Category Archives: Freedom

DELRAN, NEW JERSEYFreedom Boat Club on Dec. 1 announced its 250th location is set to open in spring 2021 in Delran, New Jersey. The new franchise represents Freedoms first location in the Philadelphia market. Tom, Bev and Josh Rosella, owners of the new location, also run and manage eight other Freedom Boat Club locations in Delaware, Southern New Jersey and the Hudson River Valley.

Since May 2019, the franchise network has grown from 170 to 250 locations and increased memberships 61 percent with now more than 36,500 memberships across 31 states, Canada and Europe. Throughout 2020, Freedom Boat Club has experienced record growth, completing more than 400,000 trips during the year and exposing a broader range of consumers to the boating lifestyle.

We are thrilled to be part of such an important milestone for Freedom Boat Club, said Bev Rosella, Freedom Boat Club franchisee in a released statement. When we opened our first location, we hoped that we could create an experience for our members that would allow them to have lifelong memories on the water. To have nine locations now is just incredible and we look forward to meeting new boaters in the Philadelphia area.

The Delran location will be located at Dredge Harbor Boat Center, 67 St Mihiel Dr, Delran, New Jersey.

See the original post:

Freedom Boat Club announces 250th location - The Log Newspaper

Good morning, friends. Winter temperatures have finally arrived, even if we got either a dusting or, down here in Richmond, nothing but rain. Im fine with that, because Im not a snow person, but Im sorry for you if you wanted it.

To the links!

The Spirit Squadron is out with a good statement balancing the needs of the team with the fact that they could be used as props to help the State of Qatar get some goodwill.

MLS Expansion Club Austin FC have Top Pick in Three-round MLS SuperDraft 2021 presented by adidas on Jan. 21 | MLSsoccer.com

D.C. United currently have the 4th, 31st, and 58th picks in the three round draft, which, for once, are all of their natural picks. United has made a bunch of homegrown signings this year and last, so it will be interesting to see what their strategy is.

IFAB approves trials with additional concussion substitutes - FIFA.com

Ways to get players with head injuries off the field faster, and to disincentive the players or coaches from keeping that person on longer, are definitely good.

I dont know, I dont think Id trade a 22-year old with 6 international caps, even from $800K-$1M in GAM, and especially not to a conference rival.

ASN article: Torres reflects on storied career in Mexico, dual national recruiting, to Switchbacks future

Includes some talk about his trial with D.C. United, which, despite what everyone said at the time, was definitely a trial.

It will be interesting to see if MLS wants two clubs in North Carolina. Ive always been more pro-RTD than Charlotte from MLS2NC, but alas.

I mean, theres no reason to put D.C. United any higher than that.

I assume that theyre Filibuster listeners.

Thats all I have. Whats up?

Read more:

Washington Spirit in Qatar, MLS SuperDraft, and more: Freedom Kicks - Black And Red United

The Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution are not synonymous. At times the public may fail to distinguish between the two, yet it is not too much to expect that the Justices themselves recognize the distinction.

Late on the eve of Thanksgiving, our most recent justices Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined Justices Thomas and Alito to issue an emergency injunction against a New York public health rule, which in fact was no longer operative.

After considering the evidence, federal district and court of appeals judges had rejected the religious freedom claim by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel, an Orthodox Jewish group. The religious groups had challenged New Yorks substantial limits on the number of people allowed to worship together, but the lower courts had emphasized the dangers of spreading the pandemic during worship, as pointed out by public health experts. Nonetheless, the 5-4 Supreme Court majority hastened to intervene without full briefs or oral argument.

While Justice Ginsburg was still alive, the Court had twice rejected similar religious claims. It was primarily on the basis of those precedents that Chief Justice Roberts joined the dissenters, citing the Courts longstanding deference to public health concerns.

The Courts Thanksgiving decision received considerable praise, particularly for Justice Gorsuchs memorable pithy phrases in his concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch proclaimed: Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot be a sabbatical. And the Courts majority perceived such an immediate threat to the Constitution that they refused to await the outcome of a normal Court of Appeals argument, scheduled for Dec. 18.

In the course of Justice Gorsuchs unusually personal attack on Chief Justice Roberts, he declared that the Court itself may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. He then added a sweeping historical observation: Things never go well when we do.

Things also often have not gone well, however, when the Court claimed to be defending the Constitution.

There were, for example, the Courts notorious decisions upholding imprisonment for statements against American entry into World War I, as well as those that upheld Japanese internment during World War II. Further, numerous opinions accepted and further justified structural racism over many years.

To be fair, New York Gov. Andrew CuomoAndrew CuomoNYC advances bill protecting fast food workers from being fired without valid reason On The Money: Sweeping COVID-19, spending deal hits speed bumps | Deal set to include smaller stimulus checks, jobless benefit support | Biden, Powell praise progress toward agreement Cuomo signs bill banning sale of Confederate flag on New York state grounds MOREs COVID-19 order drew lines that could be easily mocked: the need to pick up a bottle of wine or to buy a bicycle on the one hand; the need to pray together with co-religionists on the other. Justice Gorsuch was delighted to emphasize such contrasts to justify judicial activism. Yet, as Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent: Justice Gorsuch does not even try to square his examples with the conditions medical experts tell us facilitate the spread of COVID19: large groups of people gathering, speaking, and singing in close proximity indoors for extended periods of time.

During the current devastating pandemic, many Americans have loudly challenged public health mandates, declaring that they interfere directly with unspecified constitutional rights. Fortunately, however, most of the public most of the time defers to the Court to make constitutional judgments.

The Court just today demonstrated the broad reach of itsThanksgiving decision when it reversed a Tenth Circuit decision that had allowed the Colorado governor to restrict the number of worshippers in a church because of the pandemic. As Justice Kagans dissent points out today, the Colorado restriction was no longer in effect, and thus the case clearly seemed moot, yet the Court nonetheless intervened to send the case back to the lower courts, as it did with a similar case from New Jersey.

There are many reasons for general acceptance of Supreme Court decisions. In part this deference is a matter of the Courts deliberative process: before deciding a case, the justices take the time to review the record established in the lower courts, to read the parties briefs, and to ask questions during oral argument. And then usually the justices explain in their own words perhaps with a little help from their law clerks why they decided as they did.

This deliberative process may look like a holiday or a sabbatical to some. It is deeply concerning, however, if our newest justices are in a rush to proclaim that the Constitution speaks directly to or through them.

Rather than making facile statements in a rush to judgment perhaps at the cost of lives in the context of a pandemic the Justices, and the country, would benefit from the Courts own version of deliberate speed. Indeed, it might be best if the Court were in fact to take a sabbatical. After all, the Justices were in effect forced to do just that when President Thomas Jefferson and his congressional allies simply cancelled the Courts 1802 Term. That was the prelude to Chief Justice John Marshalls landmark decision that clearly established judicial review, anchored in the Constitution, in Marbury v. Madison.

Aviam Soiferserved 17 years as Dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii.He has been writing and teaching about constitutional law and legal history for over 40 years, often focusing on the post-Civil War period.

Go here to read the rest:

For conservative justices, faith in 'religious freedom' trumps public health | TheHill - The Hill

Pablo Lpez

Statue of Liberty

Elections are really complex accounting practices. Its not just a final vote count that is fraught and difficult. Citizens going to the polls must consciously make multiple personal calculations: Will taxes rise? How much should individuals pay for healthcare? Must we spend heavily on defense?

In Americas democracy, we also reckon often unconsciously what we are willing to pay for our fundamental liberties. What is the price of freedom? It seems like a straightforward question. The answer, however, is anything but simple.

The desire for freedom has deep historical roots. Philosophers have forever talked about free will and the nature of liberty. In the modern era, American colonists fought a revolution to be free from oppressive taxation without representation levied by the British crown.

Throughout the 20th century, freedom has been the battle cry of democracies and would-be democracies around the globe. In his first campaign for the White House, Woodrow Wilson successfully ran on a New Freedom platform. During his State of the Union address on Jan. 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously advocated for four freedoms: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; freedom from fear.

But what is freedoms price tag?

The cost is borne by individuals, institutions, and society. People sacrifice blood and treasure to achieve independence, as well as to maintain and defend it. For some, the cost may be perceived as too high. Sadly, some freedoms are lost, frittered away or taken.

Although we pay lip service and are bound by international treaty to respect universal human rights, freedoms details differ from one country or culture to another. In the United States, we hold freedom of speech, assembly and belief as fundamental to our national identity. They are enshrined in the documents that established America as independent and sovereign. They are constitutionally codified and traditionally cherished.

Those fundamental freedoms have been hard won in the Anglophone world. They are also unavailable or, at best, exclusively limited privileges to the majority of the planets population.

During the last few years in these pages, Ive argued and advocated for universal freedoms. My columns have echoed the fundamental belief that every person on Earth should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the moment, this is not a universal view. In fact, it is not even a consistently held aspiration in countries enjoying or seeking to achieve those rights.

Many in the United States believe that America should promote democratic rights and liberal freedoms everywhere. Others argue that the costs of doing so are too high.

Even guaranteeing freedom domestically, for example to ensure universal suffrage, comes with a cost that is politically high and often highly partisan. We witness frequent efforts to manage, marginalize or entirely disenfranchise large swaths of the public. Meanwhile, the price of promoting democracy in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq has been enormous with marked consequences at the ballot box back home.

Those wars, initially fought in unilateral retribution and with imperial hubris, have humbled Americas greater global ambitions. The failed policy, lost war and squandered allocation of precious national resources created discord at home. They have also given the space and time necessary for Americas most menacing competitor, the Peoples Republic of China, to act more assertively on the world stage.

Weve seen the costs of liberty up close:

Freedom of speech cost dissident Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi his life. His October 2018 murder and dismemberment shocked the world and underscored the difference in values between the United States and its close Saudi ally.

Freedom of religion cost French schoolteacher Samuel Paty his life. He was beheaded last month. President Emmanuel Macron reacted to the gruesome homicide by saying it contradicts everything that the French Revolution fought to achieve libert, egalit, fraternit as well as the freedom to believe and the freedom not to believe.

Freedom of assembly and to protest has had a very high cost in Ukraine, Belarus, Hong Kong and Venezuela. For decades, these places erupted in unprecedented democratic uprisings followed by brutal, dictatorial suppression.

Freedom of life. There might be none greater than the right to live and thrive as a fully actuated human being, in dignity, without fear and to achieve ones God-given potential. That basic freedom of breath and a heartbeat too often is wantonly taken by dictators and authoritarians.

Good health is increasingly threatened by the global pandemic. Some governments have managed better responses than others. COVID-19 has given illiberal states fresh cause to challenge free democratic systems and their failure to contain the virus. Authoritarian China argues it is better able to protect its citizens.

As America waits out the presidential elections final tally, it is also doing an accounting of what it values most: freedom. The costs are always high, and the accounting always difficult.

In the end, however, Americans always figure the price is worth paying.

Originally posted here:

The Cost of Freedom - Washington Monthly

As girls are given the opportunity and support to engage with sport, and as accessibility to boards and beaches increases, we will make up for lost decades in getting back to surfings legacy of inclusivity. As we work to catch up not to mens surfing, but to what our own minds, hearts and bodies are capable of and long for in the water we are witnessing the depth and diversity of a truly global womens surf culture.

In 2019, surfing became one of the first sports to provide equal pay for women and men at the elite competitive level. While athletes such as Stephanie Gilmore and Caroline Marks are globally visible womanifestations of the potential for womens sport in cultures of economic privilege, radical change is also bubbling up from the fields and streets of emerging surf cultures around the globe: India, Sri Lanka, Iran, Morocco, Brazil, Gaza, and more. Women in these countries are not only shaping their local communities and cultures, they are rewriting the rules of femininity and womanhood, a by-product of pursuing their passion for slip-sliding across a watery wave face. Looking forward, regionally adapted surfing cultures, guided by fresh perspectives those of women, indigenous people and people of colour might reshape the impact of surfing on beaches and communities.

A rare story of optimism, business has hardly ever been better for surfboard builders than in 2020. While so many of us have been crushed by job loss, financial hardship, illness and worse, the surfers and surf-curious among us have also relished in the unexpected, unsolicited gift of rediscovering the freedom that the waves have to offer in a year full of restrictions. For some of us, 2020 has also allowed us to rediscover what it means to have leisure time once again, time out from the inhuman pace of life, to connect again with the elements, our families and our communities on surfboards.

It is only a matter of time before those freshly glossed and polished boards become objects of wanderlust once again, calling us forth toward new waves and new ways.

Hawaii

Oahu has always been a gathering place. The island, comprising two overlapping volcanoes, is home to more than three quarters of the population of the Hawaiian Islands and usually sees more than 4.5 million visitors annually. Its not a coincidence that the Hawaiian Islands are the birthplace of surfing culture. Oahu, in particular, is a surfing smorgasbord, with something to suit every palate. From the water mountains of Waimea Bay, to the ankle slappers of Waikiki, Oahu seems to have been precisely crafted as a surfing paradise.

Italy

The Tuscan coastline is considered the heartland of Italian surfing, as well as organic farming. And though its beaches are known for being high-density, coldmistral winds that bring bigger surfalso send beachgoers packing.

Australia

The working-class town of Byron Bay, formerly known for whaling and sand mining, started to mutate as long-haired hippies and surfer types migrated to the region as a result of the Aquarius Festival of 1973 (Australias Woodstock) and the discovery of perfect, uncrowded surf. Today, Byron Bay is many things to many people, but it is undeniably abusy place. Perhaps to its own demise, it is recognised as one of the worlds best surf towns.

Tahiti

View original post here:

Life on the ocean wave: How joy and freedom can be found in surfing - Telegraph.co.uk

The story so far: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) was enacted to facilitate the marriage of couples professing different faiths and preferring a civil wedding. However, some practical problems arise in registering such marriages. The laws features on prior public notice being given and objections being called from any quarter place a question mark on the safety and privacy of those intending to marry across religions. Many settle for marriage under the personal law of one of them, with the other opting for religious conversion. Even this option is now under threat, as recent remarks by the Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana and a Karnataka Minister indicate. All of them want to ban conversion for the sole purpose of marriage.

The marriage of any two persons may be solemnised under the SMA, subject to the man having completed 21 years of age and the woman 18. Neither should have a spouse living; both should be capable of giving valid consent, should not suffer from any mental disorder of a kind that renders them unfit for marriage and procreation. They should not be within the degrees of prohibited relationship that is, they should not be related in such a way that their religion does not permit such marriages. Parties to an intended marriage should give notice to the marriage officer of the district in which one of them had resided for at least 30 days. The notice will have to be entered in a Marriage Notice Book and a copy of it displayed at a conspicuous place in the office. The Notice Book is open for inspection at all reasonable times without a fee. Further, if either of the parties is not a permanent resident of the district, the marriage officer has to send a copy to his counterpart in the district where the party has permanent residence. The notice shall be displayed in that district office too. The marriage has to be solemnised within three months of the notice, and if it is not, a fresh notice will be needed.

Comment | A marriage story for everyone

The law also provides for objections to the marriage. Any person can object to the marriage within 30 days of the publication of the notice on the ground that it contravenes one of the conditions for a valid marriage. The marriage officer has to inquire into the objection and give a decision within 30 days. If he refuses permission for the marriage, an appeal can be made to the district court. The courts decision will be final.

Also, the Act says that when a member of an undivided family who professes Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religions, gets married under SMA, it results in his or her severance from the family.

The provisions relating to notice, publication and objection have rendered it difficult for many people intending to solemnise inter-faith marriages. Publicity in the local registration office may mean that family members objecting to the union may seek to stop it by coercion. In many cases, there may be a threat to the lives of the applicants. There have been reports of right-wing groups opposed to inter-faith marriages keeping a watch on the notice boards of marriage offices and taking down the details of the parties so that they can be dissuaded or coerced into abandoning the idea.

Editorial | Uncivil proposal: On laws to curb 'love jihad'

In July, the Kerala Registration department decided to discontinue the practice of uploading marriage notices on its websites following complaints that these were being misused for communal propaganda. However, the notices will be displayed on the notice boards of the offices concerned.

These provisions have been challenged in the Supreme Court recently on the grounds that they violate the privacy of the couples, their dignity and right to marry. In the case of Hindu and Muslim marriage laws, there is no requirement of prior notice and, therefore, such a requirement in the SMA, say experts, violates the right to equality of those opting for marriage under it.

Also read | Love jihad not defined under law, says Centre

Many opt for inter-faith marriages through the relevant law of the faith of one of the parties. This will involve one of them converting to the religion professed by the other. While conversion to Islam and Christianity has formal means, there is no prescribed ceremony for conversion to Hinduism. The Hindu Marriage Act is also applicable to any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion. In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court declined to grant police protection to a couple, of whom the bride was a Muslim who converted to Hinduism, citing past precedents that said conversion should be based on change of heart and conviction and should not be solely for the purpose of marriage.

Also read | Interfaith pair seek removal of objection provision in Special Marriage Act

Based on a Kerala High Court recommendation, the Law Commission of India had recommended in 2010 that every person who has converted may be allowed to send a declaration within a month to the officer who registers marriages in the area, and it may be confirmed in person after 21 days. However, this recommendation was not made applicable to States that have a Freedom of Religion Act (which are essentially anti-conversion laws).

Even though Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and Karnataka have spoken about a separate enactment, at least two States have legal provisions to the effect. The Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019, and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, both prohibit conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, inducement, allurement and by marriage. There is a separate section in both laws under which, not conversion for the purpose of marriage, but marriage done solely for the purpose of conversion, may be declared null and void by a family court based on a suit by either party.

Also read | Tanishq withdraws advertisement on inter-faith marriage following social media criticism

The U.P. State Law Commission has recommended a similar Freedom of Religion law in the State and favours a provision under which marriages solemnised solely for conversion of one of the parties may be nullified by a family court.

Excerpt from:

The Hindu Explains | Why are States opting for legislation on 'freedom of religion'? - The Hindu

Senator Mitt Romney arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on 23 September 2020. (REUTERS)

Republican senator Mitt Romney on Friday said the presidents repeated, false claims that the election is rigged damages the cause of freedom and inflames destructive and dangerous passions.

He joins a growing group of current and former Republican officials who have criticized the presidents assertions he wouldve already won the election but for massive voter fraud.

The Utah senator urged calm as remaining voters were counted.

Read more: Follow The Independents live US election updates

Mr Romney and the president have a long, somewhat tortured relationship.

When Mr Trump was running for president in 2016, Mr Romney said he didnt think he would win, and said the presidents past comments were childish and that Mr Trump was a phony, and a fraud.

Mr Trump responded harshly on Twitter.

Later, once the president won, the two dined together as Mr Romney was reportedly being considered for a spot as secretary of state, and a photo of the incident went viral, with Mr Romney looking somewhat dejected.

The president elected not to nominate Mr Romney, and since then hes emerged as one of Mr Trumps only elected Republican critics. In 2019, he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office, and in 2020 he became the first ever senator to vote to impeach a member of his own party.

Read more: Who is winning the US election now?

More:

Romney says Trump 'damages the cause of freedom' with election conspiracies - West Haven Observer

WASHINGTON Utah Sen. Mitt Romney once again lit into President Donald Trump, saying the nation's leader is "damaging the cause of freedom" and inflaming "destructive and dangerous passions" by claiming, without foundation, that the election was rigged and stolen from him.

The Republican offered his assessment Friday on Twitter, saying that Trump is well within his rights to challenge the results through the legal remedies available to him. But Romney says Trump is "wrong to say that the election was rigged, corrupt, and stolen from him _ doing so damages the cause of freedom here and around the world."

Romney lost to President Barack Obama in 2012 but was gracious in defeat. He continues to use Twitter and be Trump's most vocal critic within the Republican Party and voted to convict him in Trump's impeachment trial early this year.

Before the election, Romney wrote a blistering post on social media in which he said Trump had crossed several lines of decency during his campaign, including calling Sen. Kamala Harris a "monster," attacking Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on the day the FBI foiled a plot to kidnap her and attempting to persuade the Justice Department to jail former President Barack Obama.

Excerpt from:

Romney condemns Trump, says president is 'damaging the cause of freedom' - fox13now.com

Financial Freedom

By Joel Salatin

Originally posted November 3, 2020 on Manward Press

Do I have a right to hurt myself?

Recent events with my 89-year-old father-in-law have precipitated interesting discussions around this question.

Let me set the stage.

A couple of months ago, he fell off a kitchen stool and injured his tailbone.

He couldnt stand up afterward. After a day in the emergency room and even hospital admission, doctors couldnt seem to find anything definitively wrong, so they sent him home.

He still couldnt walk. The fall also affected his urinary function, creating borderline incontinence.

He went back to the hospital for further tests, but they still couldnt find anything.

This time, though, they sent him to a short-term convalescent center, kind of a temporary nursing home. Of course, with COVID-19, nobody, including his wife and children, can visit him in there.

The first night, he fell out of bed and got some bruises.

When we asked why they didnt put up the bedside rails, this was the response: Federal law prohibits us from restraining patients.

Im not an attorney or an expert on these matters, but I know the hospital can and does indeed use the rails.

A few days later, he fell out of bed again and required bandages on his elbow.

Realize that none of his loved ones can enter the facility, advocate for him, assess his care anything. All communication is via phone with the nurses and staff.

By now hes confused, thinks his family has abandoned him and in moments of lucidity asks us (on the phone) if his children are still alive and if his wife is still around.

Its a tragic, abusive set of affairs. But Im wandering.[mw-adbox]

In our discussions about the bed rails (which he likes in order to grab something to help him roll over), the staff is adamant that they cannot restrain him in any way.

At the end of one exasperating conversation, the nurse said, Patients have the right to hurt themselves.

These rail regulations went into effect when someone in a nursing home poked his head through his bed rail and hanged himself.

Rather than being called protective, the rails are now called restraints.

My, what ramifications occur with a simple change in designation.

I find this incredible freedom patients have to hurt themselves profoundly curious in a day of constant intervention on behalf of safety.

In the name of protection, we require motorcycle helmets, seat belts, food inspections, drug wars

The list could go on forever. In fact, the list is so long that an outsider would assume that as a culture, Americans have no right to hurt themselves.

This is yet another example of why bureaucratic rules inherently create hypocrisies and inconsistencies, which inevitably lead to distrust and consternation.

Those of us who tend libertarian see our whole country awash in what I call freedom in name only.

And yet, in the most preposterous circumstances such as a nursing home patient constantly falling out of bed rules invoke freedom in a macabre way. The rules actually preclude the staff from intervening on the most basic protective level.

Have we actually become this unreasonable?

This whole episode makes me wonder what would happen if this freedom to hurt yourself were applied throughout the nation.

What if we truly embraced it?

It would mean I could buy food from my neighbor without a bureaucratic stamp of approval on the package.

Goodness, it might even let me buy food thats not labeled or even in a package.

Fancy that.

An ongoing lobby effort in the livestock sector is trying to get the USDA to invoke antitrust action against the control of the three or four players at the top of the meat and poultry supply. Federal action against outfits like Tyson requires showing collusion and bullying, which is hard to prove.

Why not simply invoke the right for us to harm ourselves and let folks buy food from whomever they choose?

That freedom would break the back of the large food conglomerates overnight. It wouldnt require any court action, taxpayer money or anything.

You fight monopolies with market freedom.

What a novel idea.

If it works in nursing homes, it ought to work for a glass of raw milk or homemade ice cream.

If the right to hurt ourselves were universally applied, it would certainly mean we could take any drug of our choice prescription, illicit or otherwise.

It would mean we could buy and sell the food of our choice from the source of our choice.

It would mean we could build a house on our property the way we want to build it without bureaucratic licenses.

We could even buy snake oil if we wanted to. We could use alternative cancer therapies.

Wow, it would mean a lot of things.

Wouldnt it be nice if we had the right to hurt ourselves?

Pity that we wont until we get into a nursing home.

Would you embrace a right to hurt yourself in order to have more freedom? Share your thoughts at mailbag@manwardpress.com.

Joel Salatin calls himself a Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer. With a room full of debate trophies from high school and college days, 12 published books, and a thriving multigenerational family farm, he draws on a lifetime of food, farming and fantasy to entertain and inspire audiences around the world. Hes as comfortable moving cows in a pasture as he is addressing Fortune 500 CEOs at a Wall Street business conference. A fierce defender of personal freedom and choice, he brings an unorthodox viewpoint that readers of Manward Digest cant get enough of.

Read the original:

What Freedom in the U.S. Really Means - Investment U

Afriend remembered the situation clearly. He was on his way home from Vietnam, flying on a military transport back to a base in Dover, Delaware. His superior officer on the flight, speaking to a group of soldiers on the plane, advised the troops to change from their uniforms into civilian clothes before going back into society.

At the height of the Vietnam War (Conflict), protests around the United States were going full bore and all too often simply the mere sight of something or someone representing the Armed Forces could provoke a confrontation. As many Vietnam-era servicemen recall, their conflicts were not confined to the Far East.

Those soldiers, now becoming some of the elder statesmen of the military, were among the finest personnel to serve. They did their jobs as best they could under demanding conditions thousands of miles from their homes against a fierce foe, all the while recognizing that a dis-united nation did not fully support their efforts.

Less than half a decade after the end of World War II, the Korean Conflict was another far-away fight which foretold the gathering storm which began with a few advisors in the late 1950s, expanded at the dawn of the 60s before exploding into a bloodbath soon after. In either case, there were significant differences in public perception.

During World War II, a near-unanimous support of the nation helped push the nation and its allies to victory. Even then, it took the disaster at Pearl Harbor to convince America to join the fight. The plan to prepare for military action, using hindsight, had (in)famously passed earlier by a single vote in Congress. Still, the war was won, and Americans, perhaps weary after fighting in another world war just 20 years after the first one.

Korean soldiers also performed their duties with distinction but in hindsight, many of them, along with a host of historians, regretfully believe that Korea is often the forgotten war sandwiched between the great World War II and Vietnam, which dominated nightly television, newspapers and magazines for years. In the years since, the view of soldiers has come full circle and now we as Americans take great pride in honoring ourwomen and men who have served.

Veterans Day does not come affixed with an apostrophe, signaling no individual but an honor for all with an eye for military personnel yet to serve. All five branches including the Coast Guard, Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy and Army are recognized for the great parts they have played in protecting the interests of the nations citizens. Not only that but the highly regarded efforts of National Guard units in times of national disasters during fire, storm and flood times have become integral in assisting communities to adjust and survive to terrifyingly destructive disasters.

In towns like Welch in McDowell County, where for decades the military have been celebrated with pomp and pageantry, the willingness of young people to serve their country, does not go unnoticed. West Virginia has always been one of those states at or near the top of providing volunteers ready to go to war if need be. Nearby Tennessee is another shining example, actually known as the Volunteer State for its contributions to military efforts.

In 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic raging, a contentious election in progress, civil unrest in cities from coast to coast, business and education either put on hold at times or halted completely at others, it might be easy to forget or overlook Veterans Day.

We must not and will not do that. Over in Welch, a determined and innovative decision to continue the great parade with a drive-by social distancing format is a great way to give the Armed Forces the respect they have earned while providing the public with a unique way to show it. It sounds a lot like a creative military maneuver which has found a way to success overcoming obstacles along the way.

Perhaps never before have the American Armed Forces faced such wide-ranging challenges. Terrorism both foreign and domestic is world wide using techniques unheard of and often not even thought of just a few years ago. We still shudder at the thought of what might have happened had a full scale invasion of Japan had been necessary in 1945 and now our soldiers are always on guard with enemies of freedom who are ready to sacrifice their lives at a moments notice. We have only to recall the horror of September 11, 2001 to know just how determined our enemies can be. In these trying times, we very correctly recognize our front line workers from grocery stores to hospitals to police and fire departments, teachers and security guards and others.

At the forefront of essential front line workers, as they have been for more than two centuries, are the marvelous men and women of the United States Armed Forces. On this coming Wednesday and every day we owe our thanks and our freedom to them.

Thanks to their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, we can once again say with pride, God Bless our American military on another Veterans Day.

Larry Hypes, a teacher at Bluefield High School, is a Daily Telegraph columnist. Contact him at larryhypes52@gmail.com

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See original here:

Freedom is never free and Veterans Day salutes those who pay the price - Bluefield Daily Telegraph