make money online no selling.com

Find money online for fast debt

makemoneyonlinenoselling.com is online service which helps you acquire cash money online


Flag
State Florida
Legal status
Allowed (Our partner lenders provide payments in Florida)
Loan amount limit $500
Loan terms 7-31 days
Finance rates 10% of check + verification fee not to exceed $5
Finance charges $16.11
Maximum APR (Annual percentage rate) 419%

50 Towne Center Circle, Sanford, FL 32771

Florida

Sanford

9251 S Orange Blossom Trail No. 12, Orlando, FL 32837

Florida

Orlando

2669 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104

Florida

Naples

3559 Us Highway 441 South, Okeechobee, FL 34974

Florida

Okeechobee

6239 N Us Highway 1, Cocoa, FL 32927

Florida

Cocoa

2750 W 68th Street No. 113, Hialeah, FL 33016

Florida

Hialeah

1200 W 68th Street, Hialeah, FL 33014

Florida

Hialeah

19750 S Dixie Highway, Miami, FL 33157

Florida

Miami

2320 Clark Street, Apopka, FL 32703

Florida

Apopka

3401 S Congress Avenue No. 110, Lake Worth, FL 33461

Florida

Lake Worth


Frequently asked questions about central florida lending

  • This thought has been going round my head for the last year or so, seeing how it is that the tiniest state in the union is going through so much economic problems. I live in Florida and know how it could be said we are blessed here. I myself refrain from saying "blessed" because I know that a lot of the wealth and the prosperity of Florida is ill-gained. With that in mind, and seeing how many others are suffering mostly silently and without much help from federal government, I wish to ask Americans in the U.S. (and anywhere they are) to please pitch in for Rhode Island. And yes, for years I have read about the plight of many in southern states (years before the current economic debacle), but unless much mistaken I think they get more help from the feds. I am including here this story I just read in Yahoo News, in case others are interested in reading it. http://news.yahoo.com/economy-means-scaled-back-thanksgiving-many-224134962.html God knows that I'm in the same boat as those from RI and am part of the 49 million living at poverty line, but if I had money I would pitch in. More yet, if I had better health I would probably do a lot more than get them money; I would probably make as many calls and lobby as many politicians as I could to get them moving and do something for a state of our own. I think the U.S. went over the board in the past three decades not only policing every single country in the world, but helping to set them up for life in the process! No one would believe the stories I hear in Florida about the huge changes brought about in Central America and Mexico by way of the "remesas de dinero", which translates to the literally billions of US dollars sent home by the people of those countries, and which could well have been money spent here in the U.S. by the way!!!! What's done is done, but must we let Americans linger destitute when we could all lend a hand, even if only volunteering some of our time, or helping by giving directions and ideas? I, for one, though foreign born, am so extremely grateful for the emotional, spiritual and other (non-monetary) help I received in the last couple of years concerning a very dear member of my family, who has since passed on. She was at a point already in which material things would not do much and am also grateful she did have all necessary medicines and treatments which without she would have died sooner. I guess most of us don't learn the true value of anything until we go through an experience like that. I can't say I have taken upon myself to try helping every single person who is in need, but God knows what a relief it was to know that my family member was cared for very kindly when most of us in the family were undergoing tremendous problems. All the kindness of the nurses and other staff took a bit of the pain away. She lived a good life, not as much where material things were concerned but in the fact that she was always kind hearted, never held a grudge, and was so quick to forgive. She also literally took the food from herself to make sure some children didn't go hungry, quite a few times.
  • To hell with Rhode Island.
  • Their lack of expertise won't be excusable. people could comprehend the place all 50 states are. extra excusable may be some confusion over notwithstanding if Rhode Island meant the state or Aquidneck Island whose valid call is likewise Rhode Island. As Wikipedia places it: The conflict between the valid call of Aquidneck Island and the call of the state of which it is a factor motives some quantity of bewilderment, debate and controversy, it always being stated that "Rhode Island isn't an Island." it is likewise each so often pronounced that the call of the island be formally replaced to Aquidneck Island, to stay away from confusion with the state as an entire.
  • Sounds like she died in Rhode Island, rest her soul. This is the place that has been governed by Democrats for 70 years. Need I say more? A Rhode Islander.
  • well since you say knowledge is always good then soka can help rhode island with idea education is about human happiness plus the idea of environmentalism added . the idea of unity of libertarians, green party and tea party plus republicans and democrats into soka alliance party.
  • The most frightening sentence this side of a Stephen King novel http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/22/15... Commentary: Texas GOP wages war on thinking Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 By Leonard Pitts Jr. | McClatchy Newspapers By Leonard Pitts Jr. The Miami Herald <snip>In other words, it's just an average week down there in Crazy Town. And that lends a certain context to a tidbit brought to national attention last week by Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report." Meaning a plank from the 2012 platform of the Republican Party of Texas which, astonishingly enough, reads as follows: "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." Holy wow. That is, without a doubt, the most frightening sentence this side of a Stephen King novel. The Texas GOP has set itself explicitly against teaching children to be critical thinkers. Never mind the creeping stupidization of this country, the growing dumbification of our children, our mounting rejection of, even contempt for, objective fact. Never mind educators who lament the inability of American children to think, to weigh conflicting paradigms, analyze competing arguments, to reason, ruminate, question and reach a thoughtful conclusion. Never mind that this promises the loss of our ability to compete in an ever more complex and technology-driven world. Never mind. The Texas branch of one of our two major political parties opposes teaching critical thinking skills or anything that might challenge a child's "fixed beliefs." So presumably, if a child is of the "fixed belief" that Jesus was the first president of the United States or that 2+2 = apple trees or that Florida is an island in an ocean on the moon, educators ought not correct the little genius lest she (gasp!) change her "fixed belief," thereby undermining mom and dad.
  • The Republicans have always been anti-public education. Partly because they hate public -anything-. And partly because they want kids to get only as good an education as their parents can afford, so the children of the well-to-do won't have to compete with the kids of the rabble for the few good jobs that will be available when they get out of school. Add to that, Texas is probably the main state where conservatives want children to be taught -what- to think, not -how- to think. Texas has always led the nation in willful ignorance, even among just red states.
  • The stated position is close to meaningless. It opposes only programs that pretend to instruct imperative considering, however which have the reason of undermining parental authority. No such programs have ever been proposed, of course. As a local Texan, nevertheless, i do know that the Texas Republican social gathering covertly opposes instructing imperative pondering skills to kids. Doing so would now not be in the fine pursuits of the Texas Republican party, which counts on nearly all of Texans to vote contrary to their possess best interest. Edited to add: In an interview in June, Republican occasion of Texas Communications Director Chris Elam was once no longer definite what the schooling Subcommittee used to be trying to say. “I think the intent is that the Republican celebration is hostile to the values clarification method that serves the cause of difficult scholars beliefs and undermine parental authority,” he said.
  • Well, in his defense, there appears to be a bit of a link between OBE and HOTS. In other words, what we might laud as HOTS may be nothing of the sort. Just because those in education package it as something palatable, that doesn't mean we should jump right in. To be honest, I'd be quite happy with kids being able to construct logical sentences and add a few numbers together. I guess that's a bit of an "outcome".
  • Folks, read what this poster is saying, and the article says. Then read this: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/dumb/dumb... Do your research, on all sides. I'm an ethical Democrat who has been an educator for four decades. This "question" asker has no clue what they are talking about.
  • very few in Texas can think at all. So teaching anything that wasn't a GOp principle would be bad for theit government. Perry is a moron
  • they were opposing a program that was called "Higher Order Thinking Skills ". In education, as in politics, what something is called does not always represent what it includes
  • critical thinkers are not sheep republicans are: any questions
  • Here's what I could find; The doctrine's authors, especially Thomas Jefferson, saw it as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but it has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt, who asserted the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of small nations in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts. This interpretation, intended to forestall intervention by European powers who had lent money to said countries,[1] has been termed the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The United Kingdom was torn between monarchical principle and a desire for new markets; South America as a whole constituted, at the time, a much larger market for British goods than the United States. When Russia and France proposed that Britain join in helping Spain regain her New World colonies, Britain vetoed the idea. British naval power, commercial interests, and common cultural, philosophical, and political links to the United States contributed to the strength of the doctrine. Britain was in fact negotiating with the United States before it was announced as to whether the policies in the Monroe Doctrine should be declared jointly (see Lawson below). The United States was also negotiating with Spain to purchase Florida, and once that treaty was ratified, the Monroe administration began to extend recognition to the new Latin American nations — Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico were all recognized in 1822. In 1823, France invited Spain to restore the Bourbons to power, and there was talk of France and Spain warring upon the new republics with the backing of the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia and Austria). This news appalled the British government — all the work of James Wolfe, William Pitt and other eighteenth-century British statesmen to expel France from the New World would be undone, while markets in the former Spanish colonies that had recently become open to British trade might be closed off if Spain regained control. British Foreign Minister George Canning proposed that the United States and the United Kingdom join to warn off France and Spain from intervention. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison urged Monroe to accept the offer, but John Quincy Adams was more suspicious. Adams also was quite concerned about the efforts of Russia and Mexico to extend their influence over the Oregon Country, which had already been jointly claimed by the Americans and British (see New Albion). At the Cabinet meeting of November 7, 1823, Adams argued against Canning's offer, and declared, "It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war." He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's Annual Message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have come to call the Monroe Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the Americas were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the New World. This explicitly stated intent was contradicted by cooperation with European powers in the repeated re-occupation of various territories of the island of Hispaniola, which had been divided between France and Spain. Both nations were interested in re-claiming their territories in Hispaniola, or re-exerting their influence. Ultimately, the new Republic of Haiti not only resisted recolonisation attempts but also gained control of the other portion of the island, controlling it until 1844 when it gained its independence as the Dominican Republic. In practice, the United States used the Monroe Doctrine to support the side of a regional conflict that favoured its short-term economic interests, rather than definitively drawing a barrier against European interventionism. The Monroe Doctrine states three major ideas, with one more added by President Theodore Roosevelt. First, it conveys that European countries cannot colonize in any of the Americas: North, Central, or South as well as islands of the Caribbean which were considered to be a part of the Americas. Second, it enforces Washington's rule of foreign policy, in which the U.S. will only be involved in European affairs if America's rights are disturbed. Third, the U.S. will consider any attempt at colonization a threat to its national security. Roosevelt added to the doctrine, and summed up his additions with the statement, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". “ At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States of America has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.... It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security. The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those conti
  • This to me is like asking 'whilst became the war of 1812?' yet, it became James Monroe. It prevented ecu countries from colonizing or interferring with something occurring interior the Americas. that's been used time and time returned, regardless of JFK and Cuba.
  • The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, said that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the doctrine was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism. Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Legacy 2.1 Roosevelt corollary 2.2 Clark memorandum 3 Criticism 4 The Cold War 5 Further reading 6 See also 7 References 8 External links [edit] History The doctrine's authors, especially Thomas Jefferson, saw it as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but it has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt, who asserted the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of small nations in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts. This interpretation, intended to forestall intervention by European powers who had lent money to said countries,[1] has been termed the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The United Kingdom was torn between monarchical principle and a desire for new markets; South America as a whole constituted, at the time, a much larger market for British goods than the United States. When Russia and France proposed that Britain join in helping Spain regain her New World colonies, Britain vetoed the idea. British naval power, commercial interests, and common cultural, philosophical, and political links to the United States contributed to the strength of the doctrine. Britain was in fact negotiating with the United States before it was announced as to whether the policies in the Monroe Doctrine should be declared jointly (see Lawson below). The United States was also fighting with Spain to purchase Florida, and once that treaty was ratified, the Monroe administration began to extend recognition to the new Latin American nations — Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico were recognized in 1822. In 1823, France invited Spain to restore the House of Bourbons to power, and there was talk of France and Spain warring upon the new republics with the backing of the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia and Austria). This news appalled the British government — all the work of James Wolfe, William Pitt and other eighteenth-century British statesmen to expel France from the New World would be undone, while markets in the former Spanish colonies that had recently become open to British trade might be closed off if Spain regained control. British Foreign Minister George Canning proposed that the United States and the United Kingdom join to warn off France and Spain from intervention. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison urged Monroe to accept the offer, but John Quincy Adams was more suspicious. Adams also was quite concerned about the efforts of Russia and Mexico to extend their influence over the Oregon Country, which had already been jointly claimed by the Americans and British (see New Albion). At the Cabinet meeting of November 7, 1823, Adams argued against Canning's offer, and declared, "It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war." He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's Annual Message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have come to call the Monroe Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the Americas were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the New World. This explicitly stated intent was contradicted by cooperation with European powers in the repeated re-occupation of various territories of the island of Hispaniola, which had been divided between France and Spain. Both nations were interested in re-claiming their territories in Hispaniola, or re-exerting their influence. Ultimately, the new Republic of Haiti not only resisted recolonisation attempts but also gained control of the other portion of the island, controlling it until 1844 when it gained its independence as the Dominican Republic. In practice, the United States used the Monroe Doctrine to support the side of a regional conflict that favoured its short-term economic interests, rather than definitively drawing a barrier against European interventionism. The Monroe Doctrine states three major ideas, with one more added by President Theodore Roosevelt. First, it conveys that European countries cannot colonize in any of the Americas: North, Central, or South as well as islands of the Caribbean which were considered to be a part of the Americas. Second, it enforces Washington's rule of foreign policy, in which the U.S. will only be involved in European affairs if America's rights are disturbed. Third, the U.S. will consider any attempt at colonization a threat to its national security. Roosevelt added to the doctrine, and summed up his additions with the statement, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". A quotation from Monroe's address follows: “ At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States of America has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.... It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security. The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stro
  • The purpose of it was to prevent European powers from attempting to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, particularly by trying to interfere with the new republics emerging in central and south America. The United States had nothing to threaten them with, if it hadn't been for the fact that Britain backed us up, probably because they didn't want France, Portugal or Spain threatening their holdings in the Caribbean, it would have inspired more laughter than fear.
  • The united states wanted a bigger role in North and South America, if the European powers kept fighting for colonies then they would end up fighting the americans.
  • Theodore later used it to strengthen his big stick policy. as the police for north America
  • The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, proclaimed that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. History The doctrine's authors, especially Thomas Jefferson, saw it as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but it has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt, who asserted the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of small nations in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts. This interpretation, intended to forestall intervention by European powers who had lent money to said countries,[1] has been termed the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The United Kingdom was torn between monarchical principle and a desire for new markets; South America as a whole constituted, at the time, a much larger market for British goods than the United States. When Russia and France proposed that Britain join in helping Spain regain her New World colonies, Britain vetoed the idea. British naval power, commercial interests, and common cultural, philosophical, and political links to the United States contributed to the strength of the doctrine. Britain was in fact negotiating with the United States before it was announced as to whether the policies in the Monroe Doctrine should be declared jointly (see Lawson below). The United States was also negotiating with Spain to purchase Florida, and once that treaty was ratified, the Monroe administration began to extend recognition to the new Latin American nations — Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico were all recognized in 1822. In 1823, France invited Spain to restore the Bourbons to power, and there was talk of France and Spain warring upon the new republics with the backing of the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia and Austria). This news appalled the British government — all the work of James Wolfe, William Pitt and other eighteenth-century British statesmen to expel France from the New World would be undone, while markets in the former Spanish colonies that had recently become open to British trade might be closed off if Spain regained control. British Foreign Minister George Canning proposed that the United States and the United Kingdom join to warn off France and Spain from intervention. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison urged Monroe to accept the offer, but John Quincy Adams was more suspicious. Adams also was quite concerned about the efforts of Russia and Mexico to extend their influence over the Oregon Country, which had already been jointly claimed by the Americans and British (see New Albion). At the Cabinet meeting of November 7, 1823, Adams argued against Canning's offer, and declared, "It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war." He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's Annual Message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have come to call the Monroe Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the Americas were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the New World. This explicitly stated intent was contradicted by cooperation with European powers in the repeated re-occupation of various territories of the island of Hispaniola, which had been divided between France and Spain. Both nations were interested in re-claiming their territories in Hispaniola, or re-exerting their influence. Ultimately, the new Republic of Haiti not only resisted recolonisation attempts but also gained control of the other portion of the island, controlling it until 1844 when it gained its independence as the Dominican Republic. In practice, the United States used the Monroe Doctrine to support the side of a regional conflict that favoured its short-term economic interests, rather than definitively drawing a barrier against European interventionism. The Monroe Doctrine states three major ideas, with one more added by President Theodore Roosevelt. First, it conveys that European countries cannot colonize in any of the Americas: North, Central, or South as well as islands of the Caribbean which were considered to be a part of the Americas. Second, it enforces Washington's rule of foreign policy, in which the U.S. will only be involved in European affairs if America's rights are disturbed. Third, the U.S. will consider any attempt at colonization a threat to its national security. Roosevelt added to the doctrine, and summed up his additions with the statement, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". “ At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States of America has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.... It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security. The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and sur
  • The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, proclaimed that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Hope I helped...I'm in 8th grade and we're learning about this right now...
  • President Monroe made the policy tht no new European colonies could be established in the Americas.
  • she was hot
  • ive done alot of research and i can not find an all around positively great car seat meaning price, epp foam, steel bars, rear face friendly, has a great bum cushion, belly cushion,cup holder, last but certainly not least enough leg room. the reason im rear facing till four is clear she is small and i live in Florida stupid driver central literately an accident around every corner, but giving how they keep upping the age for foward facing ive seen the crash test and came to the conclusion that i dont want to risk it and keep till four more and more mothers are doing this and i know my mother and some friends dont do this but times are different more fast pace and reckless so although i cant prevent an accident at least i can make sure her whip lash is at a very minimal. i like the britax but it is for short short kids i like diono but it has eps foam. there might not be one true perfect one but if there is please lend me a helping hand she is 23 lbs maybe 2 lbs heavier, and she is 42" tall she is two years old
  • http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t... . We have the Diono and love it. We rear faced to age 3, which is recommended by the NHTSA -- the guys who crash test the cars and car seats. I figure if the crash tests guys says age 3, its for a good reason. . FYI That FF at age 1 / 22 pounds is based on a 35 year old law, based on cars and car seats from 35 years ago. The law has been proven unsafe, even deadly to turn a one year old baby forward in today's cars. Lawmakers will not change the law, simply because many parents aka voters would be upset.
  • We started our nephew in a front facing seat as soon as he hit 22 lbs. He likes it much more and it is much easier to care for him.
  • United States foreign policy is central to the life of every Cuban, enforcing the dearth of essentials and luxuries, from medicine to cosmetics to automobiles. With the exception of Cuba, the United States is the single largest trading partner of every Latin American country. Clearly, hacking these ties would create an economic hemorrhage in any Latin American nation. The U.S. embargo against Cuba, only mentioned in this country between glimpses of unbuttoned trousers and political cockfights, lacerates the Cuban people every day. Although clothed in the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, the trade embargo is fundamentally a tool of economic imperialism. When President Bill Clinton, LAW '73, said that "the overarching goal of American policy must be to promote a peaceful transition to democracy on the island [of Cuba]," he wasn't telling the full truth. Clearly, Cuban-style democracy wouldn't qualify as "free" by most definitions. Yet other nations with far worse human-rights records, including Guatemala, China, Chile, and Indonesia, have received U.S. economic and political support despite their atrocities. Hiding behind the rhetoric of liberty in dealing with Cuba is supremely hypocritical. The real motive behind U.S.-Cuban policy is economic imperialism, not democracy. American involvement with Cuba dates back to the Spanish-American War, when the United States forced Cuba to add an amendment to its constitution allowing the U.S. to intervene in Cuba's internal affairs. Political imperialism gradually gave way to economic imperialism. By the eve of the Cuban revolution, foreign corporations, with the complicity of Fulgencio Batista's repressive regime, owned the vast majority of Cuban assets. Consequently, the U.S. lent covert military support to dictator Batista from 1957 to 1959 by sending weapons and intelligence to fight Castro's rebel army. Even after the revolutionaries came to power in 1959, the CIA continued to sponsor a counter-revolutionary army within Cuba. It's no wonder that in 1960, when the revolutionaries nationalized Cuba's extensive wealth, they failed to compensate U.S. companies, while corporations from nations that hadn't fought against the rebels were adequately paid. This seizure of property was the primary reason for the Cuban embargo. As Michael Ranneberger, the State Department's Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, said,"One of the major reasons for the imposition of the embargo was the Cuban Government's failure to compensate thousands of U.S. companies and individuals." In other words, the embargo is the vestige of an imperialistic policy, dating from 1901, which has been characterized by U.S.-backed dictators and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Now that the "democracy defense" of the Cuban embargo has been exposed as a farce, what is left to defenders of the status quo policy? Cuba remains a communist nation, defying free trade laws, the trend toward global capitalism, and the U.S. corporate appetite for profit. One could say, in the rhetoric of the Cold War, that the U.S. is simply standing strong against the communist menace 90 miles from our shore. Yet it seems evident that the small island off the shore of Florida poses no security threat to the United States. More importantly, communism has been good to the Cuban people. The infant mortality rate in Cuba is one of the lowest in the world (12 per 1,000 live births). Life expectancy in Cuba far exceeds that in the rest of Latin America (73.5 years as opposed to, for example, 64.3 years in Ecuador). The illiteracy rate has declined from 25 percent of the population before the revolution (mid-'50s) to 4 percent in the mid-'90s. It's important to note that all this was achieved without the support of the U.S., the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund. Perhaps Soviet support until 1989 compensated for the lack of global financial involvement—but it's doubtful. More importantly, Cuban farm workers now have access to potable water, decent housing, education, and health care at a rate almost unparalleled in the rest of Latin America. Before the revolution, Cuba had a higher GNP, but it was concentrated in the hands of the very rich. Today the wealth of Cuba benefits every Cuban. Cuba is not an island paradise. Although the Cuban people have, on the whole, benefited from communism, the system is currently close to collapse. This is due primarily to the loss of its largest trading partner, the USSR, as well as to inherent economic inefficiencies. The lack of a free democracy in Cuba also remains an important issue—it's impossible to support a system that denies full freedom to its citizenry. So what stance should the U.S. take toward Cuba? If we are truly interested in freedom, democracy, and prosperity, we must consider the best interests of the Cuban people. In order to regain prosperity and establish democracy, Cuba must make the transition from a state-planned economy under Castro to a market economy un
  • Introducing HR 1207 Ron Paul introduced bill H.R. 1207 on February 26, 2009 with the following speech to Congress: Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation. Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency. Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed’s susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests. The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed’s negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates. More importantly, the Fed’s funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury’s supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  • Gosh, I don't know about this. I don't let my kids go through my checkbook because I lie to them about my electric bill every time they leave the door open. Don't you think Big Daddy Government will get mad when we see what they lied to us about? On a serious note.... I hope it passes but I know the odds are against it. If it does It will turn out to be as wimpy as the "Sunshine Law" in Florida.
  • No, I love having my head in the sand when it comes to matters of monetary policy and the value of the money I am working for and saving. How can we not expect that a cartel of banking elites would not have our true best interests at heart at all times? How could they possibly use manipulation of money and credit to their own advantage instead of those who actually create the wealth behind it? When you look at it, who would be there to save us from financial disasters resulting from economic bubbles collapsing like in the Great Depression. Well, maybe that is a bad example since the Fed didn't actually save any banks back then. Anywho, they have done a great job of balancing growth and COLLAPSE in the past 90 some odd years. If anything, their chairman has to spend too much time testifying to Congress instead of working his magic on the economy and battling evil villains looking for world domination. They should just make it so he is no longer selected by the Executive branch and does not have to spend his time sitting in front of Congress. Those two things hold him back from being totally impervious to political pressures and the will of the people.
  • God love Ron Paul, he is the only honest politician in Washington. I still think it would be faster and cheaper just to hang a couple of the board members of the fed.
  • Sounds good to me but will reserve judgment until final bill with all its edits amendments and add ons.
  • Heck yes I do.
  • 100%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Res...
  • does it matter? we're all facists now.
  • Ron who?
  • I know she might not be the most famous basketball player, but I have a project for school and it's on her. I haven't been finding much about how she had struggled with depression, so maybe if someone could give me a little information on that. Also I need to find what she is doine now. Where she is now, if she's still playing in the WNBA, if she's married, anything. Also a good personal biography would be good, or a certain website. I am very interested in this since I am a girl basketball player struggling with depression. Thank you guys so much!
  • ORLANDO, Fla - By her own admission, two-time WNBA All-Star Nikki Teasley is “living the dream”. Happily married to Orlando, Florida native, Joshua Houston, raising their two children, and training local hoops hopefuls, Teasley’s contentment is obvious. “When I was a kid, I knew I wanted to be a homicide detective. I just knew it. But that was before basketball. Basketball became my passion and provided me all kinds of opportunities. I got to go places, and meet people and do things and travel ... and I’ve had a wonderful life. Now I just want to give back,” said Teasley. With her husband lending a hand and their kids in tow, Teasley recently staged the first in what is expected to be a series of recurring pro combines. Just a few weeks ago, The Nikki Teasley Assist Pro Combine was staged at Hungerford Preparatory School just outside of Teasley’s adopted hometown of Altamonte Springs, Florida. In early August, Teasley had just completed her first season with the Orlando Extreme, a semi-pro team competing in the Women’s Blue Chip Basketball League (WBCBL). With Teasley running the point, the Extreme finished second, losing in the championship game to the Rock County Robins. Along the way, she met so many players who wanted to play professionally after college but just didn’t have a clear path to follow. This was the genesis of Nikki Teasley Assist Pro Combine. The WBCBL functions as both a competitive outlet for players as well as a showcase for agents. A quick glance at the WBCBL web site shows a list of players who have signed contracts and played abroad as a result of their exposure via this growing semi-pro league. J.T. Turner is the head coach of the Orlando Extreme and is also an Orlando-area high school coach. As their WBCBL season closed, he and Teasley saw an opportunity and decided to make something happen. So they sent out invitations and hosted their first combine August 20-21. “These are all college graduates,” said Turner as he surveyed the participants. “We may make exceptions in the future, but for now we invite college graduates, team owners, scouts and agents and put the participants through drills and then scrimmages. This is all being filmed so we can forward the video to anyone looking for players who can’t make it here to see them in person,” he added. “We are building a database of players that includes their biography, skills and contact info.” One of the participants, recent UNCW graduate Treasure Johnson, was grateful for the exposure. “I’m just a kid from Columbus, Georgia who wants to keep playing basketball. This is a great opportunity for me to get my name out there and maybe get a chance to play overseas. I have my passport, I love to travel and I am ready to go – just sign me up!” Teasley understands that players like Johnson, or recent University of Central Florida graduate Chelsie Wiley could fill a spot on an international roster, but may not have the connections needed to get a contract. She also understands that the name “Nikki Teasley” is a well known brand, both domestically and internationally, that can command the attention of the very scouts and agents that facilitate signing these players.Teasley expects one or two of her combine participants to get international offers. “There were so many people who helped my every step of the way. My high school coaches Stu Vetter and Steve Kennedy, Coach Sylvia Hatchell, Coach Michael Cooper … all of them gave me opportunities and guidance and made me a better player but also a better person. I have just been so blessed. And these girls just need that same kind of help. They just need someone in their corner to get them a little farther down the path,” she explained. Originally Published: June 12, 2009 Nikki Teasley's daughter, Yasherae, will turn 1 year old on Saturday. Mom won't be in Atlanta that day; she'll be headed to Connecticut, where the Dream play Sunday. Monday, though, Teasley will be home for a birthday celebration. Ya-Ya -- a natural nickname for Yasherae, don't you think? -- won't remember this. Just like she won't recall spending this past winter in Europe. Darrell Walker/Icon SMINikki Teasley helped L.A. win the WNBA title as a rookie in 2002. Now, can she help turn around the Dream? "I've played in Korea, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Israel and Spain," Teasley said. "Spain has been my favorite. I enjoyed that very much, because I had my daughter with me. That made it a lot of fun -- for her to be able to see that part of the world."
  • Nikki Teasley
  • This Site Might Help You. RE: Facts About Nikki Teasley? I know she might not be the most famous basketball player, but I have a project for school and it's on her. I haven't been finding much about how she had struggled with depression, so maybe if someone could give me a little information on that. Also I need to find what she is doine now....
  • I don t know about those personal areas of her life, but I do know her personally and she currently lives in her hometown of Frederick, MD. She used to be the president of a local recreational youth basketball league at Ballenger Creek in Frederick, and recently accepted the Head Coach position at a local high school. She owns/operates her own AAU league called Teasley Assist for the DMV area.
  • Who cares no one watches it. Look at the stands above the camera view. Nobody sits there they allow the fans to come to camera view to appear more people are there.
Fast percent loan in Alabama Fast percent loan in Alaska Fast percent loan in Arizona Fast percent loan in Arkansas Fast percent loan in California Fast percent loan in Colorado Fast percent loan in Connecticut Fast percent loan in Delaware Fast percent loan in Florida Fast percent loan in Georgia Fast percent loan in Hawaii Fast percent loan in Idaho Fast percent loan in Illinois Fast percent loan in Indiana Fast percent loan in Iowa Fast percent loan in Kansas Fast percent loan in Kentucky Fast percent loan in Louisiana Fast percent loan in Maine Fast percent loan in Maryland Fast percent loan in Massachusetts Fast percent loan in Michigan Fast percent loan in Minnesota Fast percent loan in Mississippi Fast percent loan in Missouri Fast percent loan in Montana Fast percent loan in Nebraska Fast percent loan in Nevada Fast percent loan in New Hampshire Fast percent loan in New Jersey Fast percent loan in New Mexico Fast percent loan in New York Fast percent loan in North Carolina Fast percent loan in North Dakota Fast percent loan in Ohio Fast percent loan in Oklahoma Fast percent loan in Oregon Fast percent loan in Pennsylvania Fast percent loan in Rhode Island Fast percent loan in South Carolina Fast percent loan in South Dakota Fast percent loan in Tennessee Fast percent loan in Texas Fast percent loan in Utah Fast percent loan in Vermont Fast percent loan in Virginia Fast percent loan in Washington Fast percent loan in West Virginia Fast percent loan in Wisconsin Fast percent loan in Wyoming