Support
Policies & Safety
Advertising
While most affiliate links and sponsored posts are allowed on WordPress. com, we do not allow image ads or third-party advertising networks like Google AdSense, OpenX, Lijit, BuySellAds, and Vibrant Media.
If you would like to run these types of ads on your blog, consider the following options:
We have a feature called WordAds that lets WordPress. com bloggers with moderate to high traffic and appropriate content turn on ads and earn money from their blogs.
You can run any ads you’d like if you manage your own WordPress installation. More info, including hosting recommendations. can be found at get. wp. com .
WordPress. com VIP and Enterprise sites are permitted to run ads.
In addition to AdSense-type ads, please do not use promotions of the “I made a million on the internet and so can you” type of advertising, multi-level marketing, gambling, or pornography.
Please check our pages on types of blogs and affiliate links for more information about what content is and isn’t welcome on WordPress. com.
If you are in any doubt, please contact support for clarification.
Note: To support the service (and keep free features free ), we sometimes run advertisements. We try hard to only run them in limited places. If you would like to completely eliminate ads from appearing on your blog, we offer the WordPress. com Premium and WordPress. com Business plans.
О доставке
Доставка по Москве(в пределах МКАД)
Доставка заказа осуществляется курьером на следующий день после его подтверждения (для заказов, оформленных до 19:00). Заказ, оформленный после 19:00 будет принят в обработку на следующий день. Стоимость доставки: 350 руб.
Доставка почтой России
Отправка заказа производится в течение 2-3 рабочих дней после подтверждения. Посылка доставляется до ближайшего Вам почтового отделения. Средний срок доставки от 5 до 20 дней.
Внимание! Посылки с объявленной ценностью пересылаемые с наложенным платежом выдаются адресату после оплаты им полной суммы наложенного платежа. До оплаты адресат имеет право на получение информации об адресных данных отправителя.
- банковская карта (VISA, MasterCard);
- электронный кошелёк (Яндекс деньги, Qiwi кошелек, Webmoney, MoneyMail, RBK Money, Единый кошелек, EasyPay, WebCreds, Деньги@Mail. ru, Z-Payment, Telemoney);
Kitchen Appliances // GE Cafe Line
As we wind down our kitchen renovations posts one important element that I need to write about our appliances. Appliances are a major financial investment in a kitchen. In some cases you may be able to work with the appliances that you already have (which saves you a fair bit of $$) but in our case, we desperately needed to purchase everything new. (Our fridge was making monster noises at night)
I initially found the selection process really overwhelming - I was considering function, quality and the aesthetically how it would look in our new renovated kitchen. We ended up falling hard for the GE Cafe collection. You can read about why we picked the collection in this post. but the rest of this particular post will give you more details on each piece. Stove. Microwave. Counter Depth Fridge. Dishwasher. If you're looking for top of the line appliances that give you great style and function, I would highly recommend you consider this line by GE Cafe.
1. GE Cafe Microwave
We decided that we wanted a microwave that would go above our stove. The beauty of choosing this kind of microwave that you install above your oven is that 1. It saves counter space (I hated loosing counter to appliances) and 2. It acts as a vent for the cooktop below. Because we are in a semi-detached house - and this wall is our shared wall, we couldn't vent outside. This vent feature sucks the steam when you're boiling/grilling something and moves it up and out.
I love, love this microwave. The touch pad screen is easy to use, you can pick to cook, reheat or defrost and it has a feature that automatically judges how long it needs to reheat something. (Press "Reheat coffee and WHAMO! it's done) See it online here.
Dating
Dating is a part of human mating process whereby two people meet socially for companionship. beyond the level of friendship. or with the aim of each assessing the other's suitability as a partner in an intimate relationship or marriage. It can be a form of courtship consisting of social activities done by the couple. While the term has several meanings, it usually refers to the act of meeting and engaging in some mutually agreed upon social activity in public, together, as a couple.
History [ edit ]
Dating as an institution is a relatively recent phenomenon which has mainly emerged in the last few centuries. From the standpoint of anthropology and sociology. dating is linked with other institutions such as marriage and the family which have also been changing rapidly and which have been subject to many forces, including advances in technology and medicine. As humans have evolved from hunter-gatherers into civilized societies and more recently into modern societies, there have been substantial changes in the relationship between men and women, with perhaps the only biological constant being that both adult women and men must have sexual intercourse for human procreation to happen. [ 3 ]
Humans have been compared to other species in terms of sexual behavior. Neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky constructed a reproductive spectrum with opposite poles being tournament species. in which males compete fiercely for reproductive privileges with females, and pair bond arrangements, in which a male and female will bond for life. [ 4 ] According to Sapolsky, humans are somewhat in the middle of this spectrum, in the sense that humans form pair bonds, but there is the possibility of cheating or changing partners. [ 4 ] These species-particular behavior patterns provide a context for aspects of human reproduction. including dating. However, one particularity of the human species is that pair bonds are often formed without necessarily having the intention of reproduction. In modern times, emphasis on the institution of marriage, generally described as a male-female bond, has obscured pair bonds formed by same-sex and transsexual couples, and that many heterosexual couples also bond for life without offspring, or that often pairs that do have offspring separate. Thus, the concept of marriage is changing widely in many countries.
Historically, marriages in most societies were arranged by parents and older relatives with the goal not being love but legacy and "economic stability and political alliances", according to anthropologists. [ 5 ] Accordingly, there was little need for a temporary trial period such as dating before a permanent community-recognized union was formed between a man and a woman. While pair-bonds of varying forms were recognized by most societies as acceptable social arrangements, marriage was reserved for heterosexual pairings and had a transactional nature, where wives were in many cases a form of property being exchanged between father and husband, and who would have to serve the function of reproduction. Communities exerted pressure on people to form pair-bonds in places such as Europe ; in China. according to sociologist Tang Can, society "demanded people get married before having a sexual relationship" [ 6 ] and many societies found that some formally recognized bond between a man and a woman was the best way of rearing and educating children as well as helping to avoid conflicts and misunderstandings regarding competition for mates.
Homemade Tooth Soap Recipe: Healthy Alternative to Toothpaste
Jackie,
This looks great. I was looking for a recipe for homemade toothpaste! Thanks so much for sharing! I will have to see if I can get my hands on that booklet too. I think you might be a little too far to borrow it. )
Blessings,
jackie
After much hesitation, I tried this with an open mind and found myself LOVING it! I love the feel of my teeth after using it, although it isn't my favorite flavor. I noticed the first week after using it, my teeth where whiter. Of course, I have my twin to compare it too! Her teeth are much whiter than mine now, but I am catching up.
I'm so glad you posted this!
Okay, I'm ON this! Thanks. I guess I don't understand how your teeth get whiter, but I'm willing to try it.
This tooth soap intrigues me. While I often look for homemade versions of things I use every day, I've never thought about making toothpaste. When I was a child my we would alternate between baking soda mixed with a little salt and toothpaste. It took a day or two to get used to the change either way.
CHRISTMAS Gift Ideas - PAINT ME REAL - Personalized High Quality Hand Painted Oil Canvas Painting Portraits for USD$80!
Hand Painted Oil Canvas Painting Portraits
Recently, I stumbled across this amazing website - www. PaintMeReal. com that allows me to paint my own portrait at an incredible price. I've always wanted to have a picture of myself painted like Mona Lisa . When I was still an air stewardess, whenever I travelled overseas, I loved to get myself painted or drawn by street artists in New York's Central Park . There are plenty of talented street-side artists, cartoonist, and sculptors along the park.
When my friend introduced me www. PaintMeReal. com . I was delighted to be able to paint my own picture at only USD$80 . At first, when I saw, USD$80, I was thinking, "How good can it be. So cheap. Hand Painted. Professional? Are you serious!?" So, I decided to test it out.
Reconciling Executive Power and Due Process in the Age of Drone Warfare
When jurists assess the limits of presidential power, they look to Justice Robert Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer . the 1952 case in which the Supreme Court decided that President Truman had exceeded his Article II powers when he ordered the seizure of the steel mills in the midst of the Korean War. Justice Jackson laid out a formula to evaluate the separation of wartime powers between the legislative and executive branches, because Article I § 8 states that Congress shall have the power to declare war, but Article II § 2 states that the President shall be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy"; i. e. the President has the authority to command the troops as to the specifics of how they shall conduct the war.
Was it illegal to shoot Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone aircraft? No, there is no law on the books adequately governing the use of flying robots.
Background Checks for Gun Purchasers Must Take Family Members into Account
I loathe to admit it, but the NRA is partially right – the Obama administration’s proposed gun control package would not have prevented the Newtown Massacre. Even if Congress were to close the gun show loophole, prohibit online sales of firearms and ammunition, expand the sharing of mental health information with the ATF and stiffen penalties for straw purchasers, these measures would not have been enough to keep a deadly weapon out of the hands of Adam Lanza.
No, the Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee a Right to Armed Revolution
In the contemporary debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment, proponents of gun ownership rights refer to two fundamental natural rights arguments to justify the ownership of firearms: 1) the natural right to self-defense; 2) the natural right of revolution. The former has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago . The latter is merely hyperbolic rhetoric in the real debate on gun control which must be put to rest once and for all.
You can see only the first of these two natural law justifications in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment: “ [a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” and the operative clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment articulates a right to self-defense and preservation of life and liberty both as a collective and an individual sense, both as a member of a "well regulated militia" and as "a people." A person has a constitutional right to bear arms for the common defense as a member of a well regulated militia, and post - Heller and McDonald . as an individual.
To understand the Second Amendment, one must look to the Constitution's other references to the regulation of militias in Article I and Article II. The states ratified the Second Amendment and its guarantee for the people to “to keep and bear arms” and raise a “well regulated militia” only four years after the Constitutional Convention authored Article I – which gave Congress the authority to “raise and support Armies” and to “provide and maintain a Navy.” Article I § 8, also authorized Congress “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” and
“[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” In the Commander in Chief Clause Article II, the Constitution authorized the President as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militias of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
In each and every one of the references to the “Militia” or “Militias” in Articles I and II, the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution is that the Founders envisioned a concomitant regulation of the militias. The states would be able to train their own militias and appoint their own officers to maintain law and order in their respective states, but Congress and the President would be able to call upon the militias to maintain federal laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Surely the Second Amendment forbids the militias or the people from engaging in insurrection or invasion of the United States, because the Second Amendment right to form a state militia exists so that the militias can quell insurgencies and invasions.
Read the Second Amendment again. Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that the the well regulated Militias of the several states – let alone each the people – have a constitutional right to take up arms against the United States government.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Clearly, the Founders wanted to explicitly protect the states’ rights to field their own militias as central to the defense of the Republic. Historians attribute James Madison’s inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as an overture to the Anti-Federalists who were concerned that the new federal government would disband the state militias – concentrating all military power in the hands of the federal Army and Navy. The Second Amendment was written in the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War, at a time when the Articles of Confederation was incapable of preserving the security of the Republic from British, French, or Spanish invasion, the Massachusetts militia was incompetent to quell Shay's Rebellion (1786-87), and white settlers in the Virginia frontier and Ohio Territory were engaging in low-level warfare with the Native American tribes.
Massachusetts needed a militia because when Daniel Shays and his fellow agrarian revolters shut down the Commonwealth courthouses in Northampton and Springfield, the Boston mercantile class could not count on the toothless Articles of Confederation government to maintain law and order. Governor John Bowdoin had to organize a private militia. Just a few years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, President Washington would quell the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94) by commanding militias from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey. States on the border needed to have militias because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the British Colony of New Brunswick both claimed parts of what is now Northern Maine, Georgia and Spanish West Florida both claimed what is now Alabama and Mississippi. The settlers needed to keep muskets to defend their outposts from Lenapee and Kickapoo raiders. The right to bear arms as a member of a militia - if not as an individual - was “necessary for the security of a free state” because there was still an impending fear of subversion of the fledgling Republic to foreign monarchs and domestic insurrections, and the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to protect the right to self-defense independent of the United States Army and Navy.
However, the natural law Second Amendment-thumpers must dispense with the notion that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” was ratified as an additional layer of checks and balances; i. e. the right of the people to defend their natural liberties from an overbearing United States government. Such an argument is directly contradicted in the text of the Constitution itself. Article I gives Congress the authority to federalize the state militias to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Article II gives the Commander in Chief supreme command over the Army and the Navy as well as the militias when called to service. The difference between the Army, the Navy and the militias is that Governors can call the militias into service too to quell riots and fight forest fires, they are only federalized with explicit Congressional or Presidential invocation of their Article I and Article II powers. Nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere in the minutes of the Convention or the correspondence between Jefferson and Madison and Adams and Hamilton is there any inkling of an idea that the state militias can check the authority of the federal courts or the U. S. Army or Navy.
No comments:
Post a Comment