ONE LIBERTY PROPERTIES INC : Results of Operations and Financial Condition, Financial Statements and Exhibits (form 8-K)  Marketscreener.com

Go here to read the rest:

ONE LIBERTY PROPERTIES INC : Results of Operations and Financial Condition, Financial Statements and Exhibits (form 8-K) - Marketscreener.com

Disclaimer: Links to third party sites are provided for your convenience. These sites are not within the control of Liberty Bank and may not follow the same privacy, security, or accessibility standards as Liberty Bank. Liberty Bank does not warrant any offerings from the third party providers, nor is Liberty Bank responsible for the security, content or availability of any third party sites, or their partners.

Disclaimer: Links to third party sites are provided for your convenience. These sites are not within the control of Liberty Bank and may not follow the same privacy, security, or accessibility standards as Liberty Bank. By accessing the SmartLenders Program via the provided link, you acknowledge the SmartLenders Program is not under the control of Liberty Bank. Liberty Bank does not warrant or endorse any offerings from third party providers, nor is Liberty Bank responsible for the security, content or availability of any third party sites or their partners including SmartLenders or the lenders that may be accessed by you through your use of the SmartLenders Program (the Lenders). Under no circumstances will Liberty Bank be responsible for any damages arising from the transactions between you and any Lenders or for any information appearing on SmartLenders site. SmartLenders will provide Liberty Bank with the following information about your application: applicant name; type of company; email address; loan amount requested; and progress status toward approval and funding. Liberty Bank may use this information to monitor your experience with SmartLenders and market Libertys services to you.

Read the original here:

Best Banks in Connecticut | Liberty Bank

Liberty clinches first-ever USL W League playoff berth

Updated: 10:15 PM EDT Jun 28, 2022

The Greenville Liberty clinched its first-ever USL W League playoff berth & concluded a perfect home regular season Tuesday night at Legacy Early College with a 5-1 thumping of Asheville City in front of the clubs second-largest crowd of the season. Tuesday nights inaugural regular season home opener began differently than any other match this season. Just 35 seconds into the match Asheville City center back, Roisin McGovern, is issued a red card after grabbing the jersey of Julie Mackin and pulling her to the ground, denying her a goal scoring opportunity. After the foul, Asheville was forced to play almost the entirety of the match down a player. Shortly after McGovern was dismissed, Greenville finished what it started earlier, and Carly Thatcher scores the first Liberty goal. In the 22nd minute, a cross from Christian Brathwaite flew across the face of the goal resulting in an own goal from Asheville. Ten minutes later, Caroline Conti attempted a cross that pinged off the side bar into the net to put the Liberty up 3-0 headed into the half.Greenville substitutions at the start of second half kept the momentum on the home side, as the club continued to press the shorthanded Asheville defense. Despite letting in an own goal to put Asheville on the board, the Liberty continued to dominate the match. Just two minutes after the own goal, Greenville countered with a second-effort goal from Julie Mackin to return the lead to three and keep the home side in the drivers seat. The Libertys Maddie Turlington added an exclamation point on the evening with a fifth goal for the club just before stoppage time. As the whistle blew, the Liberty capped their home schedule with a perfect 6-0 record and clinched the clubs first-ever South Atlantic division title and playoff berth.The Liberty will now hit the road for two more regular season matches, taking the short trip up to Charlotte to face the Independence on Saturday, June 2nd. The club will look to improve its playoff seeding in Charlotte and the regular season finale on July 9th at Wake FC.

The Greenville Liberty clinched its first-ever USL W League playoff berth & concluded a perfect home regular season Tuesday night at Legacy Early College with a 5-1 thumping of Asheville City in front of the clubs second-largest crowd of the season.

Tuesday nights inaugural regular season home opener began differently than any other match this season. Just 35 seconds into the match Asheville City center back, Roisin McGovern, is issued a red card after grabbing the jersey of Julie Mackin and pulling her to the ground, denying her a goal scoring opportunity. After the foul, Asheville was forced to play almost the entirety of the match down a player. Shortly after McGovern was dismissed, Greenville finished what it started earlier, and Carly Thatcher scores the first Liberty goal. In the 22nd minute, a cross from Christian Brathwaite flew across the face of the goal resulting in an own goal from Asheville. Ten minutes later, Caroline Conti attempted a cross that pinged off the side bar into the net to put the Liberty up 3-0 headed into the half.

Greenville substitutions at the start of second half kept the momentum on the home side, as the club continued to press the shorthanded Asheville defense. Despite letting in an own goal to put Asheville on the board, the Liberty continued to dominate the match. Just two minutes after the own goal, Greenville countered with a second-effort goal from Julie Mackin to return the lead to three and keep the home side in the drivers seat. The Libertys Maddie Turlington added an exclamation point on the evening with a fifth goal for the club just before stoppage time. As the whistle blew, the Liberty capped their home schedule with a perfect 6-0 record and clinched the clubs first-ever South Atlantic division title and playoff berth.

The Liberty will now hit the road for two more regular season matches, taking the short trip up to Charlotte to face the Independence on Saturday, June 2nd. The club will look to improve its playoff seeding in Charlotte and the regular season finale on July 9th at Wake FC.

Go here to read the rest:

Liberty clinches first-ever USL W League playoff berth - WYFF4 Greenville

Later this week, on Thursday at 6 p.m. EST, the 2022 NBA free agency period will kick off. Although the Philadelphia 76ers are not ripe with financial freedom, they surely intend to use this opportunity as a means to bolster the roster to true contender levels. Reported interest of potential targets, notably P.J. Tucker at this point, are already emerging.

If James Harden opts in, they dont have any true free agents themselves from last years team. However, on this post, well be sure to continually update everyone about trade rumors involving the Sixers, any signings they agree to, the looming Harden situation and any relevant league-wide happenings.

The prevailing sentiment for weeks, led by Bleacher Reports Jake Fischer, has been that Harden will exercise his $47 million player option for 2022-23 and sign a two-year extension. Yet on Monday, Marc Stein mentioned the possibility Harden declines the option, signs a new three-year deal at a price point below the max with the Sixers and brings them some added financial flexibility.

The veteran wing declined his $7.4 million player option for 2022-23 and will enter free agency later this week. Various sources, including Stein and Keith Pompey of the Philadelphia Inquirer, have linked Philadelphia as his primary suitor, likely on a three-year, $30 million contract.

No concrete trade has been mentioned as it pertains to Philadelphia moving Thybulle. For weeks, he was listed as someone who could be packaged alongside the No. 23 pick and Danny Green. Obviously, that did not materialize and Thybulle remains with the Sixers at this point. The Portland Trail Blazers reportedly have interest in the 25-year-old, though.

Similar to Thybulle, specifics of a trade involving Harris have not surfaced. While theres been speculation Philadelphia may move Harris to open the non-taxpayer mid-level exception (~$10 million) and sign Tucker with it, reports indicate the Sixers would prioritize trades to offload various smaller contracts rather than Harris and his two-year, $77 million deal.

Korkmaz, owed $10.3 million over the next two years, is among those players on smaller deals than Harris who could be dealt.

Milton, due just under $2 million next season, joins Korkmaz as another candidate here.

See above, with Korkmaz and Milton.

According to Pompey and Alykhan Bijani of The Athletic, the Sixers and Houston Rockets engaged on discussions around Gordon last week. That report went live shortly before Thursdays NBA Draft, when Philadelphia landed DeAnthony Melton in exchange for the No. 23 pick and Danny Green. Despite that move, though, Pompey still reported the Sixers have interest in acquiring Gordon.

Read the original post:

Sixers and NBA free agency tracker - Liberty Ballers

Justice Thomas's majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen may be the most important originalist opinion of all time. Its significance surpasses Heller,Crawford, and any other decision that came before it. Rather than trying to cram originalism into pre-existing standards--such as the tiers of scrutiny or a two-step test--Thomas starts from first principles. He employs originalist analogical reasoning. The Court instructs lower courts to determine the validity of a modern-day gun restriction by considering analogous restrictions in the past. But this mode of reasoning is weighted against the government, and follows a presumption of liberty. The state has the burden to justify that its restriction has historical analogues. And more importantly, the government cannot rely on sparse or attenuated historical analogues to meet its burden. Even if the evidence is at equipoise, the tie goes to freedom.

The majority opinion inBruen methodically walks through this framework, illustrating how to apply it in different contexts.

First, the court must determine if a modern-day regulation is "relevantly similar" to some historical regulations.

Much like we use history to determine which modern "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment, so too does history guide our consideration of modern regulations that were unimaginable at the founding. When confronting such present-day firearm regulations, this historical inquiry that courts must conduct will often involve reasoning by analogya commonplace task for any lawyer or judge. Like all analogical reasoning, determining whether a historical regulation is a proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm regulation requires a determination of whether the two regulations are "relevantly similar." C. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 741 (1993).

Second, Thomas highlights two questions that can be used to perform this analogical reasoning:

While we do not now provide an exhaustive survey of the features that render regulations relevantly similar under the Second Amendment, we do think that Heller and McDonald point toward at least two metrics: how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense. As we stated in Heller and repeated in McDonald, "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right." Therefore, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense [i.e., the how] and whether that burden is comparably justified [i.e., the why] are "'central'" considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald.

Third, in Footnote 7, Justice Thomas clarifies that the originalist analogical inquiry is distinct from means-ends scrutiny:

This does not mean that courts may engage in independent means-end scrutiny under the guise of an analogical inquiry. Again, the Second Amendment is the "product of an interest balancing by the people," not the evolving product of federal judges. Analogical reasoning requires judges to apply faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances, and contrary to the dissent's assertion, there is nothing "[i]roni[c]" about that undertaking. It is not an invitation to revise that balance through means-end scrutiny.

Fourth, the Court explains how similar the modern regulation must be to the historical analogues:

To be clear, analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. On the one hand, courts should not "uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue," because doing so "risk[s] endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted." Drummond v. Robinson (CA3 2021). On the other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.

Fifth, as an example, the Court justifies the "sensitive places" analysis from Heller:

Consider, for example, Heller's discussion of "longstanding" "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century "sensitive places" where weapons were altogether prohibitede.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouseswe are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The "Sensitive Places" Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229236 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Amicus Curiae. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were "sensitive places" where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of "sensitive places" to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.

Sixth, the Court places the burden squarely on the government.

To support that claim, the burden falls on respondents to show that New York's proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if respondents carry that burden can they show that the pre-existing right codified in the Second Amendment, and made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, does not protect petitioners' proposed course of conduct.

And the Court will not do the government's homework:

Of course, we are not obliged to sift the historical materials for evidence to sustain New York's statute. That is respondents' burden. Nevertheless, we think a short review of the public discourse surrounding Reconstruction is useful in demonstrating how public carry for self-defense remained a central component of the protection that the Fourteenth Amendment secured for all citizens.

The individual seeking to vindicate his Second Amendment right does not have the burden. And in this case, New York failed to meet that burden.

We conclude that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York's proper-cause requirement. Under Heller's text-and-history standard, the proper-cause requirement is therefore unconstitutional. . . .

At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have not met their burden to identify an American tradition justifying the State's proper-cause requirement.

In constitutional litigation, the assignment of the burden is perhaps the most important choice a court will make. I explored this theme in my article, The Burden of Judging in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty:"Instead of chiseling out the so-called tiers of scrutiny, accounting for these burdens serves as a more accurate descriptor of the manner in which governments and individuals have their constitutional rights either vindicated or vitiated."

Seventh, the government needs to point to more than some isolated historical analogues to support a restriction. The evidence must be substantial. And if the record is at equipoise, the presumption of liberty breaks the tie.

For example, there is some doubt about how best to read the record inSir John Knight's Case. In that case, the Court favors the reading that protects a right to keep and bear arms.

The dissent discounts Sir John Knight's Case, because it only "arguably" supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. But again, because the Second Amendment's bare text covers petitioners' public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York's proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical scope. To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight's Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment's command.

There was also some debate about how to understand the surety laws. Given that conflicting record, the tie goes to freedom.

The dissent speculates that the absence of recorded cases involving surety laws may simply "show that these laws were normally followed." Perhaps. But again, the burden rests with the government to establish the relevant tradition of regulation, and, given all of the other features of surety laws that make them poor analogues to New York's proper-cause standard, we consider the barren record of enforcement to be simply one additional reason to discount their relevance.

These seven principles effect a foundational shift in how courts should decide Second Amendment cases.To understand why this shift is so significant, it is helpful to review how the lower courts have decided cases in the exact opposite fashion. ConsiderUnited States v. Skoien, an en banc decision from the Seventh Circuit. Judge Easterbrook wrote the majority opinion in 2010. He expressly rejected the need to find a close analogue between a modern-day restriction on guns and framing-era restrictions of arms:

So although the Justices have not established that anyparticular statute is valid, we do take from Heller themessage thatexclusions need not mirror limits that wereon the books in 1791.

And at every juncture, Easterbrook placed the burden on the defendant to justify the unreasonableness of the law. Indeed, the court supplied additional evidence that the government did not cite to defend the law. Judge Sykes dissented. She faulted the majority for giving the government a "decisive assist."

This approach fell far short of the legal heavy lifting normally required to justify criminally punishing the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right. . . . When it comesto applying this standard, they give the government adecisive assist; most of the empirical data cited tosustain 922(g)(9) has been supplied by the court. Thisis an odd way to put the government to its burden ofjustifying a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutionalright. With respect, I cannot join the en banc opinion.The court declines to be explicit about its decisionmethod, sends doctrinal signals that confuse ratherthan clarify, and develops its own record to support thegovernment's application of 922(g)(9) to this defendant.

Easterbrook's approach to judging has predominated across the circuits. Many judges have followed Easterbrook's lead. They used loose reasoning, and always gave the benefit of the doubt to the government. I wrote about Skoienway back in 2013, yet the precedent has survived. Indeed, I don't know if there is any Judge who more flagrantly dared the Supreme Court to reverse him on guns than Easterbrook. No more. Put a red flag on Skoien.

Under the approach inBruen, courts are required to use tight analogical reasoning between a modern restriction and history, and if there is any doubt, the tie goes to freedom.

Still, there is a single paragraph in Justice Thomas's majority opinion that could undermine--even ruin--Bruen:

While the historical analogies here and in Heller are relatively simple to draw, other cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach. The regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitutionand a Second Amendment"intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated.

It will be very easy for the Ninth Circuit to deem mass shootings an "unprecedented societal concerns" or designate so-called assault weapons as the byproducts of "dramatic technological change." These two categories, buttressed by the original Heller discussion of "sensitive places" and "dangerous and unusual weapons," will provide judges with an escape hatch from analogical reasoning. Plus, combined with the limitations from Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence--much more on that concurrence later--the Ninth Circuit will have everything it needs to keep business as usual.If I had to guess, Justice Kavanaugh proposed this paragraph. If ever the price of the fifth vote, as the saying goes.

More here:

Bruen's Originalist Analogical Reasoning Applies A Presumption of Liberty - Reason

With multiple construction projects underway over the summer, Liberty Universitys campus will soon see even more growth and activity as students dine, cheer on Flames Football, hone their athletic abilities, and engage in outdoor recreation activities at new and upcoming facilities.

With the steel structure erected and most of the concrete floors poured, the New Reber-Thomas dining facility is starting to take shape. A roof has been installed, allowing for the interior work to begin soon. The 120,000-square-foot, two-story structure, located between Residential Commons III and Liberty Lake, will offer 40% more interior space than the current Food Court at Reber-Thomas, with a peak capacity of 2,700 seats. The interior will bear a similar layout to the existing dining hall, featuring about 30 food stations across the venue that will offer a wide array of menu items, including an allergen-free room, a front-facing bake shop in the dessert area (including a gluten-free bake shop), and exhibition kitchen station for hosting cooking classes for students. Plans call for more booths, small and large table configurations, window seating overlooking the Academic Lawn and Liberty Lake, as well as a downstairs seating area. The main level will feature a couple fireplaces. The project is on schedule and should be ready to receive the equipment from the Food Court at Reber-Thomas starting in May. A grand opening is planned for the Fall 2023 semester.

The gaming room currently on the second floor of the Montview Student Union will be moved to the lower level of the New Reber-Thomas, giving students another activity option while visiting. Options in the gaming room include billiards tables, ping pong tables, chess/checkers gaming tables, electronic gaming stations, and foosball and air hockey tables.

Upgrades to the south end zone at Williams Stadium have continued on an aggressive schedule this summer in order to be ready for Flames Football home games this fall. Crews have been working seven days a week, and sometimes into the night, to expand seating options. They have graded the berm and added new retaining walls to allow for ground seating for students and overflow crowds. Workers will soon begin building the 23 cabana suites at the top of the section, each accommodating eight people and featuring a TV, fan, heater, and food service.

The new Liberty Multipurpose Center, an indoor facility that will benefit the universitys NCAA, club and intramural sports programs, is making steady progress. Some of the steel for the offices and restroom spaces has already been completed, and construction on the main field space for the center is expected to start next week. The center is scheduled to be completed by November, ahead of the winter weather. The 75,000-foot facility located near the Liberty Tennis Complex will be a major benefit to the baseball, softball, mens and womens soccer, and womens lacrosse programs. The surface will be versatile for many sports.

The Hydaway Lake expansion project, which will grow the lake near the Hydaway Outdoor Center from 6 to 31 acres, continues on Liberty Mountain. A road has been relocated and crews have begun building a new dam. Once the dam is built, they will begin clearing the balance of the new lake bed (extending to the cleared areas north of the lake shown above) and start the process of filling the new lake area this fall. In addition to swimming, fishing, kayaking, canoeing, and paddle boarding, which are available to all students, the lake could also serve student-athletes from the Intramural Sports, Club Sports, and NCAA Division I Athletics teams.

Coming in 2023, the new Jerry Falwell Center, to be built directly behind and attached to the Hancock Welcome Center, will give students and guests an immersive look at the faith, vision, and purpose of the university. Through the latest entertainment technology and interactive displays, students will be inspired by the institutions spiritual heritage and learn how the original mission, Training Champions for Christ, is still being carried out today with biblically based academic excellence. Construction is scheduled to begin this summer.

Approved in April, two new elevators will be added to the front side of the South Tower that will provide the students with much faster service to its six floors.

Link:

Construction continues on exciting campus additions, expansions Liberty News - Liberty University

The Bulls made a pair of additions to their Summer League roster over the weekend, and one of them has me pretty excited. Javon Freeman-Liberty, or simply JFL as we DePaul fans know him, is heading to Vegas with the Bulls in July.

Freeman-Liberty is a Chicago kid and that worked out pretty well for the Bulls last season when they drafted hometown kid Ayo Dosunmu in the second round of the NBA Draft who played his high school ball at Whitney Young on Chicagos West Side. JFL spent two seasons at Valpo before transferring to DePaul.

During his junior season at DePaul, JFL led the Big East in scoring with 7 points per game and was eighth in the nation in scoring. Freeman-Liberty was named to the All-Big East Second Team, and the six-foot-four guard pulled down an impressive 7.3 rebounds per contest for the Blue Demons while shooting 48 percent from the floor and 36.8 percent from three.

JFLs uncle Marcus, who was drafted in the second round of the 1990 NBA Draft by the Denver Nuggets, tweeted a video of Javon working out at McGrath-Phillips Arena on the DePaul campus as he prepares for the Summer League in a few weeks.

The Bulls also added guard Perrion Callandret, a member of Windy City Bulls in the past and one of Zach LaVines best friends, to the Summer League roster.

Perrion Callandret played 28 games for the Bulls G-League squad last season and averaged 4.1 points, 3.4 assists, and 2.4 rebounds in 20 minutes per contest.

Continue reading here:

Chicago Bulls Reportedly Add Javon Freeman-Liberty and Perrion Callandret to Summer League Roster - bleachernation.com

The United States Supreme Court in dramatic fashion fired two shots in the defense of liberty and freedom last week. In two historic decisions, the High Court confirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to carry a weapon outside of their home and that the issue of abortion should be decided by the people and not by judicial fiat. Massachusetts current gun regulation structure is effectively dead and the issue of abortion can now be waged at the ballot box instead of the courts.

The significance of these two decisions cannot be understated. For nearly half a century, the Democratic Party imposed its liberal social agenda through the use of the courts because it was been unable to secure victories through elections. The progressive desire to change society included weakening the role of the Second Amendment and allowing unfettered lack of consequence for individual sexual choice. The Supreme Court stopped the progressive effort on those two fronts last week.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomass opinion stated that the Second and 14th Amendments protect an individuals right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. This would seem to be obvious from the text of the Second Amendment but progressive Democrats tend not to be bothered by textually specific requirements. But the Supreme Court does care about constitutional text and, therefore, New Yorks law requiring that applicants justify their need for a concealed-weapons permit is unconstitutional. In the clearest terms, the Court stated that the Second Amendment demands that a state shall issue gun permits, including concealed ones, not may.

Massachusetts entire gun regulation system is seemingly now unconstitutional. Indeed, the Court specifically called into question the Commonwealths gun regime. You could live in the rural town of Oakham out near the Quabbin and get a permit from the police chief without any effort but it is nearly impossible to get one in Boston or its suburbs. The Second Amendment is not controlled by the whims of a particular towns police chief and the Supreme Court has affirmed this fact.

In an earthquake of a decision, the Supreme Court overturned the 50-year precedent of Roe v Wade guaranteeing a so-called Constitutional right to abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, the Court stated the obvious. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court, opined that The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives.

The issue of abortion now will be resolved where it always belonged, in the hands of the voters and their elected representatives. Although Massachusetts seemingly is a pro-abortion state, opponents of abortion can now make their case through the electoral process and change hearts and minds and votes.

The greatest irony is that we can thank the Democrats and the far-left former Senator Harry Reid from Nevada for these two opinions when he ended the filibuster for appellate court nominees in 2013. Republican senate leader Mitch McConnell warned Reid that he would regret it. Well Donald Trump and his three Supreme Court appointments proved McConnell right.

It is indeed a good week for the cause of liberty and freedom in America and Massachusetts.

James P. Ehrhard is a writer whose columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Boston Herald, Lowell Sun, Worcester Telegram, Springfield Republican and other publications. He is the owner and manager of the Worcester law firm Ehrhard & Associates.

Read more from the original source:

Ehrhard: Liberty, freedom score wins at the Supreme Court - Boston Herald

PUMA and Liberty have released the third chapter of the PUMA x Liberty collection.

The collection honors the force that women contribute to the admirable game of soccer. The companies have reinvented ideas of conventional football design to commemorate a new era of womens engagement and spectatorship in the sport by fusing PUMAs history in the game and Libertys position in fashion and art.

The PUMA x Liberty line mixes Libertys signature flower patterns and a Liberty football insignia with traditional football silhouettes, including jerseys, shorts, and tracksuits, to celebrate football culture freshly and inclusively.

The newest PUMA x Liberty line is a part of the companys She Moves Us initiative, which aims to support, uplift, and encourage women.

Products are currently on sale at PUMA.com, with additional styles debuting throughout the summer. Prices range from $55 to $220. You can see the collection below.

See the rest here:

Puma and Liberty Team Celebrate Women's Soccer in Latest Clothing Collaboration - The Source Magazine

Scroll To See More Images

Men,

I just finished reading the most disturbing attack of my lifetime on individual liberty in America, and an astonishing abuse of power that further undermines our constitutional system at a precarious moment for our democracy. If you havent fully readDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, you should.

As an attorney who studied constitutional law, I am appalled. As a veteran who pledged to support and defend the Constitution, I am appalled. As a son, boyfriend, nephew, cousin, friend and ally, I am appalled. Make no mistake, Fridays Supreme Court decision reversing Roe and Casey not only eviscerated a core right of millions of women, it shook the very foundation of every Americans freedom from government intervention in our bodily autonomy and private lives.

The Supreme Courts opinion is based on only one substantive argument: If abortion was not permitted in 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified), it cannot be among the various unenumerated constitutionally protected rights. Ask yourself if you are OK with living under an 1868 definition of Liberty?

In 1868 there was also no constitutional protection from forced sterilization and no right to marry whomever you choose. Women had no right to vote, serve on juries, or choose their profession. Not all women were permitted to own property, hold a passport, or even wear pants. It is not surprising that the men who held office in 1868 defined personal liberty very differently than we do today, as their definition of a person did not fully include women or men of color.

Much of this law has changed over the past 150 years because the nature of a constitution is to accommodate the evolving views of a progressing society. Lets be clear, the Courts decision in Dobbs was not a result of consistent interpretation of constitutional law; it was deceptive advocacy of the personal policy preferences of four Justices (Justice Thomas concurrence was not deceptive, but rather horrifyingly honest).

The legal concept of substantive due process protects each of us from government interference in certain aspects of our personal lives, from the state depriving us of liberty. The Supreme Courts binding rationale and Justice Thomas explicit concurrence militate against continued application of substantive due process, putting at risk our liberty to marry who we love, raise our children as we choose, control our bodies as we wish, and maintain the privacy we currently take for granted. Dont be fooledthe effect of Fridays decision is not limited to state control of abortion access (although that alone has devastating implications)the rights of every American are less secure today than last week. We are now less free.

Are you OK living under an 1868 definition of Liberty?

I am equally disturbed by the continued degradation of critical norms underlying our system of government, which this decision reflects and accelerates. Every judge and attorney in the country understands the importance of judicial restraint and the essential principle ofstare decisis(the adherence to judicial precedent). Although sometimes a frustrating drag on progress,stare decisispromotes stability in our society by ensuring laws are consistently and reliably applied, favoring incremental advancement over radical change. It is a principle typically championed most fervently by conservative jurists. And it is sorely needed in todays polarized America.

In his 2018 confirmation hearing under oath before Congress, Justice Kavanaugh stated:my position as a judge is that there are 45 years of precedent and there is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe, so that is precedent on precedent, as I have explained, and that is important. And that is an important precedent of the Supreme Court.Despite these statements, less than four years later and with no change in law or fact to support a different view, Justice Kavanaugh voted to directly overturn Roe and Casey, calling them egregiously wrong. This brazen departure fromstare decisisis a devastating blow to the principle of judicial restraint and jeopardized the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

A stable and credible legal system requires that Justices demonstrate humility and deference to existing Supreme Court rulings. Issues already decided by a prior Court are generally not within the purview of present Justices to reconsider. However, five Justices in Fridays Dobbs majority simply believed that they were right and that the seven Justices who originally decided Roe v. Wade, and the majority of Justices who reaffirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were wrong. It is exceedingly arrogant to call a decision egregiously wrong when two prior majorities and four present Justices voted to uphold it. Will a future liberal-leaning Court, perhaps no longer feeling bound by precedent, simply reverse course again on abortion, gun rights, and a variety of other issues that conservatives hold dear?

The Dobbs decision clearly indicates they could. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett, Thomas, and Kavanaugh displayed a hubris and disdain for the rule of law that seriously degrades the credibility of the Supreme Court. The threat they pose to the judiciary and our system of government transcends policy preference. It will require a tremendous sense of duty and integrity from future Justices to reestablish the judicial norms trampled by the Dobbs Court, as well as significant structural reforms imposed by Congress.

Anyone claiming that this issue is simply about saving unborn babies is being intellectually dishonest.

It will take a supermajority in Congress, committed first and foremost to reforming and strengthening our nations institutions, to reestablish a functional government in America that is committed to constitutional principles and democratic norms. It will take a majority of citizens in each state to ensure that womennot old white mendetermine what decision is best for their health and well-being if they become pregnant. It will take your vote, and my vote, and the vote of every person we know, in every local, state, and federal election for the foreseeable future, to protect the women in our lives from the horrors their mothers and grandmothers faced 50 and 150 years ago.

Reproductive and other core rights central to personal dignity and autonomy have long been under attack. On Friday, a powerful shield was blown off and the Supreme Court placed the burden on us to protect those rights with our voices and our votes. As always, the most vulnerable in our society are most at riskdisproportionately low-income women of color, who are over three times more likely to die during pregnancy. Eight states have trigger laws in effect banning abortion with no exception for rape or incest. In Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas, a fourteen-year-old girl who is raped by her father and becomes pregnant will be forced to give birth. Those states are not protecting children. They are perpetrating a gross injustice. It is disgusting.

Anyone claiming that this issue is simply about saving unborn babies is being intellectually dishonest. It is an oversimplification that ignores the difficult considerations women face when they must decide between ending a pregnancy (often one they wanted) and preserving their own life or wellbeing. No state legislature, no politician sitting in a faraway capital, neither you nor I, is in a better position to make that decision than the woman who faces the reality of it and must live with the consequences. Respect for individual autonomy is the crux of liberty.

Balancing individual liberty against the states majoritarian interest is among the most fundamental roles entrusted to the Supreme Court. It abdicated that responsibility on Friday, and so it is now our duty to use the power of the majority to protect our rights to align democracy and liberty once again.

If your general commitment to liberty and justice is insufficient, do it for your sister or daughter; do it for your aunt or niece. One of them has had an abortion or soon will. Or do it so you dont have to pay 18 years of child support due to a one night stand. This is not just a womens issue. This is about the rights of every American. It is the responsibility of every man. This is about you.

Link:

Dobbs V Jackson Is An Attack On Liberty & Men Can't Afford To Be Silent - STYLECASTER

Following my online analysis of the Supreme Courts opinion overruling Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health, I heard from folks who were unperturbed by the fact that Dobbs is based on a religious belieflife begins at conceptionrather than a legal foundation. One man politely chastised me for my views and suggested that I need to be saved by Christ. When I responded that I am in fact a Christian who disagrees with his beliefs, he told me that, There is no such thing as TWO true Christianities. Another conversant urged me to take the spiritual approach, which would lead me to truly understand Dobbs and the bans on abortion.

Here was my response: With all the due respect required by the tolerance necessary to our democracy, I do not share your beliefs. Indeed, my faith rejects them. The Constitution is not supposed to be interpreted through one religious viewpoint. Here is irrefutable original intent: the Framers rejected a theocracy in favor of a democratic republic.

I tell these stories to highlight the danger the forces behind the theologically-driven Dobbs opinion are to our pluralist democracy and religious diversity. Most Americans have been gas-lit by the religious right to cower from declaring our own beliefs. At the same time, their fellow believers have been persuaded that constitutional rights should rest on their religious beliefs. Their persistent labeling of their beliefs as religious and everyone elses as secular has led millions of Americans to think that this has been a culture war between true believers and religious outsiders. Thats a lie. Its never been a culture warits a religious war. Tragically, only the right has understood that. Until now.

In fact, those who disagree with the religious right on abortion are also religious, whether explicitly or simply as part of the persons religious worldview. They just dont believe what the pro-life believers and a majority of the Justices do. Its time for the majority of Americans to insist that their beliefs and religious worldviews be recognized in the courts on the abortion issue, and others as well.

In a rich irony, the pathway for pregnant girls and women to obtain an abortion in the abortion ban states is through the statutes that have been central to the religious rights religious war against civil rights: the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). There is a federal RFRA that applies to federal law and Washington, DC, and there are 24 RFRAs in the states. I am no fan of the RFRAs, as explained in my book, God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty, but I will leave those arguments aside to focus on how they can be turned into a weapon for the girls and women whose rights to bodily autonomy have been summarily dissolved by the Supreme Court.

The Court majority has made a severe miscalculation by believing what its hearing in its own echo chamber: a goal of complete elimination of abortion in every state is legitimate and possible and their religious beliefs are appropriately at the center of that universe. But that scheme is directly in opposition to millions of believers. A world without a choice on abortion is a world in violation of the free exercise of millions of believers.

The RFRA advocates have made it as broad as possible, which will enable the pregnant to argue in RFRA cases on the basis of their broad religious worldview. Why? Because the beliefs that trigger RFRA protection need not be central to a faith tradition. According to the federal RFRA, which is the model for all the others: RFRA applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not central to, or mandated by, a particular religious organization or tradition. You read that right: RFRA protects tangential beliefs that are part of a religious worldview, not beliefs cataloged in anyones Bible, Koran, or Torah. Those invoking these extreme religious liberty statutes in the public health and the land use context have not bothered to tether their beliefs to anything concrete or historically provable. Its simply what they believe now.

Heres the irony: the abortion ban states map onto the RFRA states pretty neatly. While the numbers are in some flux, right now my research indicates that there are 16 states where a pregnant girl or woman would have the weapon of a RFRA to obtain an abortion against a ban. The following map shows the states where there is a RFRA and those states where there are partial or full abortion bans or likely bans. The stripes show the states that have both a RFRA and a ban. Note the overlap!

The RFRAs hand a believer a weapon: a private right of action to invalidate a law that burdens their faith. When it comes to abortion, there are a variety of beliefs by denomination, as the Pew Research Center documented here and here. But, of course, the First Amendment is not limited to the beliefs of organized religions. Each of us has an absolute right to believe whatever we choose and to invoke religious liberty based on our individual beliefs.

Here is the RFRA roadmap: First, the believer must prove that a law imposes a substantial burden and sometimes just a burden on their faith. Once they succeed, the burden of proof shifts to the government to show that the law under attack serves a compelling interest in the least restrictive means for that believer. Here is how the arguments break down:

Proving substantial burden. There was a time when the believer was required to actually prove a substantial burden on their faith. Incidental burdens did not justify invoking religious liberty protections. Thats still true for the First Amendment, but not for RFRA. The Supreme Court in the RFRA case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, watered down the substantial burden requirement, and that is persuasive authority for the state RFRAs. So it shouldnt be difficult to prove that an abortion ban or partial ban substantially burdens a belief in obtaining abortion medical care.

What Is a Compelling Interest. To defend an abortion ban, the state must show that banning abortion serves a compelling interest. It will be interesting to see how the states do this. Will they argue that the ban serves a compelling interest, because life begins at conception? A court cannot take their religious assertions as fact. If states were to pursue that path, they would be arguing that the governments beliefs can overcome their citizens beliefs. By definition, they would be arguing that their compelling interest is to establish a theocracy.

Can the state show that there is a compelling interest that serves the economy? No way, because banning abortion costs the state billions in economic losses as women are removed from the workforce while they carry compelled pregnancies, are medically disabled, or die. It also results in a dramatic decrease in future thriving for girls when they are forced to carry a fetus, including negative impacts on health, education, and livelihood. Will the states argue they have a compelling interest in letting a woman die and be permanently disabled? Or for a girl to carry a pregnancy imposed on her by her incestuous father? I kind of feel sorry for the state attorneys general trying to defend these laws.

What would be the least restrictive means. This is the element that offers opportunities for imagination. Lets say the abortion ban criminalizes abortion; a fine is a lot less restrictive than criminalization. But thats not the least restrictive means for the girl or woman who believes in the protection of a mothers health or life through abortion medical treatment. The least restrictive is to invalidate the ban and permit her to obtain the medical treatment she believes is required as a matter of her religious worldview. Think about how some have argued against vaccine mandates using the federal RFRAthey say that their faith protects their right to bodily autonomy against vaccines and, therefore, the government may not enforce the mandate against them. The least restrictive means for them is to block the mandate. Similarly, the ban on abortion medical procedures violates many womens faith that they should not die from pregnancy, or a parents faith that their daughter should not be forced to give birth to a rapists child, or a girls religious conviction that God put her on earth to achieve greatness in her chosen field of study and not to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. Those beliefs are not secular; they are grounded in their religious worldviews and, therefore, must be accommodated through RFRA.

Attorneys fees. Practically speaking, attorneys fees are the most important element in these cases. Like the federal RFRA, the state RFRAs (except for Kentucky and Tennessee), provide for attorneys fees to the prevailing party. That incentivizes lawyers to take these cases, even pro bono. The prospect of attorneys fees at the end is sufficient for many a lawyer to get started.

I expect lawyers in the abortion RFRA cases may follow the pattern set by the attorneys who represent believers in other RFRA and RLUIPA (the federal law that provides the same high standard for religious landowners) cases: When such a lawsuit is filed, the government is under threat of having to pay attorneys fees on both sides, so there are strong incentives to settle and get rid of the case. While the RFRA formula normally requires the party to prevail to obtain fees, most settlements include attorneys fees even if the plaintiff wasnt going to win. In short, the claimant in a RFRA suit need not prevail to get attorneys fees; they often just need to file. That will attract attorneys and make it possible for claimants to vindicate their rights under the RFRA without paying.

One last note: We havent seen anti-abortion believers filing RFRA lawsuits against abortion choice laws. Thats because abortion choice laws do not burden their faith. They dont force them to undergo an abortion. They can still choose to die or be permanently disabled if they have an at-risk pregnancy or to carry a fetus to term that will die upon birth. Their free exercise is accommodated by choice and the bans.

For everyone else, abortion bans deny their free exercise rights to choose abortion under their own religious lights. To be precise: only abortion choice accommodates all religious believers.

Continued here:

The Roadmap for Pregnant Girls and Women to Assert Their Religious Liberty to Invalidate Abortion Bans - Justia Verdict

Stay consistent, stay optimistic. When youre starting over, it takes time to see the vision youre hoping to build. People need time to get comfortable, familiar with one another, and hope that good things go their way. Once you start to see good results come in, it validates the work youve put in and has you hungry for more.

On Friday night, the New York Liberty faced off against the upstart Atlanta Dream. The Dream have already tied their win total from all of 2021 and are one of the surprise teams in the league this season. They fell behind by as much as 19 points, but fought back to get as close as three points late in the third quarter, but the Liberty hit timely shots over and over again to come away with an 89-77 victory.

Ball movement has been critical to the Libertys success this month. Tonight was the seventh straight game in which the team has had 20 or more assists and as theyve gotten that chemistry, theyve cut down on the turnovers at the same time. Being able to make the most out of every possession is essential, especially when youre still missing three of your best players. In the first, the Liberty hit seven three pointers in route to a franchise tying high of 16 threes made. This possession exemplified everything the team is looking to accomplish on offense:

We asked Sabrina Ionescu about the great passing the team displayed:

Everybody eats.

Theres an art to getting timely buckets on the road. The home team is on an extended run, the fans are locked in and making noise, and the tide of the game is turning in their favor. With that in mind, Marine Johannes hit perhaps the biggest shot of the game with the Liberty clinging to a 65-62 lead

On the night, MJ had 17 points with five made three pointers in 30 minutes of game time. Johannes (and Didi Richards) got the assignment of guarding Dream star, Rhyne Howard. Howard has been one of the better finishers at the rim this season, and the strategy was to keep her from getting to the cup. On the night, Rhyne only went 6-18 from the field, with only four shots coming from inside the painted area. In the postgame, we asked Sandy Brondello about the job her team did against the young star, and she said:

As the team continues its climb, their work on defense will be essential. So to will be the collective effort on the glass.

Atlanta has been the second best rebounding team in the WNBA this season, but the Liberty wound up winning the battle by eight. If you dig a little deeper into that, you see that in the quarters that the Liberty won, they overwhelmed Atlanta on the glass, and in the quarters Atlanta won, they controlled the glass. Natasha Howard led everyone in rebounds with ten (along with 19 points, five assists, and two steals) and in the postgame noted that it was a team effort to keep an elite rebounding team like Atlanta off the glass. Win the boards, win the game. Its a motto to live by.

On Friday morning, the Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion among with other privacy rights established by it. The Supreme Court isnt done rolling back rights yet, and are primed to do even more damage to this country soon enough. The reaction was swift as the WNBPA released a statement criticizing the decision from the WNBPA.

Stefanie Dolson tweeted about the ruling and its consequences as well:

This decision coming immediately after the 50th celebration of Title IX was a particular punch in the gut, as explained by Natalie Weiner of Fanbyte. In the pregame media availability, Sandy Brondello was asked about the ruling and if the team has had any discussions about it. Heres what she said:

We havent had any yet, but obviously were all thinking about it. For me, its mind boggling to be quite honest. Its a disgusting result. We just had great things, 50 years of Title IX, and were taking steps [forward] for womens rights and now were taking two steps back, basically because you dont give them freedom of choice. Its a womans body, so its very sad to be quite honest. People can buy guns easily, but a women cant decide what she wants to do with her own body. I dont know, its supposed to be the best country in the whole world, isnt it?

Times are dark, and we hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Its always great to see an old friend of yours in their new digs. For the Liberty, they got to see AD for the first time since the trade earlier this month. AD came in the game and was an immediate sparkplug for the Dream as they got it going early and often.

On the night, they led the Dream with 23 points and two steals in 29 minutes off of the bench. In her postgame, Brondello noted that the isolation offense of Dream head coach, Tanisha Wright, allows AD to flourish and utilize their athleticism to make good things happen.

All eyes are on Sabrina Ionescu. The 2022 All-Star led the way with another all-around excellent performance as she scored 21 points, grabbed nine rebounds, and handed out eight assists on the evening. Ionescu had been struggling with her shot over the past few games, but snapped out of her funk by going 5-of-9 from 3-point range on the evening. Having Ionescu hitting her shots from three point range makes this Liberty offense even more dangerous as shell have room to drive to the basket and create space for the teams post players as well.

And she wrapped this party up in style

Night night.

The Liberty are off for a few days before returning home to face the Dream again on June 30. Tip is after 7 p.m. that night.

Read more here:

Liberty get another win, this time over the Atlanta Dream - Nets Daily

Aerial image of construction in Avon, courtesy of Coastal Science & Engineering.

Contractor Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. has announced that, due to the significant amount of progress that has been made since the project began in Avon on Sunday, June 19, 2022, beach nourishment operationshave not been pausedin order to begin work in Buxton.

After evaluating the project schedule, the company hasdecided to allow the dredgeEllis Islandto continue pumping sand along the beach heading north toward the Avon Pieruntil the dredge reaches its production limit from the current landing point.

Once that production limit has been reached, theEllis Islandwill be released from Avon and will move downshore to begin performing beach nourishment in Buxton.

When theEllis Islandmoves from Avon to Buxton, the Avon beach nourishment project will be paused until a second dredge, theLiberty Island, arrives in Dare County after the Fourth of July. At that time, beach nourishment operations will resume in Avon using theLiberty Island.

For more information about the Avon and Buxton beach nourishment projectsincluding a detailed project map that indicates the areas of the shoreline in Avon that have been completed as well as those that are currently under constructionclick here.

ORV Ramp 38 Reminder:

Throughout this summer, Cape Hatteras National Seashores off-road vehicle (ORV) Ramp 38 will remain open, but visitors with beach driving permits can expect some intermittent, short-term delays entering and exiting the ramp as beach nourishment equipment is moved safely to and from the beach.

Although the ramp will remain open, the parking lot at ORV Ramp 38 will be closed this summer. Visitors who planned to park in the parking lot at ORV Ramp 38 should instead consider using nearby parking lots at Haulover Sound Access and Kite Point Sound Access.

Visitwww.MoreBeachToLove.comfor the latest information about all 2022 beach nourishment projects taking place in Dare County, including projected timelines and answers to the most frequently asked questions.

See the original post:

Avon beach nourishment will continue north towards the pier; Liberty Island dredge will arrive after July 4 - Island Free Press

It's easy to match the overall market return by buying an index fund. But if you buy individual stocks, you can do both better or worse than that. For example, the The Liberty SiriusXM Group (NASDAQ:LSXM.K) share price is down 22% in the last year. That contrasts poorly with the market decline of 18%. At least the damage isn't so bad if you look at the last three years, since the stock is down 5.5% in that time. Furthermore, it's down 21% in about a quarter. That's not much fun for holders. But this could be related to the weak market, which is down 17% in the same period.

Since shareholders are down over the longer term, lets look at the underlying fundamentals over the that time and see if they've been consistent with returns.

Check out our latest analysis for Liberty SiriusXM Group

In his essay The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville Warren Buffett described how share prices do not always rationally reflect the value of a business. By comparing earnings per share (EPS) and share price changes over time, we can get a feel for how investor attitudes to a company have morphed over time.

Liberty SiriusXM Group managed to increase earnings per share from a loss to a profit, over the last 12 months.

When a company has just transitioned to profitability, earnings per share growth is not always the best way to look at the share price action. But we may find different metrics more enlightening.

Liberty SiriusXM Group's revenue is actually up 8.3% over the last year. Since the fundamental metrics don't readily explain the share price drop, there might be an opportunity if the market has overreacted.

The image below shows how earnings and revenue have tracked over time (if you click on the image you can see greater detail).

We know that Liberty SiriusXM Group has improved its bottom line lately, but what does the future have in store? You can see what analysts are predicting for Liberty SiriusXM Group in this interactive graph of future profit estimates.

We regret to report that Liberty SiriusXM Group shareholders are down 22% for the year. Unfortunately, that's worse than the broader market decline of 18%. Having said that, it's inevitable that some stocks will be oversold in a falling market. The key is to keep your eyes on the fundamental developments. Regrettably, last year's performance caps off a bad run, with the shareholders facing a total loss of 2% per year over five years. We realise that Baron Rothschild has said investors should "buy when there is blood on the streets", but we caution that investors should first be sure they are buying a high quality business. It's always interesting to track share price performance over the longer term. But to understand Liberty SiriusXM Group better, we need to consider many other factors. Like risks, for instance. Every company has them, and we've spotted 3 warning signs for Liberty SiriusXM Group (of which 1 is significant!) you should know about.

If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: insiders have been buying them).

Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on US exchanges.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Read the original here:

Liberty SiriusXM Group (NASDAQ:LSXM.K) shareholders have endured a 22% loss from investing in the stock a year ago - Simply Wall St

Photo by Chris Welch / The Verge

Only the best deals on Verge-approved gadgets get the Verge Deals stamp of approval, so if you're looking for a deal on your next gadget or gift from major retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and more, this is the place to be.

The theme of todays Verge Deals roundup is that, well, there is no theme. Were just a few weeks out from Amazons Prime Day extravaganza, happening on July 12th and 13th, and its typical to see a relative calm before the storm of deals arrives. Why not kick things off today with a stellar deal on some already inexpensive true wireless earbuds? Ankers Soundcore Liberty 3 Pro (in black) are just $99.99 at Best Buy as part of the retailers deal of the day. They normally cost $169.99, and normal sale prices typically sit around $130.

These $100 earbuds might be exactly what youre after if you need active noise cancellation (ANC), several ear and wing tips included in the box for a cozy custom fit, and Bluetooth multipoint support, allowing you to connect the Liberty 3 Pro to multiple devices at a time. Theyre a great value, though the ANC effect doesnt beat pricier options. Check out Chris Welchs full review right here.

Ankers top-level Liberty 3 Pro wireless noise-canceling earbuds support high-quality LDAC audio and feature three different transparency modes.

If you need some affordable portable storage, Best Buy has a deal of the day discount on Western Digitals 1TB USB-A external drive. While its certainly not the fastest kind of external storage you can buy, its tough to knock its $44.99 price. Your use cases may differ from mine, but my brother-in-law recently converted a bunch of home movie VHS tapes to digital, and Ive been looking for a low-cost portable drive that I can load it all onto and give to family members. This seems like itll be a good fit.

Western Digitals Easystore external hard drive with 1TB of storage is a great value if you need some cold storage for important files or if you want to make copies of large files for family members.

If you missed out on Ubisofts Far Cry 6 when it launched in late 2021, the game has reached its lowest price at Amazon. You can get any version of the game on disc for just $14.99, whether you have a PS5, PS4, or an Xbox console. Our pals at Polygon said in their review that the games gameplay loop of infiltrating enemy bases and traversing a large open-world environment is entertaining for the first few hours and kind of wears away after that (due in part to some clumsy storytelling). But you might get more enjoyment out of the game if you love the series or are coming in totally fresh.

Visit link:

Anker's Liberty 3 Pro noise-canceling earbuds are $70 off for the first time - The Verge

Rev. Nicholas Apostola| Telegram & Gazette

Above the entrance to the former Worcester County Courthouse in Worcester's Lincoln Square is a phrase: Obedience to the Law is Liberty. Id driven past the building hundreds of times, reading the phrase without paying too much attention to it. Like many of you, I suppose, it just registered as an appropriate saying for a hall of justice.

I was driving past it one day with an older man who was a regular visitor to Worcester. He looked up at the words and remarked on their deep meaning. I listened. Coming from a place where the rule of law had disappeared and liberty was a distant memory, the words touched him. He began in his way to unpack them. I have never been able to pass that courthouse again without reflecting on the phrase.

The three fundamental words in the saying are: obedience, law, and liberty. Each has a long history in human thought. They shape how we see ourselves and others, and how we formulate society and nation.

Obedience comes into English from Latin. The obvious meaning is to comply to an order given. Its root, however, is different. It has to do with a listening toward understanding. Implicit is a conversation, perhaps one sided, but nonetheless requiring a little back-and-forth. So, really, blind obedience is an oxymoron; youre supposed to understand why you should do what youve been directed to do. Freedom lies at its foundation.

Law is a touch more complicated. For as long as people were given to thinking, they noticed that ideas of right and wrong are innate, even toddlers are aware of it. Spiritual and philosophical traditions developed theories around this phenomenon of a basic universal sense of law and justice. As societies became more sophisticated a debate centered around whether laws were created (by rulers or legislatures) or discovered through spiritual wisdom.

There were great law-givers such asHammurabi, or Solon, who wrote and codified law. On the spiritual side one of the first who comes to mind is Moses, also called law-giver, but who received the Law by revelation from God. Regardless, there was general agreement that the basic sense of law was hardwired, and in the conscience.

In Western thought and theology, this natural instinct and insight was refined into the concept of Natural Law. One of the best examples of Natural Law codified isthe Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments' principles pop up in the customs and laws of almost every society. Humanity shares a basic sense of right and wrong.

When Jesus began to preach, his words seemed fresh and new. People who listened to him said he spoke with authority. But he himself emphasized that he had not come to abolish the Law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. He was urging those listening to a deeper understanding of Gods law, Gods will. He said that God wanted to write the Law on their hearts. He was upping the ante.

You can hear it when he says things like: You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Committing or not committing adultery is covered in the Natural Law. Recognizing the temptation leading to adultery is a level above. Understanding law as rules to follow, while figuring out how to get around them, misses the point. Law that is written on our hearts is another matter entirely.

Whenever my father would hear of someone who had either skirted the law, or got caught trying to, he would say to me: locks are made for honest people. Ive heard the same saying as: locks are made to keep people honest. The meaning: a basically honest person will be deterred by a lock when tempted. Someone who isnt will find a way to commit the crime regardless.

Law is more than words written and codified. It is a way to the good life, to eternal life.

Finally, there is probably no more misunderstood word than liberty or freedom. We think it means to be able to do whatever we want, as long as it doesnt hurt someone else. But when does what I do, good or bad, not effect someone else?

Freedom is to be free from things that distort our judgment and constrain our will toward the good. Pleasure is sweet, until it isnt. To act irresponsibly is fun, until it isnt. Life is beautiful and a joy; were meant to partake of it. To abuse it is to bring suffering, not freedom.

So, if we follow the Law, and listen to what it teaches, it will indeed bring liberty. The challenge is to actually do it.

The Rev. Nicholas Apostola is parish priest at St. Nicholas Orthodox Church in Shrewsbury.

Continued here:

Keep the Faith: Obedience to the law is liberty? - Worcester Telegram

The Nov. 21 story about Lady Liberty by Susan Glaser was really great and prompted this letter (Lady Libertys story). Im a first-generation American my mother fled the anti-Semitic pogroms in Odessa, Ukraine, when she was 3, with my grandmother, in 1905.

In 1991, I founded the Statue of Liberty Collectors Club for people who admire her history, her promise, and collect her memorabilia. Our club, the only one in the United States, is still going strong, with members from all over, including Canada, England, France, and Argentina. Now called the Statue of Liberty Club, meetings are held in various places New York City; Paris; Colmar, France (home of her sculptor Frdric Auguste Bartholdi); and Las Vegas, at the New York-New York Hotel! We learn a lot by sharing our stories. My collection of 1,600 pieces now resides at the Strong National Museum of Play in Rochester New York, which also houses The National Toy Hall of Fame.

As to Libertys seven-spike crown, in addition to reason, it represents the seven continents and seven seas of the world. Join us at statueoflibertyclub.com and celebrate her story!

Iris November,

Beachwood

Read the original post:

Lady Libertys Club began right here in Cleveland - cleveland.com

LIBERTY, Ohio (WKBN) A woman is in the Trumbull County Jail after police said she bit a Liberty officer and then nearly hit officers with a car during a traffic stop last week.

Amy Elizabeth Bruss, 39, is charged with assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, failure to comply and obstructing official business.

According to a police report, officers pulled over the vehicle Bruss was driving Friday night on Interstate 80 near the Route 11 on-ramp. Officers reported that they spotted the vehicle leaving the Rodeway Inn and that the vehicles registration was expired and it only had one working headlight.

The report states that officers asked Bruss to step out of the vehicle due to her nervous behavior and because she had no identification. Police said Bruss would not listen to them, however, and instead tried to call someone on her phone.

Officers then tried to remove her from the vehicle but said she struggled with them and bit one of the officers arms as she continued reaching toward the vehicles center console.

Police said Bruss then took off in the car, nearly striking officers who were standing outside of it.

Officers were then involved in a short chase with Bruss but called off the chase as speeds reached over 95 miles per hour, according to the report.

A warrant was issued for Brusss arrest, and she was taken into custody on Monday, according to jail records.

Brusss bond was set at $15,000 during her arraignment on Tuesday, and a preliminary hearing was set for 9 a.m. December 1.

The rest is here:

Liberty police say woman bit officer, led them on chase - WKBN.com

Mississippi Republican Governor Tate Reeves faced questions during an interview Sunday about why he supports "freedom and individual liberty" when it comes to a person's decision to get vaccinated, but not for a woman's decision to get an abortion.

The interview conducted on NBC News' Meet the Press comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments in the coming days over a challenge to a Mississippi law banning abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

In June, Reeves told CNN said that the law provides a "vehicle" for the court to revisit the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade, which he said was a "mistake."

During the Meet the Press interview, host Chuck Todd played clips of Reeves commenting on vaccine mandates that President Joe Biden previously announced. The Mississippi governor called the mandates a "power grab" by the federal government.

"We've seen this time and time again by the Biden administration...And now we're seeing their strong desire to try to make decisions on behalf of individual Americans. We believe in freedom and individual liberty," Reeves said.

"Freedom and individual liberty," Todd remarked. "Why should the state of Mississippi tell a woman what they should do with their body? Why shouldn't they have that individual freedom on their body, particularly in the first 20 weeks?"

"The far-left loves to scream 'My body, my choice,'" Reeves said. "And what I would submit to you, Chuck, is they absolutely ignore the fact that in getting an abortion, there is an actual killing of an innocent, unborn child that is in that womb," Reeves said.

"The difference between vaccine mandates and abortions is vaccines allow you to protect yourself. Abortions actually go in and kill other American babies," he added.

"But governor, vaccines are not about yourself," Todd interjected. "A vaccine is about protecting a larger community. A vaccine is about preventing spread. You could argue a vaccine mandate is a pro-life position."

"You could certainly argue that Chuck, but even if you listen to Dr. Fauci's interview with you earlier today, he made it very clear that the vaccine may not keep you from getting the virus, it may not keep you from spreading the virus, but it can keep you from ending up in the hospital," Reeves said, referring infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci who also appeared on Meet the Press Sunday.

"Conversely, when you're talking about the pro-life position of protecting unborn babies, let's put it also in perspective," Reeves said.

He noted that 800,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, including 10,000 Mississippians.

"My heart breaks for every single one of them," Reeves said.

"But since Roe was enacted, 62 million American babies have been aborted and have therefore been killed. And that's why I think it's very important that people like myself and others across this country stand up for those unborn children because they don't have [the] ability to stand up for themselves."

More:

NBC Host Confronts GOP Gov. Reeves on Backing 'Liberty' for Vaccines, But Not Abortions - Newsweek

Image: PCGS/CoinWeek

GreatCollections is offering an 1853 Seated Liberty dollar certified MS-65 with a Gold Shield by PCGS, one of two examples reported in that grade by the service. With an opening bid of $65,000, the sale closes November 28 alongside two other Seated Liberty dollars.

The Coinage Act of February 21, 1853, which lowered the weight of all silver subsidiary coinage, did not affect the silver dollar. The denominations higher silver content, therefore, resulted in a coin that did not circulate widely within the borders of the United States. Some were sent overseas as bullion, and of those that remained stateside, some were hoarded by banks or sold back to the Mint to be recoined into smaller-denomination (fractional) silver coinage. A relatively large number of Uncirculated pieces exist, a product of their limited circulation.

The Philadelphia Mint struck 46,110 Seated Liberty dollars with one pair of dies in 1853, the first 39,000 of which were delivered on April 21 of that year. Another 7,110 coins were delivered on December 29. A sizable population, roughly 1,700 strong according to PCGS CoinFacts, survives from this relatively large mintage.

Seated Liberty dollars of the era are scarce in grades higher than MS-64. PCGS reports two grading events of 1853 Seated Liberty dollars in MS-65, with two finer: one in MS-66, and the other in MS-66+. In contrast, NGC has reported only a single example in MS-65 and only one finer in MS-66.

Gem MS-65 1853 Seated Liberty dollars do not come up for auction very often. According to their respective websites, coins certified MS-65 by both PCGS and NGC have come up for auction only a handful of times in the last 30 years, bringing in sums ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than $100,000 USD. An 1853 Seated Liberty dollar certified MS-65 by PCGS sold in February 2014 for $111,625.

At the time of writing, no bids have been recorded for the specimen currently being offered. The sale has a minimum bid of $65,000 and closes on November 28 at 5:45 PM Pacific Time, 8:45 PM Eastern. Sixteen GreatCollections.com members were tracking the auction at the time of writing, and the page had been viewed 17 times.

Two other GC sales of Seated Liberty dollars, one for an 1869 in MS-64 and the other for an 1870-CC in AU-55, also close on the 28th. The former has an opening bid of $8,000; the latter, $8,400. Neither had attracted bids at the time of writing.

1869 marked the beginning of an uptick in silver dollar production; 1869 Seated Liberty dollars outnumber those from 1853 10 to 1. PCGS graded the coin MS-64, one of five in that grade reported by the service. Auction results indicate that this coin could sell for any one of a wide range of prices; within two months in 2018 alone, one crossed the block for $9,000, while another went for $5,520.

A Seated Liberty dollar was the first coin struck at the Carson City Mint when that facility began coinage operations in 1870; 11,758 were struck there that year, though the Mint reported 12,462 in the mid-1880s. Multiple experts claim that the Mints figure is unsubstantiated. The coin offered in this GC sale is one of 29 examples of the date graded AU-55 by PCGS. If auction results from the last 10 years are reasonable indicators, 1870-CC dollars in AU-55 usually sell for between $6,000 and $8,000.

Given the six-figure prices such coins have attracted in the recent past, it will be interesting to see what bids the 1853 Seated Liberty dollar offered by GreatCollections attracts. To search through GreatCollections archive of over 600,000 certified coins the company has sold over the past seven years, please visit the GreatCollections Auction Archives.

Read this article:

Scarce Gem 1853 Seated Liberty Dollar Offered by GreatCollections - CoinWeek