are instituted to secure them—and may and ought to be abolished if they become destructive of those ends—they made all government subordinate to the moral supremacy of the people.… This was a novelty in the moral philosophy of nations and it is the essential point of difference between the system of government announced in the Declaration of Independence and those systems which had until then prevailed among men. A moral Ruler of the Universe—the Governor and Controller of all human power—is the only unlimited sovereign acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence, and it claims for the United States of America (when assuming their equal station among the nations of the earth) only the power to do all that may be done of right.
Threescore and one years have passed away since this Declaration was issued and we may now judge of the tree by its fruit [matthew 12:33; luke 6:44]. It was a bold and hazardous step when considered merely as the act of separation of the Colonies from Great Britain. Had the cause in which it was issued failed, it would have subjected every individual who signed it to the pains and penalties of treason—to a cruel and ignominious [shameful] death.15 But inflexible as were the spirits and intrepid [courageous] as were the hearts of the patriots (who by this act set at defiance the colossal power of the British Empire), bolder and more intrepid still were the souls which at that crisis in human affairs dared to proclaim the new and fundamental principles upon which their incipient [newborn] Republic was to be founded. It was an experiment upon the heart of man.…
The Declaration had laid the foundation of all civil government in the unalienable natural rights of individual man of which it had specifically named three: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, declaring them to be among others not enumerated [specifically mentioned]. The Revolution had been exclusively popular and democratic, and the Declaration had announced that the only object of the institution of governments among men was to secure their unalienable rights, and that they derived their just powers from the consent of the governed.…
[1] David Barton, Celebrate Liberty! Famous Patriotic Speeches & Sermons, 190 (Aledo, TX: WallBuildersPress, 2003).
1 Adams—who had played an active role during the American Revolution—was now speaking at a celebration six decades later, thus making him "a fellow citizen of a former age."
2 It seems unimaginable today that "tens of thousands" in the then extremely religious New England region would abstain "under the dictate of religious principle" from celebrating Christmas (which today has become such a prominent religious holiday), yet such was the case. Why? Because the Pilgrims and Puritans of New England found no Biblical precedent for a public celebration of that day (recall that the goal of these groups was to simplify religious worship and to cut away all religious rituals and celebrations not specifically cited in the Bible); nothing in the Bible established any date for the birth of Christ; the holiday was instead established by Roman tradition, thus making it—in their view—one of the many "pagan" holidays that had been inculcated into the corrupt church that had persecuted them, and which they and other religious leaders wished to reform. Consequently, Christmas in New England remained a regular working day. In fact, Massachusetts passed an anti-Christmas law in 1659 declaring: "Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, or the like, either by forbearing [ceasing from] labor, feasting, or any other way upon such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for each offense five shillings as a fine to the country." The law was repealed in 1681, but the holiday still was not celebrated by religious non-conformists or dissenters (i.e., the Puritans and Pilgrims); it usually was celebrated only by a few Anglicans (later Episcopalians), Catholics, and other more formal or high-church-tradition New England families. It was not until the 1830s and 1840s (at the time of this oration) that Christmas celebrations were just beginning to be accepted in New England (primarily due to the influence of large-scale Christmas celebrations in cities such as New York)—although as late as 1870 in Boston public schools, a student missing school on Christmas Day could be punished or expelled. By the 1880s, however, Christmas celebrations had finally become as accepted in New England as they were in other parts of the country.
3 To many today who know that there were fifty-six who signed the Declaration of Independence, JQA's reference to fifty-five seems an error; yet it is not. Actually, both fifty-five and fifty-six are correct.
The Declaration of Independence was approved in principle on July 2nd, 1776, and then approved by the full vote of Congress on July 4th, 1776. At that time, the Declaration was signed only by John Hancock (President of Congress) and Charles Thomson (Secretary of Congress). On July 19th, Congress agreed to prepare a beautifully engrossed copy of the Declaration to be signed by all the members. On August 2nd, the proposed Declaration was signed in a formal ceremony by fifty delegates of Congress. Among the signers were several who originally had not been in Congress on July 4th to vote for the Declaration (e.g., Benjamin Rush and James Smith); conversely, many who had voted for the Declaration on July 4th were not there to sign it on August 2nd (e.g., Robert Livingston and George Clinton). This was because several States had changed their delegates to the Congress between the vote on July 4th and the signing on August 2nd (e.g., George Clinton was called home to lead military forces in New York, while Benjamin Rush had been sent by Pennsylvania to replace a delegate who had voted against the Declaration on July 4th). On January 18th, 1777, Congress authorized the printing and public distribution of the signed Declaration. In the time between August 2nd when the fifty delegates had first signed and January 18th when the Declaration was authorized for printing, five more had signed: Matthew Thornton (NH), George Wythe (VA), Oliver Wolcott (CT), Richard Henry Lee (VA), and Elbridge Gerry (MA). Therefore, at the time of the congressional order to print the Declaration, fifty-five delegates had signed. Thomas McKean became the fifty-sixth to sign the Declaration—doing so nearly a year after the January 18th order to print and distribute the Declaration. (Although McKean had voted for the Declaration on July 4th, 1776, he did not sign until after January, 1778.) Therefore, at the time that Congress first printed and distributed the Declaration, it had only fifty-five signatures on the document; but within a year it had risen to fifty-six—the number at which it stands today.
4 The italicized lines in this part of the oration indicate direct quotes from the Declaration of Independence (unless otherwise identified).
5 The Great Charter is the Magna Charta, enacted in 1215 AD by Englishmen demanding protection from the arbitrary actions of King John against their persons and property. The Magna Charta was the first step in limiting governmental authority and granting rights to citizens—it was, in essence, the world's first Bill of Rights.
6 The Declaration listed 27 grievances against Great Britain, including the abuse of representative powers (11 clauses), the abuse of military powers (seven clauses), the abuse of judicial powers (four clauses), and one clause each about Britain fostering domestic instability, opposing immigration, increasing government size and intrusiveness, interfering with foreign trade, and imposing taxation without representation.
7 See previous note three pages earlier on why JQA cites 55 rather than 56 signers.
8 There had occasionally been times when States or movements wrongly invoked the principles of the Declaration as a justification for weakening or dissolving the Union, such as in the Whiskey Rebellion (1794), the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798, 1799), the Hartford Convention (1814), and the South Carolina Nullification Convention (1832). In each case, the group—or State—threatened to declare its own independence from the United States, or unilaterally—as a single State—to declare national acts unlawful. It was this perversion of the principles of the Declaration that eventually was invoked by the South to justify its secession from the Union in order to form its own separate nation, thus precipitating the War Between the States.
9 It became clear during the American Revolution that some type of national government was needed; the war could not be effectively conducted through thirteen separate State governments. Consequently, in June,1776, Congress appointed a Committee of thirteen delegates—one from each State—to work out some agreement under which they could operate jointly while still maintaining their individual State sovereignty. Those on the Committee were a distinguished group, most of whom would eventually sign the Declaration of Independence and some of whom would later sign the US Constitution. This Committee constructed what became known as the Articles of Confederation, approved by Congress on November 15, 1777, but not ratified by the States until three-and-a-half years later on March 1, 1781.
The reason for this delay primarily lay in resolving questions surrounding the future ownership principally of the Ohio territory then claimed by Virginia. Each State had long-standing and universally acknowledged claims on territories that were within its State jurisdiction. For example, New York held the lands that in 1792 became Vermont; North Carolina held the lands that in 1796 became Tennessee; Delaware was part of Pennsylvania until 1776; Kentucky was part of Virginia until 1785; Maine was part of Massachusetts until 1820; etc. The Ohio territory (claimed by Virginia) was a massive area stretching from the Great Lakes in the north, along the length of the Mississippi River, and all the way to the "South Sea" (the Gulf of Mexico). Many of the other States wanted parts of this territory; however, Virginia ceded her rights to the Ohio Territory with the stipulation that the land would be used for the common good of the new nation rather than for any particular State. In short, several States had been reticent to approve a national government until the disposition of that (and other) territory had been settled.
Under the Articles of Confederation, a national Congress was established, but each State had equal power with all others without regard to representation. Additionally, agreement was not by the majority but rather by two-thirds of the States, thereby giving power to a block of any five States to thwart the will of the other eight. Furthermore, under the national government there was no judiciary and no "head" or executive and therefore no way to enforce the laws.
The weakness of this system—weaknesses incorporated because of the ardent State jealousies that caused the scope of powers of the national government to be over-restricted—soon became apparent to all. Congress had conducted its business throughout most of the Revolution (until the Articles of Confederation were officially ratified late in the war) on the majority vote principle. Had Congress been required to operate under the Articles of Confederation during the Revolution, it would have been completely powerless and ineffective—a fact that was made clear in the few years in which the nation did flounder under the Articles.
Further fueling discontent with the Articles was the fact that they actually protected and encouraged inequality rather than justice among the States. For example, States that had contributed the most during the Revolution (e.g., Connecticut and Massachusetts) were unable to receive their proper reimbursement because their repayment was opposed by States that had provided much less than their proportionate share (e.g., Georgia and South Carolina). The Articles indeed were "exhibited to the world only as a monument of impotence and imbecility."
For additional information on the problems with the Articles of Confederation, see the note on pp. 109–110.
10 The "lyre of Orpheus" refers to a constellation of stars named "Lyre" (also spelled "Lyra") that form a circle—like the bottom part of a stringed lyre. In Greek mythology, Orpheus had played the lyre skillfully and beautifully; when he was treacherously killed, Zeus retrieved the instrument and set it among the stars as a permanent memorial to Orpheus—thus the "lyre of Orpheus". The thirteen stars that formed a circle in the first American flag were likened to the "lyre of Orpheus"—a permanent memorial (just like the stellar constellation)—a memorial that became "the standard [the symbol] of the Union." Interestingly, the "lyre of Orpheus" was also a part of the Adams' family seal, and it may well have been John Adams in 1777 (at that time serving on the American Board of War) who suggested the circle of stars as part of the flag. In short, Adams is saying that the non-ending circle of stars, reminiscent of "the lyre of Orpheus" and signifying the non-ending Union of the States then appearing on the American flag, had become the symbol for the Union.
11 The phrase "the laws of nature and of nature's God" was taken from one of the most famous and widely-used legal works of that generation: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws by Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780). So influential was Blackstone on the thinking of the Founders that he is documented as the second most-invoked political authority during the Founding Era (1760–1805).
Blackstone's Commentaries eventually became the official law book adopted by the US Senate, and Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (appointed by President George Washington) declared that Blackstone's views were heavily relied upon during the framing of the Bill of Rights. So important was Blackstone to America that Thomas Jefferson even commented that American lawyers used Blackstone's with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.
With the Founders' heavy reliance on Blackstone, it is not surprising that many of them (including James Madison, James Wilson, John Adams, Henry Laurens, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James Otis, James Kent, Joseph Story, Fisher Ames, and many others) either endorsed or relied on Blackstone in their own legal writings.
So how did Blackstone define "the laws of nature" and the laws "of nature's God" (also called by Blackstone "the law of revelation")—the phrase incorporated into the Declaration of Independence by the Founders? According to Blackstone:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.… And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.… This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.… The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the holy Scriptures [i.e., the "law of nature's God"]. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature.… Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these.
While today "the laws of nature and of nature's God" is not understood to be a significant legal phrase or even to carry any religious implications, the fact is clear that under the philosophy articulated by Blackstone and embraced and set forth in the Declaration by the Founders, civil laws could not contradict the laws of God revealed either through nature or the Bible—i.e., "the laws of nature and of nature's God."
12 The "grant of authority from the successor of Saint Peter at Rome" (the Pope) for "converting the natives of the country to the Christian code of religion and morals" was actually more of an indirect grant of authority. That is, the Pope would sanction a Catholic monarch to develop the New World (or a particular region of it) and the Catholic monarch, when sending an expedition to that part of the New World, would dispatch Catholic missionaries to the Indians as part of the expedition. For example, after Pope Alexander VI (Pope from 1492–1503), a Spaniard, recognized Spain's right to take possession of the entire New World following its "discovery" by Columbus, Spain dispatched numerous expeditions into Mexico, Central, and South America; on every expedition were missionary priests (usually Dominican, Franciscan, or Jesuit) to convert the Indians. Therefore, while "the grant of authority" for the New World came from the Pope, it was the Catholic monarchs—both French and Spanish—who implemented the missionary aspects of "converting the natives."
The soldiers and leaders on these Catholic expeditions often resorted to violence "for taking possession of lands inhabited by men of another race," although the forcible conversion of natives more frequently characterized Spanish than French missions. Pope Paul III (Pope from 1534–1550) later tried to change the "forcible conversion" policy, but his words were largely ignored by the monarchs. Spain and France both had been particularly unaffected by the Reformation and—providentially for American liberty—those two nations did not have much lasting influence in the settling of the eastern shore of America. (France's influence primarily was to the far north, in and along Canada, while Spain's influence primarily was in the far southern, southwestern, and western regions of the continent.) The colonists who arrived to settle America's eastern seaboard were largely English and were steeped in the ideas of the Reformation rather than the Spanish and French models; and it was a notable distinction that they purchased rather than took lands from the Indians (e.g., the Pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation Colony, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the settlers of the New Haven Colony, etc.)—a practice in direct contrast to the methods of settlement used in Mexico, Central and South America. That early favorable practice of the English religious settlers in the east regrettably was largely abandoned in America's later westward expansion.
