Mediaboss Marketing

(PRWEB) April 18, 2014

topseos.com has declared SEO.com as the fourth top ecommerce search engine optimization company in the month of April 2014. Search marketing agencies are analyzed by the independent research team at topseos.com to uncover which agencies supply the top ecommerce search engine optimization solutions. The recommendations are adjusted on a monthly basis based on the newest accomplishments of contending ecommerce search engine optimization agencies.

The process for investigating and selecting the top firms offering ecommerce search engine optimization services involves a thorough evaluation of the primary advantages of each competing search marketing service. The five criteria of evaluation associated with successful ecommerce search engine optimization campaigns include off-page optimization, on-page optimization, needs analysis, keyword analysis, and reporting methods. The results of the evaluation process are used to decide the location of firms on the listings.

The independent evaluation team spends time benchmarking the online marketing industry as a whole to better understand how contesting ecommerce search engine optimization agencies influence the industry. Time is spent visiting various conference events to obtain a wider understanding of the industry and to connect directly with ecommerce search engine optimization agencies in a neutral setting. Customer referrals are often used as another metric to establish which ecommerce search engine optimization agencies produce the top services.

SEO.com has been awarded the fourth best ecommerce search engine optimization firm based on an in-depth evaluation of their supplied services. The independent research team has awarded them due to their continued performance and their history of successful search engine marketing services. Those looking for an experienced ecommerce search engine optimization service to meet their specified needs should consider SEO.com.

About SEO.com

SEO.com is an experienced search marketing firm sworn to making websites more visible and profitable. They tackle sites head-on, researching and implementing the sharpest tools and techniques in the industry to put their clients ahead of the online competition.

About topseos.com

topseos.com is an established independent research firm focusing on the examination and rankings of search engine marketing firms all around the world. The rankings are formulated by the independent research team each month to feature the top ecommerce SEO firms based on their achievements and their rating achieved through the proprietary examination process.

For additional information about SEO.com visit:

The rest is here:
topseos.com Unveils SEO.com as the Fourth Top Ecommerce SEO Service for the Month of April 2014

(PRWEB) April 18, 2014

topseos.com has awarded 180Fusion the 5th top enterprise SEO firm in the April 2014 edition of the rankings. The rankings are formulated through a rigorous analysis of the key services provided by each firm. Businesses looking for efficient enterprise SEO services turn to topseos.com to find services which have been evaluated by an independent third party.

Enterprise SEO firms are put through the topseos.com genuine investigation process in order to establish which firms supply the top overall solution. Firms are selected based on merit determined by achievement in the investigation process. This process consists of the use of a set of investigation criteria, discussing with customer referrals, and performing various market and industry research projects.

In order to contest a more rigorous analysis of competing internet marketing companies, topseos.com also connects with customer referrals of the top enterprise SEO companies which have been highlighted in the recommendations. The questions clients are generally asked delve into various aspects of core leadership & people and service amongst other areas to best identify their overall performance. Additionally, clients of internet marketing companies are often connecting with topseos.com directly to provide their feedback.

Clients of internet marketing solutions often turn to topseos.com when looking for talented enterprise search engine optimization companies. The independent research team has announced 180Fusion as the 5th top enterprise search engine optimization service based on the results of the evaluation process. topseos.com strongly believes in the enterprise search engine optimization solutions provided by 180Fusion and has selected them for businesses looking for the most talented solutions.

About 180Fusion

The SEO services which are offered by 180Fusion are provided using processes which have a history of achieved proven results and improved return on investment for their customers. Their services are custom tailored specifically to the needs and requirements of each of their customers through the implementation of SEO strategies while also offering other online marketing services which may be of benefit to their customers.

About topseos.com

topseos.com is a purveyor of online marketing evaluations. The primary goal of topseos.com is to decide and proclaim those individuals or firms producing best online marketing solutions available. Enterprise SEO firms are put through a meticulous evaluation to ensure the listings contain the absolute best firms the online marketing industry has to offer.

For additional information about 180Fusion visit:

Read more:
180Fusion Revealed Fifth Top Enterprise SEO Agency by topseos.com for April 2014

Sikhs Rearming The Second Amendment
In this Fall 2013 classroom discussion, University of Michigan students discuss the projected impact of Sikhs "rearming" for gurdwara security. This discussi...

By: SikhStudiesForum

Follow this link:
Sikhs Rearming & The Second Amendment - Video

"The Growing American Police State vs. The Second Amendment"
From traffic light cameras to phone tapping, from militarized police forces to targeting specific groups of people, the government is unfettered in its desir...

By: THEWNDTV1

Read the rest here:
"The Growing American Police State vs. The Second Amendment" - Video

Abstract

Modern debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was apparently never even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted. Early discussions took the basic meaning of the amendment for granted and focused instead on whether it added anything significant to the original Constitution. The debate later shifted because of changes in the Constitution and in constitutional law and because legislatures began to regulate firearms in ways undreamed of in our early history.

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that governments of large nations are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

Using a militia as an alternative to standing armies had deep roots in English history and possessed considerable appeal, but it also presented some serious problems. Alexander Hamilton, for example, thought the militia system could never provide a satisfactory substitute for a national army. Even those who treasured the militia recognized that it was fragile, and the cause of this fragility was just what made Hamilton disparage it: Citizens were always going to resist undergoing unpaid military training, and governments were always going to want more professionaland therefore more efficient and tractableforces.

This led to a dilemma at the Constitutional Convention. Experience during the Revolutionary War had demonstrated convincingly that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense, and the onset of war is not always followed by a pause during which an army can be raised and trained. The convention therefore decided to give the federal government almost unfettered authority to establish armies, including peacetime standing armies. But that decision created a threat to liberty, especially in light of the fact that the proposed Constitution also forbade the states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress.

One solution might have been to require Congress to establish and maintain a well-disciplined militia. Such a militia would have had to comprise a large percentage of the population in order to prevent it from becoming a federal army under another name, like our modern National Guard. This might have deprived the federal government of the excuse that it needed peacetime standing armies and might have established a meaningful counterweight to any rogue army that the federal government might create. That possibility was never taken seriously, and for good reason. How could a constitution define a well-regulated or well-disciplined militia with the requisite precision and detail and with the necessary regard for unforeseeable changes in the nations circumstances? It would almost certainly have been impossible.

Another approach might have been to forbid Congress from interfering with the states control of their militias. This might have been possible, but it would have been self-defeating. Fragmented control of the militias would inevitably have resulted in an absence of uniformity in training, equipment, and command, and no really effective national fighting force could have been created.

Thus, the convention faced a choice between entrenching a multiplicity of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely have been too weak and divided to protect the nation, or authorizing a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not have been expected to prevent federal tyranny. The conundrum could not be solved, and the convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Constitution presumes that a militia will exist, but it gives Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gives the federal government almost unfettered authority to maintain an army.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control of the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was.

James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was to be structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out another decisive difference between Europes situation and ours: The American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

Read more from the original source:
The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense