Visit New York City on St Patrick’s Day
Celebrated annually across the globe on March 17, St Patrick’s Day is one of the world’s most popular celebrations. Its significance originates in Ireland as a Catholic feast day which celebrates Saint Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland. However, in more recent times, St Patrick’s Day has taken on an altogether more global and secular significance, with St Patrick’s Day celebrations being held around the world in various forms.
In the United States, people traditionally celebrate St Patrick’s Day by wearing green garments, drinking alcohol that’s been dyed green or indulging in other Irish themed activities. Many American cities put on St Patrick’s Day parades, including Cleveland, Boston and Kansas City; however the largest St Patrick’s Day Parade in the United States – and the world – is held in New York City and is said to be watched by over two million people.
The first St Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City was held in 1766, when Irish soldiers marched through the city, and in 2006, more than 150,000 people marched in the St Patrick’s Day Parade. Among those participating in the event were bands, members of the fire department, social and cultural clubs in the city, emigrant societies and military and police groups. Furthermore, prominent New York politicians, and those planning to run for office frequently appear in the St Patrick’s Day Parade.
Organised by the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the St Patrick’s Day Parade has attracted more than a little controversy in its time. For instance, the Ancient Order of Hibernians has often opted to appoint controversial Irish Republican figures as its Grand Marshall; what’s more, the group recently banned gay and lesbian groups from participating in the parade. As a result of this, alternative St Patrick’s Day parades, such as The Queens parade, have been organised by opposing groups; the Queens parade, for instance, is open to all groups who wish to march on St Patrick’s Day.
But whatever parade you choose to go and see, New York City is truly the place to be on St Patrick’s Day. With green bagels, green flowers, green hats and clothes a frequent sight on the day of the St Patrick’s Day Parade, New Yorkers tend to frequent local Irish pubs and drink Irish beers and liquors in celebration of the festival, which now takes on both religious and secular significance. And with plenty of affordable hotels in New York City to choose from, you won’t be stuck for accommodation in the city if you choose to visit on St Patrick’s Day. After all, how could you possibly resist the unique opportunity to eat a green New York bagel and drink a glass of dyed-green Guinness while basking in the emerald glow of the Empire State Building?
Andrew Regan is a freelance online journalist.
Andrew Regan
http://www.articlesbase.com/travel-articles/visit-new-york-city-on-st-patricks-day-107268.html
If there is a new world order or an Illuminati why do people think the members are only Republicans?
First I am not into grand conspiracies. In fact I find most of them just plain silly. However, everytime I see mention of these groups it seems they are almost always equated with Republicans. If there is a New World Order or an Illuminati isn’t it much more likely that these groups would non specific in party affiliations and corrupt all politicians equally in order to achieve their goals.
roady42: Where exactly did you me placing any blame on anyone in this question?
The previous statement should read see me placing blame.
G51044 & GTR: That is not an answer, it’s a commercial for a conspiracy website. I seen the site already. I’ll pass thanks.
the liberal patriot: I am not speculating one way or the other whether there is a New World Order. I am merely stating that in a preponderous of posts which I see on the matter it is often associated with Republicans exclusively.
Well, not that I myself buy this particular conspiracy hypothesis–really, "theory" is the wrong word for it, as theory implies that it’s something with substantial evidence to back it up–but, to Answer your Question here, I really think it’s obvious.
This whole "Illuminati" business is about taking over the world via money, by way of Big Business and its connections. And….in the 20th century at least, in the United States, *much more* often than not your conservative, Republican elements have been *about* being pro-big-business, they’ve been *about* putting the interests of Big Oil (Halliburton? Iraq war?) and Big Banking (severe and recent changes to bankruptcy laws putting *most* ordinary people *one* crisis away from being de facto indentured servants) above those of ordinary voting citizens.
You can call it an accident of history really. In what remains of the old Soviet Union, the people who would be most aligned with "Illuminati" interests aren’t even politicians, but rather the "oligarchs" or big businessmen whose interests border on organized crime and racketeering. And in what *was* the United States before the Civil War, one could argue that the pre-Lincoln Democrats were once closer to "Illuminati" interests.
This is why I think the hypothesis fails to some degree. The whole conspiracy operates on one *simple* heuristic–follow the money, more specifically the Old, Landed Money. Problem is….that heuristic fails to take into account that "Old Landed Money" has a habit of changing with the passing of decades and centuries….even Big Banking has changed the way it does business in so many ways that bankers in the 1950s would have trouble recognizing some features of today’s landscape (trading in derivatives versus stocks, emphasizing the *buying and selling* of debts versus keeping people *in* debt). It also fails to take into account the changes in technologies (no, not the internet–that was stifled pretty effectively. I’m talking about the rise of Big Oil itself.), or the market shifts that can take place (people didn’t see the rise of Asian economies–Japan, then China, then Southeast Asia, then China *again*–and they likely *won’t* see the rise of India or Russia either when that hits) from nation to nation and culture to culture.
In very plain terms: The hypothesis is *too* simple to be as all-encompassing as it claims to be. Only *one* conspiracy? Only *one* group of wannabe-all-mighty-then Muckety Mucks who want to take over the world? Ok….
And if they’ve been active all this time, and so rich and powerful…where are their successes? Really, why haven’t they taken over completely yet? It’s not just a question of timing or agenda here–the lack of world conquest at this late date forces me to ask the question: If the Illuminati Hypothesis is true at all…then why are people still free? Does this mean that *no one* in on the conspiracy is *competent* at all? ^_^ Reduction to absurdity. The world conquest doesn’t happen according to plan because the hypothesis is itself absurd.
But I digress. Point is, if you take the hypothesis at face value, you do have a "follow the Old Money" mindset, and that means you look for the political party that caters to Old Money first.
Which is a mistake if there actually *are* any conspiracies afoot, just because for all we know, the conspirators may well have it in their best interests to *have* a sold-out, ineffective version of "mainstream liberalism" at their beck and call (they do, it’s called creating a false division to draw attention away from the real ones). They may have it in their best interests to *underfund* critical social services when the need for them is on the *rise*, things like the police, public schools, and healthcare (they do…it’s called keeping the peons *desperate*, ignorant and terrified).
My take on it is that there are at *least* five or six *different* conspiracies afoot at any given moment, and these days, they’ve all had one horrid effect: To sabotage the way the United States works, in an attempt to weaken Western Civilization. And I doubt it is from these multiple conspiracies working together so much as it is that nobody’s really paying attention to the *needed* things and in so doing, every plotter gets at least a *brief* free ride.
Essentially it’s like a stray dog that’s been out in the alleys too long: fleas alone won’t kill a dog, but if the dog already has ticks, worms, lice, an infected wound and a leech already to deal with, then yes, *one more* parasite will drag it down.
I hope this was helpful. -_- Thanks for your time.
Mainstream news media doing its job?
Just curious for your thoughts. How much do you trust mainstream television news, and news papers…. Would you seek out alternative news sources, or do you just not care? I know there are polls, but I’d like to see some narratives.
I suspect that they don’t.
Money and advertising prevents them from reporting the truth about pollution, business abuses, lawsuits, etc… The fact that most media outlets are owned by a cooperative oligarchy means that we’ll never hear any news that isn’t pro-business or at least sympathetic to business.
Our masters rule through commercialism. We are domesticated animals whose purpose is the consumption of materialistic garbage. Our whole world is based on rich white men brainwashing us into buying plastic junk made by slaves overseas so that they can steal the fruits of our labor.
We have been stripped of all the things that truly matter: companionship, community and intimacy. These things have been taken from us because our free time has been taken from us. We work constantly just to obtain the basic inputs necessary for survival. We are so exhausted from our efforts that the only enjoyable thing we have the energy or time for is TV or shopping.
The "news" is just part of the system that controls us.
Think about politics. Democrat vs. Republican vs. Centrist; does this truly cover the realm of political ideas? To say this is the equivalent to saying the religion is Methodist vs. Baptist vs. Lutheran. Certainly, there is more to choose from in religion than these three relatively similar sects. But when people are exposed to politics on TV, they seem to accept this narrowing of ideas.
Our news fails. They sell us what they tell us we want. We never get what we need: truth.
Journalism, done properly, is a SCIENCE. It is the science of data mining, of searching for the context of the data, of seeing the historical narrative and most importantly being objective.
The "liberal" bias that the news agencies are accused of is usually just an attack leveled at any news item that achieves this scientific goal.
Can someone recommend an alternative to CNN.com for news? Due to their bias against Ron Paul, I’m boycotting.
I’ve decided to boycott CNN after Anderson Cooper ignored, interrupted, and lied to (he said he’d come back to him regarding conservativism in 2 questions and failed to do so) Ron Paul at the Republican debate tonight. I wrote to CNN to explain this; I encourage others to do the same.
MSNBC for sure. Fox News sucks. Honestly, first he needs to get more delegate votes before they give him more time. I support Ron Paul, but if the delegates are going to the others, then the peoples interest lies there. We need to get him some delegates. Tuesday will tell.
When exactly are the Yahoo message boards going to be fixed?
I mean, America voted for change in November. And yet, every Bush loving retard somehow are commenting on every anwer post. Liberal this and Liberal that! They are all little Bush sucking retards.
I want a discussion I can respond back to.
Not this one sided – "I Love my country" – "Bush is wonderful" – "The war can still be won" crap with their gay little Republican avatars pointing away!
Everyone knows Yahoo was told to shut down the message boards because "EVERYONE READ THEM"!
It made a difference and swayed a lot of voters.
I guess 2,980,000 anti-Bush posts took their toll!
Yahoo – Republican bought and paid for – without a choice!
I’ll bet Bush’ies are dancing the two step now that America is back in the dark!
Thank God for Infowars – Prison Planet – Alex Jones and Kieth Olberman
History will remember – fact!
Thank God for Keith Olbermann…hahahahahahahaha
What can we do as average citizens to fight the corruption in washington?
I don’t believe that the problems that face America have less to do with Republican or Democrat and more to do with the out of control Corruption that has reached epidemic levels in Washington.
Vote Republican watch F0X Cable News
Total Proof of the New World Order
YES WE CAN! REAL HOPE FOR AMERICA!
http://campaignforliberty.com
Duration : 0:10:0
Is the Bilderberg Group really planning on creating a New World Order?
Is the Bilderberg Group really planning on creating a New World Order? Are they really wanting to create an oligarchy and dominate the world?
I’ve been told that it doesn’t matter whether we have a Democratic or Republican president … that they’re all puppets of the Bilderberg Group. Is this true?
very true, ive looked up everything about it..its been planned for like 50 years, they are all puppets, even obama..
i don’t think it will be over night but the first step is taking over private businesses then nationalize the banks and healthcare..
bush and obama already started taking over the private sector and obama is wanting to nationalize healthcare and banks
Churchill, His Conservatism and Freedom
Churchill was the 20th century’s most influential person, because he personified, defended, and extended the franchise of the orthodox Anglo-Saxon inspired [big L] Liberal-Parliamentary order. Yet his lessons, attitudes and beliefs are already forgotten. In this sense he was indeed the last of the ‘Conservatives’.
The Liberal-Parliamentary order is not the ‘end of history’ but merely the most successful method of organising society yet developed. But we need to clarify some terms. First big L ‘Liberal’ in my usage does not mean the sick modern small l liberalism of left wing Marxists and chattering media elites with their empty headed politically correct rhetoric and matchless support of corrupt political friends. ‘Liberal’ in my vocabulary references the orthodox Enlightenment based Liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries – small government, low taxation, a strong military, a society keen on progress, innovation and self-reliance. In essence these ideals are branded in today’s parlance by the term ‘Conservative’ used as a pejorative by the weak-minded and power hungry. I in no way support the modern welfare or mommy-state as espoused by small l liberalism or the legal-gay-feminist axis that runs roughshod in today’s politics. Neither would or did Churchill.
Second I use ‘parliamentary order’ on purpose. I am not a big fan of ‘mass democracy’ which in my view leads to mob rule, socialist pandering to buy votes and widespread ignorance. Representative parliamentary and republican processes and institutions are necessary for society to develop. ‘Parliamentary order’ references legal, political, and systemic processes that allow a society to progress morally, spiritually, legally, economically and militarily. When politicians blather about mass democracy I have the suspicion that few know what they are talking about and that even fewer understand that it is systemic processes [as opposed to an all knowing liberal elite, educated at Ivy League schools reshaping society in their vanity], and institutions which are far surer guides to progress, then vacant rhetoric about mass democratic mob rule. In any event mass democracy has led not only to the emasculation of systemic processes and virtues but also to the establishment of a massive system of welfare and vote-buying which breaks society apart into little groups that must be catered to and bought. Mass democracy leads in short to corruption and the curtailment of freedom.
In contradistinction to what we have today, orthodox Liberals or Conservatives in the common parlance believe that systemic processes, virtues and respect for individual rights and private property ownership trump socialist vote buying and pandering to ‘rights’ groups. Churchill was one of the great defenders of systemic Conservative human progress based on orthodox Liberal ideas. This creed is premised on millennia of experiences, millions of social, economic and moral transactions and the affirmation that collective results premised on freedom of information and the accumulation of literally billions of decisions, coupled with parliamentary institutions, are far better guides to enlightenment and progress than following the utopian dreams and dictums of a self-appointed and self-absorbed corrupted elite who desire to create the mommy-state to accrete power and control.
In the age of fascist Islam, moral equivalency, United Nations corruption and support of illiberal forces, and the sad moral relativity embedded in socialist governance, there is no guarantee that freedom will survive. Churchill embodied the best spirit and hopes of mankind precisely because he defended the Conservative order and view of the world. He expressed clearly and consistently over a 60 year career in politics the belief that systemic and parliamentary forces are the only methods to move society forward in the right direction. Such forces are of course the most reliable means of increasing wealth, justice and morality for all. Though an aristocrat Churchill understood that the Conservative vision – which is so at odds with the modern welfare liberalism and mommy-state creations we have today in the West – was the only path to ensure societal dynamism and freedom for the mass. He also understood that international institutions are limited and that fascism is not reduced by endless jawing and discussions, but only through war.
Many however disagree. Hollywood airheads, pop singers, social-reductionists, leftist’s, Marxists, academics, and defender’s of the Third World’s self induced malaise, these critics and more descry Conservatism, Western history and Enlightenment ideals as being little more than white racist tripe. Such groups hate a man like Churchill who was full of pomp, addicted to empire and war, too manly, and incomprehensibly ignorant in dealing with modern socio-political issues – or so such groups claim. These criticisms take aim at Churchill’s policies; the fact that he was a white Anglo; his aristocratic lineage; his fondness for military affairs to defend empire and civilisation; his penchant for self promotion; his [admittedly] indefensible objection to India’s self-rule; and the politician’s flair for changing goals and objectives in order to succour election. Most of these critics contend that history is shaped by dialectical forces that overwhelm weak human leadership and initiative and in that regard Churchill was not brilliant but only lucky. They maintain that Churchill only rode the ‘tide’ of events and that any thinking politician did or would have done the same. One can analyse these criticisms and perhaps give them fair play but in general they are pathetic, insipid and largely worthless.
Freedom and liberty is a difficult concept to fully comprehend and defend – but they are not premised on ‘dialectical theories’ or luck. In the West it is simply taken for granted that freedom will flourish. There should be a debate however on how free people really are in the mommy-state creations of the 21rst century where tax, spend and programs of all sizes erupt yearly from self aggrandizing bureaucrats and officials. The more government power that we have, the less likely it is that prosperity will march on in a linear progression. The more mommy-state programs that are implemented the less reliable past systemic virtues, institutions and processes become. In the mommy-welfare state Conservative and systemic institutional ideals fade into irrelevance as history is rewritten and codes of conduct reshaped.
Though many people still live in poverty, filth, corrupt kleptocracies and desperation, to quote Churchill, ‘their liberation is sure.’ However, it will only be ‘sure’ if the current system of nation state and international governance does not mutate into anti-Western, anti-republican, or anti-parliamentary socialism and we defeat militant fascist pagan Islam in the Middle East and anywhere else it presents itself. These twin threats are very real. Many Western nations in the world that profess a faith in ‘orthodox liberalism’ are in reality top-down socialist constructs. Unsurprisingly most of these nations are also lax or non-participants in the war on terror against the fascistic elements of Islam preferring to free-ride off the Anglo-Saxon military. There is no evidence in history that socialism is a moral or successful construct yet it has sadly become the de-facto standard of political organisation.
In many countries socialist dogma has little in common with freedom, or what allowed the West to flourish and control history. For instance national defence, projectionable military force and pride in our collective Western greatness and historical dynamism have been jettisoned to establish immoral international or ‘post-modern’ groups, replete with unaccountable and expensive Orwellian programs and double-talk. We have replaced the philosophies of Churchill with the smirking incoherence of ‘mommy figures’ and immoral liars and centralists like Kofi Annan, Clinton and Chirac. The threat to Western freedom lies not only in fascist Islam, but in the oppressive socialism marked by post-modern welfare states, ‘managed’ trade, overbearing government, corrupt politicians and the imposition of the mommy-nanny state to turn individuals into narcissistic automatons and men into half female creatures unable to think and act like their forbears.
The values that Churchill stood for and defended, and in some sense allowed to survive and flourish, are under attack. Freedom is ephemeral and in mankind’s long journey only the late modern era has unshackled the average person’s life from tyranny. Socialism, government control, state managed trade, tariffs, regulations and unaccountable world bodies are as much of a threat to our prosperity – economic, moral, environmental and spiritual – as is pagan fascist Islamic fundamentalism. I hope we can all learn a lesson from one of mankind’s more interesting personalities and not take for granted what we have today and roll back the corrosive tides of socialist and fascistic tyranny. If we fail we deserve our fate. If we don’t understand history and realise that the fascist and illiberal ideas of the 1930s have indeed resurfaced in Islam and in small l liberalism than we truly are, as Churchill said about the human race, ‘un-teachable from infancy to the tomb.’ Unfortunately it may come to pass that Churchill was indeed the last of the Conservatives as the world falls prey to eco-fascist cults; post modern socialist silliness; and the onward march of militant pagan Islam.
C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/churchill-his-conservatism-and-freedom-699606.html
Tyranny In America, It’s Coming Sooner Than You Think
People who are subscribers take this viral. We need to get people involved with the July 4th Tea Parties. People must understand this is not a democratic or republican issue this is an American issue and we are getting our rights and wealth stolen. Show this video to a friend and lets get a million people to protest on July 4th.
President Barack Obama Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich Glenn Beck Peter Schiff Republican Democrats Civil Liberties America Theft Jim DeMint Nancy Pelosi Barney Frank Chris Dodd John Boehner Rand Paul Issa Kaptur Jesse Ventura
Duration : 0:8:12