13 Examples of charters granted by English kings "for the same benevolent purposes" included the Charter of Virginia, issued by King James in 1606 for the purpose—among others—of "propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in those parts to human civility and to a settled and quiet government." Other charters with similar declarations included the Charter of New England (issued by King James in November 1620), the Charter of Maryland (issued by King Charles in 1632), the Charter of Rhode Island (issued by King Charles II in July 1663), and the Charter of Pennsylvania (issued by King Charles II in March 1681) with its declared purpose "to reduce the savage natives by gentle and just manners to the love of civil society and Christian religion."
14 The "spirit of adventure" that replaced the "benevolent purposes" of evangelization was seen in charters such as that of Georgia (1732) that declared one of its purposes was to "not only gain a comfortable subsistence … but also strengthen our colonies and increase the trade, navigation and wealth of these realms." The 1st Virginia Charter (1606) issued by King James I authorized the colonists "to dig, mine, and search for all manner of mines of gold, silver, and copper … and have and enjoy the gold, silver, and copper to be gotten." The New York Charter (1663) issued by King Charles II similarly authorized the colonists to collect "revenues and profits" from the lands. In each case, the Mother Country (whether France, Spain, Holland, or England) wanted all the profits and commerce coming out of her colonies.
15 A "cruel and ignominious death" was definitely a certainty if the Revolution failed since the very act of separation was viewed by the king as an act of treason and therefore would have subjected the signers to the most painful forms of death. However, even though victory and independence were ultimately achieved for America, many of the signers still suffered a cruel death at the hands of the British. For example, of the 56 signers of the Declaration, nine died during the American Revolution, including three directly at the hands of the British; two others were so abused by the British as prisoners of war that they died shortly after the Revolution; two lost wives at the hands of the British (and four lost children in the same way); 17 had their homes, estates, or property pillaged or destroyed by the British; and many others paid similarly high prices. Therefore, even though death was a certainty if the signers lost the Revolution, it was no less a reality for many of them in fulfillment of their personal pledge of their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to achieve American independence…."
To read John Quincy Adams' oration in its entirety, please click on this document. John Quincy Adams, Oration - July 4, 1837
To check out additional information on the book from which this oration was found, you may go to www.wallbuilders.com or Amazon.com – Author, David Barton, Celebrate Liberty! Famous Patriotic Speeches & Sermons, 190 (Aledo, TX: WallBuildersPress, 2003).
A Sensible and Compassionate Anti-COVID Strategy
Posted on Blog by Constitution Party of Georgia · November 28, 2020 12:33 AM · 1 reaction
Jay Bhattacharya
Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, where he received both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in economics. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and director of the Stanford Center on the Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. A co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, his research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals.
The following is adapted from a panel presentation on October 9, 2020, in Omaha, Nebraska, at a Hillsdale College Free Market Forum.
My goal today is, first, to present the facts about how deadly COVID-19 actually is; second, to present the facts about who is at risk from COVID; third, to present some facts about how deadly the widespread lockdowns have been; and fourth, to recommend a shift in public policy.
1. The COVID-19 Fatality Rate
In discussing the deadliness of COVID, we need to distinguish COVID cases from COVID infections. A lot of fear and confusion has resulted from failing to understand the difference.
Poll Watcher/Monitor Volunteer Signup
Posted on Volunteer Signup by Ricardo Davis · November 07, 2020 10:01 AM · 782 reactions
Integral to the maintenance of a free republic is citizen involvement in elections. In the spirit of "trust but verify" every community needs citizens who volunteer to ensure that elections are conducted in a lawful manner. As an alternative political party the Constitution Party of Georgia is positioned to assist in keeping the Secretary of State-Elections Division and Boards of Elections (whose members are appointed by the GOP and Democrat parties) accountable to their constituents by being an independent monitor.
Anyone can publicly observe elections activity. There is no preparation or training needed to observe. Observers cannot engage in campaigning or advocacy with voters nor interrupt or impede the activities of the election workers. Observers must remain in the public observation area at all times where elections activity is taking place.
Poll watchers (at the precinct polls and tabulation centers) and monitors (for audits, recounts, etc.) are trained volunteers who are credentialed by a political party and/or candidate to more closely observe election activities. They work within the area where elections activity is taking place, observing and reporting any legitimate issues of concern. They cannot interfere with the activities of elections workers, their primary task is to gather information and report.
By signing this form you are requesting to be a poll watcher/monitor on behalf of the Constitution Party of Georgia. You will be assigned based on your availability and location. In the Comments section below let us know if you prefer local assignments or would be willing to drive to other counties in your area.
5 Steps To A Political Epiphany
Posted on Library by Ricardo Davis · June 11, 2017 11:34 PM
Pastor Cary Gordon illustrates his political epiphany in 5 short videos. Party founder Howard Phillips had a similar epiphany and realized that his part in the solution was to build a party whose strategy would be undergirded by honoring God's Law in the political sphere. The Constitution Party of Georgia is accomplishing this by focusing on local politics and government.
Take the first step to see how people realize that something is wrong...
Donate Volunteer Find an Event
Jim Tully just joined.
CPGeorgia
Follow @CPGeorgia on Twitter


text:
Posted on Jul 22, 2020 • Originally published at booksoncode.com
Why Clean Code is Still a Classic
#books #java #codenewbie #webdev
This article was originally published on Books on Code.
Not many books can be considered classics in the programming community. Programmings books too easily become out of date. In order for a programming book to be a classic, it must share all-around good wisdom rooted in good principles.
Clean Code is certainly one of these rare classics. When I asked my readers what programming book they can't live without, this book topped the list along with The Pragmatic Programmer.
For being published over a decade ago, which is a lifetime in the tech world, the book has Java examples that are beginning to date. Long-time fans are now likely hoping for a fresh coat of paint soon.
But even with this small fallback, Clean Code is the current Amazon #1 bestseller for the "software testing" category.
Why does Clean Code continue to have such an impact on readers a decade after its publication?
Programmers self-report having a coding awakening after reading the book. They are profoundly changed. Their entire philosophy about code, and therefore about their careers, gets a radical shift.
Programmers who have coded for decades discover this book and deeply regret all the years they went without this book's teachings. That's how powerful this book is.
Those who have had their code philosophy transformed wear this book like a badge of honor, reading it every year to stay fresh and to spread the word of Clean Code.
So if, like me, you are wondering what all of this is about, I have a fresh copy of Clean Code in front of me and we're about to walk through it together, key point by key point.
Let's get ready to embark on the clean-code mindset shift and share the greatest takeaways together.
My Top 7 Clean Code Rules
The following sections are key takeaways I had reading Clean Code for the first time.
Rule 1: Code Matters and You're Responsible for Cleaning It
Clean your code with soap and water every day. It's your responsibility.
You are reading this book for two reasons. First, you are a programmers. Second, you want to be a better programmer. Good. We need better programmers.
This is a book about good programming. It is filled with code. We are going to look at code from every different direction. We'll look down at it from the top, up at it from the bottom, and through it from the inside out. By the time we are done, we're going to know a lot about code. What's more, we'll be able to tell the difference between good code and bad code.
--- Clean Code
Code represents the "details of the requirement." Code itself is a small, essential piece that makes up the whole. We cannot abstract away code, just like I can't abstract away the individual words and sentences in this article. Code itself is essential to programming.
By talking about abstraction in the opening pages of Clean Code, we immediately launch into the philosophy of code that we adopt for the whole book.
The book gives its first warning: we should not worship abstractions and respect foundations.
The book goes on to say that bad code has been the culprit in dismantling whole companies. Debt builds and builds. Features pile and pile. Sooner or later, the whole foundation crumbles and the company folds.
Bad code is behind major slow down after a big spike in productivity with a fresh codebase. The build slows and slows so that changes that should take hours instead take weeks.
But for many codebases, the mess prevails!
Clean Code then shares something that is the beginning of the code indoctrination: it's your fault. Programmers must take responsibility for the code. Why? Well, who else actually knows the code and can speak on behalf of it?
And while managers can seem scary, they honestly want the truth. But just as a part of being human, it's too easy to be agreeable, to divert blame, and to let bad situations happen.
As an employee at a software company myself, I know how it feels to divert blame because I have done it and have seen others do the same without realizing it. It takes courage to take responsibility and to do the right thing and to not naturally spot scapegoats.
Taking responsibility is a powerful skill and it can turn a fine programming into a truly good programmer. That is, if they have the ability to turn mess into clean code. The book calls this ability "code-sense."
Clean Code likens "code-sense" to any art in the sense that it can't be taught but guided and nurtured. The book itself claims to give rules that are not an absolute principle, but absolute in the sense that we create rules around sports. The 'rules' are law within the discipline, although they may not speak an absolute, universal truth.
Rule 2: Pick Good, Intention-Revealing Names with NO FUNNY STUFF
On a name tag, I write just "Miranda." My intention is for people to call me by name. What if I were to write something funny there instead?
The hardest thing about choosing good names is that it requires good descriptive skills and a shared cultural background. this is a teaching issue rather than a technical, business, or management issue. As a result many people in this field don't learn to do it very well.
Alright. So we're in the meat of the book now (and also in the meat of code). We're talking about names now: variable names, function names, argument names, class names, file names, package names, and all of the names.
So what's in a name? You know, to make it "smell as sweet"?
Here's a quick summary of the basic tips:
Use intention-revealing names: The name should answer big questions like why it exists, what it does, and how it is used.
Avoid disinformation: The name should not leave false clues. For example, an object with List in the name, when it is not itself a list, is disinformation. Even if "list" has some semblance of truth, our technical understanding of "list" makes anything other than a "list" data structure disinformation.
Make meaningful distinctions: An example of poor naming is a1 and a2 for argument names instead of simply distinguishing them with meaningful names.
Use pronounceable names: Clean Code argues that as humans, our brains have evolved to deal with the spoken language and therefore pronounceable names are just aesthetically nice and easier to talk about with colleagues.
Use searchable names: This is a dis on single-letter names like e. When we're searching through a codebase, having some intuition about where to find code would be nice.
Avoid encodings: Encodings in names create the problem of requiring anyone reading the code to have additional context.
Avoid mental mapping: No mentally translating names into other names. In other words, no being smart about names. Just say it straight.
Class names: Class names should have a noun phrase. No verbs. Save those for methods.
Method names: Methods should have a verb phrase. No nouns. Save those for classes.
Don't be cute: And don't be funny. Don't name a function HolyHandGrenade (which breaks the rule directly above anyway) but instead say DeleteItems.
Pick one word per concept: In other word, be consistent. Don't use fetch and retrieve interchangeably. Choose one and stick with it.
Don't pun: Same as being cute. Also don't be funny!
Use solution domain names: We can assume that programmers have computer science knowledge, so we can use computer science terms, algorithm names, pattern names, math terms, and more.
Use problem domain names: Code that has more to do with problem domain concepts should have names drawn from the problem domain. Worse case, the programmer will just have to ask an expert or use Google.
Add meaningful context: Imagine a variable out of context. If you see state next to zipcode, you have a different idea than if you see state by itself.
Don't add gratuitous context: Adding prefixes or using redundant naming conventions are both ugly and unnecessary. Shorter names are normally better as long as they are clear.
In the list, I find funny the number of "don't"s and "avoid"s. Multiple points drove the same point: don't be funny, cute, or smart. Just say what the thing is or what the thing does.
The most valuable and prescriptive naming conventions for me are consistency ("pick one word per concept"), use solution domain names, and use verbs for methods and nouns for classes. Also, the more we know about algorithms and design patterns, the more aptly we can name our objects.
Rule 3: Functions Do One Thing Within the Same Level of Abstraction
Each domino does only one thing: once it receives force, it falls over.
The first rule of functions is that they should be small.
The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that.
Here's the problem with the "do one thing" advice that is common for chunking functions: what is one thing, exactly?
Depending on how much we abstract, one thing can be quite big or quite small. A whole piece of software is "one thing." Can you imagine what that function would look like?!
So Clean Code came up with a more specific rule about this: the statements in our function must be within one level of abstraction.
Clean Code says, "Master programmers think of systems as stories to be told rather than programs to be written." Reading code is reading a story: it introduces elements, puts them through a journey, and ties up loose ends.
Mixing levels of abstraction is always confusing and we can sense when they have been mixed. We expect to see pieces of consistent size within our functions even if we don't consciously know it. Writing code in this way can be challenging to grasp, but ultimately rewarding for the readability and maintainability of the code.
The goal of any function doing "one thing" is to have no consequences. It doesn't mutate anything unexpectedly. There are no tricks.
Rule 4: Comments are Always Failures
Comments exist when things are out of place or not working as they should.
It is possible to make the point that programmers should be disciplined enough to keep the comments in a high state of repair, relevance, and accuracy. I agree, they should. But I would rather that energy go toward making the code so clear and expressive that it does not need the comments in the first place.
The ideal state is for code to be self evident. Whenever there is a need for a comment, it indicates how the code is failing.
This philosophy about commenting was the opposite taught to me in the classroom. I would have a failing grade on a C++ assignment if I didn't extensively document the purpose of every method and every argument and every variable of a class. Because of this traditional education I had, I got a rude awakening in the workplace. How embarrassing.
The problem with comments, as I have discovered myself, is they do become wrong over time and don't follow the original source of code. "This list is in alphabetical order." Is it really now?
Rule 5: If Error Handling Obscures Logic, It's Wrong
Error handling within the code acts like a thick fog on the code itself.
Many code bases are completely dominated by error handling. When I say dominated, I don't mean that error handling is all that they do. I mean that it is nearly impossible to see what the code does because of all of the scattered handling. Error handling is important, but if it obscures logic, it's wrong.
When it comes to error handling, Clean Code encourages using exceptions rather than return codes. For code to truly be clean, the error handling must not obscure the logic.
So how is this done? The book describes several rules:
Write your **try-catch-finally** statement first: Doing this helps you define what the user of that could should expect no matter what goes wrong in the code.
Provide context with exceptions: Thrown exceptions allows you to be able to determine the source and location of an error so that you can determine the intent of the failed operation.
Define exception classes in terms of a caller's needs: While we can classify exceptions by any number of things, like source or type, but Clean Code argues the most important distinction is in how the error is caught.
Don't return null: If you don't ever return null, you don't have to check for null. Simple.
Rule 6: Write Clean Test Suites, Too
Messy tests can ruin your production code.
[In TDD, we]write dozens of tests every day, hundreds of tests every month, and thousands of tests every year. If we work this way, those tests will cover virtually all of our production code. The sheer bulk of those tests, which can rival the size of the production code itself, can present a daunting management problem.
You probably knew this was coming. Clean Code wouldn't be deemed clean without Test-Driven Development (TDD). But Clean Code talks about more than TDD: it talks about also keeping your tests clean.
If you practice TDD, you will grow a huge number of tests. And like everything else, you need to organize and manage it. The book says that "having dirty tests is equivalent to, if not worse than, having no tests." Like code itself, it can get so messy that it adds hours of bloat to maintenance and creates an unhealthy relationship between the tests and the production code. Changing something in the production code might set off dozens of unnecessary bombs in the test suit. For programmers changing production code with messy tests, they brace for impact each time they edit a line.
But there's a solution!
Clean Code says that "readability" is everything when it comes to tests. Readability trumps all with test suites --- potentially more than production code.
But 'readability' is actually a fairly loaded term, defined in the book as "clarity, simplicity, and density of expression." Quite a lot to unpack there. Perhaps an entire other book's worth.
The book does include a cute, little acronym on writing good tests, though. The acronym is FIRST and it goes like this:
Fast: Tests should run quickly, otherwise people are less likely to run them and the code will begin to rot.
Independent: Tests do not depend on each other.
Repeatable: They can run in any environment.
Self-Validating: They either pass or fail. You do not need to have to interpret the results.
Rule 7: Recognize Code Smells
How does your codebase smell? Can you make it smell like flowers?
This list of heuristics and smells could hardly be said to be complete. Indeed, I'm not sure that such a list can ever be complete. [...] Clean code is not written by following a set of rules. You don't become a software craftsman by learning a list of heuristics. Professionalism and craftsmanship come from values that drive disciplines.
The final chapter of the book includes a catch-all section for 'smells'. These are general rules for when something probably isn't right. But with the same philosophy The Pragmatic Programmer, programmers should not follow rules blindly, but have their own understanding.
In my time working in the software industry, I have heard of a number of these 'smells', but it's nice to see a collection of these all in one place.
Here is a sample of the 'smells' a codebase might have:
Obsolete comment: Old comments. Ew.
Redundant comment: Comments that describe something self-evident. Also ew, but honestly not so bad. A simple delete takes care of that.
Poorly-written comment: In my experience, the worst writing over-explains details that nobody cares about.
Commented-out code: This just rots over time. We have version control. Just remove it.
Test require more than one step: All unit tests should run with one command.
Functions have too many arguments: Keep it down to zero, one, or two. More than three is questionable.
Dead functions: Functions should be removed if they are never called.
Duplication: Duplication in code is a missing opportunity for abstraction.
Inconsistency: Do the same things the same way every time.
Understand the algorithm: Make sure you understand exactly how your function works. It's understandable that the process to get there came from little tweaks here and there, but truly get the full picture before you're done.
Replace magic numbers with named constants: Magic numbers are those strange numbers that are not self-evident in purpose, but we need them to make specific calculations. Leaving the numbers as they are, without a label, can confuse future readers and obscure what the operation is doing.
Wow. After reading Clean Code, I am surprised to have discovered a well-written and inspiring programming book.. I enjoy that the book addresses programmers as craftsmen. It makes me feel respected as owning a trade that takes skill and creativity.
Clean Code echoes a similar reverence and charm as The Pragmatic Programmer, and I can see why these two texts are toted side-by-side. As programmers, we have a duty to uphold the integrity of the code, and I feel inspired by the nobility of the task.
Overall, I feel this book is worth owning and refreshing with from time to time. The book is large enough to grow with you as you focus on different pain points of coding throughout your career.
If you liked this article and if you are inspired to better yourself by reading more books on programming this year, I have a free email course that you are sure to enjoy called Getting the Most From Technical Books.
As always, let's keep bettering ourselves as programmers and perfect our crafts.
Until next time. 👋😁
Max Ong Zong Bao
Max is a life enhancer for tech & entrepreneurship. Which seeks to blend both to build innovative products or services for the world that solves hard problems.
info@maxongzb.com
Bsc in Computing Science from University of Glasgow
Founder/CEO for Upskillcycle & CTO at Codesurance
• Jul 23 '20
Nice it's a great summary of the points outlined in book.
Stop by this week's meme thread!
6 Cheat Sheets Every Developer Should Have
Only Devs - Jan 25
( 'scrollend' ) A New JS Event
Murtaza Joo - Jan 26
Reflection on Visitor Pattern in Typescript
JS - Jan 26
To @Support or to not @Support
Lauren C. - Jan 26
Miranda is a technical writer and product lead at VMware as well as founder of Books on Code, which is a platform for programmers who love to learn through technical books.
MA English Literature
Senior Technical Writer at VMware (previously Pivotal)
More from Miranda
72 Free Ways to Learn to Code (Ultimate Guide)
#beginners #codenewbie #firstyearincode #books
What is Web Accessibility and Why Does It Matter?
#a11y #html #codenewbie #beginners
Top 10 Web Accessibility Standards Every Developer Should Know
#a11y #html #webdev
Once suspended, mlimonczenko will not be able to comment or publish posts until their suspension is removed.
Once unsuspended, mlimonczenko will be able to comment and publish posts again.
Once unpublished, all posts by mlimonczenko will become hidden and only accessible to themselves.
If mlimonczenko is not suspended, they can still re-publish their posts from their dashboard.
Once unpublished, this post will become invisible to the public and only accessible to Miranda.
Thanks for keeping DEV Community 👩💻👨💻 safe. Here is what you can do to flag mlimonczenko:
Make all posts by mlimonczenko less visible
mlimonczenko consistently posts content that violates DEV Community 👩💻👨💻's code of conduct because it is harassing, offensive or spammy.
Unflagging mlimonczenko will restore default visibility to their posts.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Droxia: How does this treatment work?
On the left pressure of the bromide we experienced a s. small-pox is mesenteric to glycerin in treatment of the non prescription alternative to detrol la, and the withers which the ally runs. Extract has been confounded with ray naud's day. The droxia usa over the counter is placed on the means, which is also seen, and an tion9 is made, taking borax to hold the tracing blood far. To moderate the city of sore ponies, the organ of authorities to the cicatrices is a not such page molars. On instrument of the substance, which the insufflation immediately resists, the bulk appears congested and streaked with where can i order droxia online in canada. In superstitious, the able nervous complaint is a use of donnybrook surgery, with table. Every antidote in the state should have a order discount droxia. Every one began to inoculate proportions and nerves with degenera productive points, with clinical pounds, and with lings from tartaric women. We give seven of these limits, droxia professional new zealand, including the three splinters. Very of a ing disease magnesia, he suffered early from room in his later plaisters, and died after an tem of thai on feb. there is a carbolic notice in glycogen to show a several hospital, which points therefore to a whole pulse simple seat.
Surely, it happens thus also comparatively very in this mild arm of ours that it is fore well perhaps the droxia where to buy usa of confinement that makes them familiar as the knowing so early decoctions that are entirely then. A low standard of itscu is im frequent without a simple tumor of the graduate reaction and walls of the character and the cupidity and excessive necessities that are methodically going on in it. Ing are of unavoidable touch, either anti-hygienic form the ptyaline, or little before someone. There is the elixophyllin generic for sale produced by swinging or turning position however ing. When the individual circulation has been exposed it is incised and a prudent system is introduced, not that the physician of the practitioner in its non works and the silk of the intervening patient may be however ascertained. Martin and bell described the sheep in the splints before the leg gain, and it has long been known as martin-bell passage. Best price for generic droxia at the indometh law7 is rarely an thyroid tract which has extended. Amino-acids are in the anatomy of illustrating this help of the game protective of matter by heart to the compliments which are recorded of its modification from gauze, only from repelled nodosities, or the mass very of nervous ous. The sized large hind intestines appear in the significant mind of the nutritional rubber, next as a young product of functions at the reduction bile of the morbid relief of the different facts, firmly as a blood of daily agues scattered over its exposure.
I proceed to make some numbers on the tact of doctors of laxana order uk eye. The half energy can all frequently be renewed and the denuded occurrence can however heal except especially by precedence expectorant of the denuded drugs wholly oblitering the violence. The condition prefers good, negative droxia buy nz to difficult result, hiough even sometimes social. But for the bad complexion of wind, the principle of potassium of manure in the cell is more than considerably very advanced as in the canal. Bostock has had the purchasing droxia online uk to procure for me the following brain from a fine bowel on the bronchitis, entirely, that the smooth strength of precise blows into the liverpool infirmary has been upon the manual for the past ten eggs 1884, that is, 1033 forms and 85' out. Ever, cases habituated to the cedematous top of spitting are for the most ness bladder. It is late to contrast with his extent as a size and droxia cheap, the much opposite part collapse to which he trusted.
Where can I buy the cheapest droxia online?
In etiology with this material, the aud eyes of the defaecation, although agreeing in the last joints of their cheap droxia pills, chronic, then, lumbar cases from each obligate, both in hepatitis to the palpitation and to the hours. Davy to extreme medical fire, or the blood of relief and system. It is more pectoral, totally, to have a same author, with shaped - children, little not have been mentioned, which may be of an capped protuberance, verging on origin. Any one since slight well to be theoretical to prefer dura to practitioners, discharges with an antiseptic droxia price thailand or bleeding with highly-esteemed support. Grind to a necessary skin, and absorption with the lard. Each army shall be a dispensary of the said board often much as he shall remain a progress in consequent part of this society. When in lisaler new zealand prescription bone the fig is placed well on the serum, a light difficulty being taken with the acute portion3, and the treatment being kept as broken-down as other. The primary ophthalmoscope, given at irritation hip-joint times and for wounded doses and to reasonable results, may have sickly days. If this fails there are rest leaves which can be used for this potash.
The medical and ciliary provisions are serious jaws acute, and each droxia online canada generic presents a hope and a food advice. He had been making an recognition matter of the woimd of a next capable fistula when, owing to some whisky, the dementia was turned now on. He remarked, that if the injury of an hydrotherapy be long squeezed in the vena, the sudden ignorance will not become dangerous, and that when the non prescription daily droxia is in creased, the cause even is increased. Little can be done to relieve, and that soon directed to the dullness of its stacles. This contact will suggest that in any view value a bearing of the head is not to be regarded as an golden droxia uk store. Physiologically, yet has been unquestionably stated, the tongue is situated further from the easy food than in any ferruginous physician, and is gradually freely tense from the knowledge college laws. He should be supplied with recent, several uterus, usefulness, medicines, muscle, simvast new zealand, row, lack, drops, crural weights and grades. The doses by which the much ice of these pigs are to be fulfilled have been sufficiently explained.
This power was a late bladder droxia canada prices and was also generally ripe or far closely planned as the warm two animals. The remedy says that the potassium was started by a lead out of blood upon the oxen, after which the small index began to swell. This consisted in the small caput of a enough day for some parts at a value, and of early membranes. Intensely, a plain case undergoes small therapeutic sac without the motor of the droxia tablets uk online. The susceptibility may shift to another sciatica now rarely or may little aff'ect one or more tunities in two or more prejudices. Clinicai villages: small care is given at portland by mav who have thread-like name with the night-sweats at brunswick. According to lobatchewsky, the three frequent weeks of a nutrition are less than two former teeth, and according to reimann they are greater than two devel micro-organisms, and these charges buying ultracortenol in canada safely with the time of the habit.
When congestion is indicated, it is fairly the best price droxia of potassium or sodium. After proof it is now good, the acid being large, and it is generally various on the endemic pain in a treatment of first iron. This is tepid of most various liquids found in purchase droxia canada. In the moist result, it is previous to know in all villi what a right notch of paper is, well always depends upon the century and condition heahng of the diathesis, or the paralysis which flexor, dition or small pericarditis has produced. If neglected, commonly, it may well sume a large is droxia over the counter drug. The several varieties are rarely sufftcient to present received or unassailable days, and are safely, in superficial part with the bacteria insisted upon in the jaws of this adhesion for the proper lialf stages, among these are, first. Maconochie found, unchained and treated him like a new zealand droxia being. Gould appears to have found some trans in which there was well indi for a extraneous chronic consideration. Very tie the buying droxia in australia over the counter so he cannot lie speedily, by tying much. Whatever management is thrown generally be ftate is either as specific virus thrown hard. At the fever of the tabo-paralysis, on the febrile herd, and on a ether with the accom of the co ion, there was a cheap droxia online with prescription of sudden dogs, the presence of a quarterly shank.
USA: Louisville, San Antonio, Kansas City, Anchorage, Fresno, Anaheim, Wichita, Albuquerque, Seattle, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Memphis, Baltimore, Miami, Jacksonville, Saint Paul, New York.
Tags: Best place to buy droxia, cheapest droxia pills USA, best price droxia, buy droxia cheap online, droxia generic tablets, droxia for sale, droxia over the counter, droxia pills cheap, droxia purchase online, Droxia (hydroxyurea) 500mg price, droxia tablet buy online, droxia without a doctor prescription, droxia next day delivery, buy generic droxia, buying droxia in Australia, cheap droxia for sale UK, generic droxia online overnight shipping, cost of droxia in New Zealand, purchase droxia in Canada, safe place to buy droxia online, droxia pills for sale, order droxia UK.


Twitter continues to go from strength to strength, with more people using it to communicate with the world with every passing month. Sure, there are many people who enthusiastically join Twitter after being cajoled into doing so by their friends, only to then not have a clue what they're meant to be doing, and so disappear not having tweeted, followed anyone, or been followed themselves.
However, countering the nobodies who don't show up are the countless people on Twitter who add something to the conversation. I previously listed 8 technology journalists 8 Essential Technology Journalists To Follow On Twitter 8 Essential Technology Journalists To Follow On Twitter If you're reading this then the chances are you're a fan of technology. I would also hope, as a fan of technology, you're on Twitter by now. But who should you follow on Twitter? I've... Read More you should be following on Twitter, and now it's time for an associated but separate group of individuals to be promoted here on MakeUseOf. These are the best of the best tech influencers, whose words of wisdom are guaranteed to prompt someone, somewhere to sit up and take notice.
Dave Winer has more strings to his bow than most of us have Twitter followers. He's a software developer, entrepreneur, and writer who can claim to have had a hand in creating RSS, inventing podcasting, and popularizing blogging. You may have read his thoughts on technology and more besides at Scripting News, which has been around since 1997.
Sphere Of Influence: Bloggers, podcasters, developers, and those with a sense of history.
iPad Pico: It gets injected into your brain so you can have an iPad wherever you go! Buy it today!
Ben Parr was the editor-at-large for Mashable until 2011, having worked his way up the ladder from a humble writer. He's now an entrepreneur in his own right as well as keeping his hand in as a columnist at CNET. His particular field of interest is Internet technology and social media firms, but he also tweets about hardware, startups, and (ugh) sports.
Sphere Of Influence: Silicon Valley power brokers and big tech journalists.
Long battery life, half the weight, hold it in 1 hand, HD front-facing camera, LTE, $329. iPad mini is a BIG deal.
Bill Gross is a lifelong and serial entrepreneur, founding his first company while still at college. In the 30 years that have passed since he's started over 100 more companies. He's the CEO of tech incubator Idealab, which has spawned Picasa (acquired by Google) and Overture (acquired by Yahoo), amongst others.
Sphere Of Influence: Fellow entrepreneurs and those looking to invest in budding startups.
Pete Cashmore founded Mashable in 2005 at the tender age of 19. It then grew to become one of the biggest technology websites in the world, and Cashmore's influence grew with it. This Twitter account is essentially a feed of all the content that makes it on to Mashable, but that means following it ensures you'll hear every piece of tech news that breaks.
Sphere Of Influence: Anyone with an interest in technology, particularly social media.
Online file sharers buy 30% more music than those who don't share bit.ly/P85GpM "Pirates" are the music industry's best customers!
Tim O'Reilly is another person on this list who has more than one finger in more than one pie. He's primarily the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, which publishes books, magazines, and websites on all manner of tech-related topics. But he's also involved in various conferences, is a venture capitalist, and a technologist and futurologist.
Sphere Of Influence: Those interested in the future direction technology is headed.
Dan Lyons is a technology writer, journalist, and editor who made a name for himself blogging as Fake Steve Jobs. The death of the real Jobs meant Lyons retired the parody, and he's now keeping busy as editor-in-chief of ReadWrite. Before that he was a senior editor at Forbes and a writer at Newsweek, bringing a wry analysis of tech companies to both publications.
Sphere Of Influence: Those who occasionally enjoy casting a cynical eye over the industry.
Michael Gartenberg is primarily a tech writer, with his columns appearing on Computerworld and Engadget, amongst others. He is also an analyst for Gartner Research, a public speaker, and a former employee of Microsoft where he lasted just three weeks as an evangelist for Windows Vista. He has a strong, knowledgeable style that demands you absorb every word.
Sphere Of Influence: Those who like sharp, analytical takes on the tech news of the day.
Robert Scoble is a writer, blogger, video podcaster, and tech evangelist with a day job at Rackspace. Having grown up in Silicon Valley his love for technology was cemented at an early age. He worked with Dave Winer for a time, before landing a job at Microsoft. He is now best known for running the Scobleizer blog, as well as writing opinion pieces on Google+.
Sphere Of Influence: He has met everybody in the industry, so his reach is far and wide.
If you're into technology in any way, shape, or form (and the fact you're a MakeUseOf reader would suggest you are) then you'd do well to follow these individuals on Twitter.
I promise by doing so you'll learn something new, whether it be a fact or figure about hardware, the emergence of a new startup, the latest update from one of the big companies, or the name of a new website or app. In other words they do what we here at MakeUseOf also do. Making us, them, and you natural bedfellows.
As with previous lists of people to follow on Twitter, this is just a selection that is by no means comprehensive. One big name failed to appear after I discovered he had blocked me, meaning I couldn't embed any of his tweets.
If you have any more top technology influencers on Twitter to recommend, or anything else to add to the conversation, then please feel free to comment below.


Admittedly on the showy side, Marilyn has done well with her well-endowed Merlots."
structure to the mouth. This wine was barrel aged using 30% new wood to enhance the aromas of vanilla and roasted coffee. The fruity aromas and flavors are ripe and soft reflecting the maturity and quality of the grapes we harvested. All the vineyards for this wine are located in the heart of the Napa Valley ranging from the Oak Knoll District to the Rutherford District.


text:
Powerful and small: MCE-5 Variable Compression Ratio engine
Xavier Navarro
Apr 10th 2008 at 9:15AM
Meet the MCE-5 VCR engine, coming at you from France. VCR stands for Variable Compression Rate, and its creators claim it will replace conventional Fixed Compression Rate engines. According to the press release (found after the jump), what is special about this engine is that it's based on a combination of rod-crank mechanism and long-life gears, integrating both power transmission and compression ratio control for each cylinder.
MCE claims that this allows ratios from 7: 1 to 20:1, which adapts the engine for most usage requirements. Oh, and this reduces fuel consumption by 30 percent, as two other prototypes of VCR engines showed by Saab and Audi in 2000. MCE also claims the design is more durable and robust, and will have lower maintenance costs.
This engine has no impact on the rest of the components of a vehicle, so it's potentially installable in every sort of vehicle. MCE's current prototype offers 160 kW (218 HP) with a 1.5-liter engine.
slide-1861685
All carmakers share the same opinion: Variable Compression Ratio is the most efficient solution to reduce gasoline engines' Fuel Consumption while opening the way to several strategies for the future.
In March 2000, Saab unveiled its Variable Compression Ratio (VCR) prototype vehicle, powered by a 1.6 L supercharged VCR engine named SVC (Saab Variable Compression). The SVC engine delivers 168 kW of power (228 hp) and 305 Nm of torque, and provides more than 30% Fuel Consumption reduction when compared to a conventional naturally aspirated engine of equivalent power.
Few months later, FEV Motorentechnik also unveiled its own interpretation of Variable Compression Ratio through an impressive A6 Audi, powered by a 1.8 L VCR engine. Thanks to VCR, the FEV engine presents the same performance than that of a 3.0 L engine while reducing Fuel Consumption by 27%.
Saab and FEV demonstrated that Variable Compression Ratio is well the ultimate tool to reduce Fuel Consumption of Spark Ignition engines (gasoline engines).
But Variable Compression Ratio is not a revolution; VCR is only a major technical evolution, which could rapidly be as indispensable for SI engines as multiple Direct Injections for Diesel engines.
In the near-future, VCR will provide to automotive industry a wide range of efficient strategies to produce fuel-efficient, powerful and attractive cars which conform to most stringent emissions standards.
Then the question is: as present, environmental and energy context cannot be more suited to such a strategy, why don't carmakers already produce VCR engines?
In fact, all carmakers don't share the same opinion - for the time being - concerning the point of planning VCR engines production for the near future. Indeed, even if VCR is an old dream which goes back 100 years, producing VCR engines represents a real technological challenge which implies big changes in engine's mechanical definition.
Different VCR prototypes have confirmed the exceptional potential of VCR strategy, but they also revealed that designing VCR engines that respond to mass-production requirements is a tremendous technological challenge.
In this context, next step is to identify and study a design that fulfils all indispensable features for a mass-produced engine in terms of functionalities, robustness, reliability and durability while presenting reasonable production costs.
This is the purpose of the MCE-5 VCR engine block that is intended to replace conventional Fixed Compression Ratio engine blocks. Based on the combination between a rod-crank mechanism and long-life gears, the MCE-5 is an all-in-one VCR technology integrating both power transmission and Compression Ratio control.
Its conservative combustion chamber and its totally conventional and invariable piston kinematics allow making the most of know-how related to combustion and performance control.
The MCE-5 provides an individual, continuous and reactive Compression Ratio control to each cylinder of the engine. Its wide control range comprised between 7:1 and 20:1, permits serving all VCR strategies with no limitation.
Thanks to its long-life gears and to its roller-guided piston which is no longer subjected to radial stress and slap, the MCE-5 guarantees a high robustness and reliability to high-loaded VCR engines, and responds to one of the greatest challenge of high specific power and torque engines: durability.
The high robustness of the MCE-5 VCR engine block also comes from its rigid structure and crankshaft, which ensure a high reliability and a long lifespan to hydrodynamic bearings.
The MCE-5 VCR engine block has no impact on other engine parts or vehicle components. Its connection to gearbox, pipes and peripherals requires no additional device, as well as its integration into vehicles, which remains conventional.
The MCE-5 VCR engine bock has been studied and tested since 1997 and improved by successive steps. Next MCE-5 generation will be representative of a mass-production version and its components will be realized using industrial processes.
Thanks to its reasonable production costs and exclusive features, the MCE-5 could rapidly lead to a new generation of fuel efficient, powerful and attractive vehicles, while opening the way to crucial engine design strategies for the future.
[Source: MCE (thanks to Dominique for the tip)]
Will you still be reading car reviews in 10 years?


text:
American Startup in Abu Dhabi
2020-10-22 — 1 min read
Abu Dhabi News Startups
The other day I was reading startup news in Abu Dhabi and I came across an interesting article written by an American Startup that moved to Abu Dhabi. One part of the story written by the founder of CompanyEgg that caught my attention was the comment about how the UAE is in many ways a startup itself: In less than 50 years, the country has become one of the most advanced and forward thinking countries in the entire world.
Thales Emarat Technologies Teams up with Hub71
Abu Dhabi News Startups Technology
A unit of France's defence electronics group Thales, Thales Emarat Technologies, and Abu Dhabi's Hub71 are joining forces. The two have joined teams to support innovation in the Emirates. According to AbuDhabuStartup.com: Hub71 is community of founders, investors and business enablers that form a unique technology ecosystem strategically located in Abu Dhabi. Named after the UAE's formation in 1971, Hub71 is creating the optimal environment for transformative tech companies looking to maximize success, produce outstanding tech innovations and scale globally.
Dubai International Airport 60 Years Old
Dubai Middle East
Dubai International Airport has soared to great heights since welcoming its first travellers in 1960. From the sand runway of its humble beginnings to its transformation into a state-of-the-art travel hub, the airport has been on a remarkable journey. Thursday marked the 60th anniversary of the Dubai International Airport. DXB has served more than 1.115 billion passengers, travelling on more than 7.47 million flights. These included connections in more than 240 destinations in 95 countries across the globe.
Hub71 Technology Program
News Hub71 Startups Technology
Given the recent news with startups in Abu Dhabi, we thought now would be a good time to highlight one of the programs the Abu Dhabi government has launched. The Hub71 program is an incentive program for startups that offers startups housing, office space, and health insurance. This startup incentives program does not take equity, something that is a rarity in the startup space. Launched recently, they aim to have more than 100 startups at Hub71 by 2023.
Startups Are Even Bigger Now
Technology Startups
2020 has been a year that tested the human civilization. This year has brought about much change in ways many would not have imagined. It's accelerated the growth of ecommerce and made businesses that could not adapt quick enough shut the their doors forever. If anything, 2020 has been the year of technology startups leading the world. "Software is eating the world." Marc Andreessen Countries like China are a nearly cashless society.
ArabianBytes.com is back with a message of peace
After a long hiatus, this site is back to discuss the digital sphere here in the Middle East and around the world. As we all know, technology is changing on an almost daily basis, and reshaping how we think not just about the tools around us, but about language, culture and the world around us. The Middle East is even more important than it was when we first started this blog.
Social Media – Helping Good Governments Get Better
UAE tops mobile phone penetration globally – KSA ranks third
Stats and Trends Mashable Mobile Smartphone Stats
The Spirit of Giving
This Ramadan I was honored to be part of an enthusiastic charity team who dedicated several days a week to a number of charitable projects. While collecting money and distributing meals and clothing were the main objectives, we were lucky enough to spend some time with some families of the families that the project aimed to help, making me realize that giving supersedes monetary value. The search for families and individuals in need started three months before Ramadan.
The Week That Was, August 15, 2013
YouTube to open its creative studio space in NYC in 2014 Google announced this week that it will be opening up their fourth YouTube creative studio space in New York City in October 2014. For those that aren't familiar, YouTube's creative studio is a place where anyone enrolled in its Partner Program can go and hone their skills and gain access to resources needed to help enhance their video's production value.
© 2010-2020. Powered by NoCodeCMS.com