What are the potential benefits of SEO services?

No doubt, SEO has become a main part of the Digital marketing. If you are running any website, then you can understand the importance of SEO services. It is really beneficial which is improving the rank of the website. As per professionals, almost 76% of the users are making the use of SEO services. Actually, they are hiring an SEO expert that is performing all complicated task related to the SEO.

You should visit https://designful.ca and grab a bunch of details about SEO services.  The best thing is that it is the only service which is saving the overall time and money. Like, you don’t have to spend money on promotions. SEO is almost similar to the Promotion because it will attract the users from the target area. Let’s discuss the potential advantage of the SEO services.

  • Improving the ranking

If you have started a new website, then SEO is a really important task. It will improve the rank of your website within a few days. Like, if you want to boost the sale of your business, then it is quite an important task for you. After hiring an expert, you will grab a positive effect in the sale of your business.

  • cheaper cost

If you are spending money on the promotion, then it will create the big hole in the pocket. However, nothing is better than SEO service because it is available in the cheaper worth.  After hiring a professional SEO expert, you will witness the improvement in the rank of the website.

  • Improvement in traffic

Nowadays, most of the people are buying traffic that isn’t a reliable option. Most of the people are selling traffic at the expensive price. If you want to improve the rank of the website genuinely then one must hire choose the SEO services.

  • Improve the ROI

Did you know most of the website owners are earning thousands of dollars on a regular basis?  SEO is really one of the best marketing techniques. With the help of SEO, you will able to improve the awareness of your brand.  However, if you have already installed the Google ads on the official website, then SEO is really beneficial for you.

So what’s the Final verdict?

After considering all the aspects, we can say that SEO is really beneficial for our business. If you want to improve the credibility of your business, then you should hire a professional for it.

Quote of the Day Thomas Jefferson on Danger of Large Banking Institutions

“And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.” (sometimes quoted as “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”) — Thomas Jeffersonto John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816 (thanks to Joseph Gallant for this quote).

Jefferson was talking about the power of large banks to control the country’s currency. But we can just as easily apply that statement to the influence of the Wall Street banks on the direction of all regulatory policy at the federal and state level, especially when those banks contribute millions of dollars in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions. The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution and Bill of Rights would instill accountability and limits on federal power, but only if the people vigilantly insisted that their representatives resist attempts by special interests to influence policy towards.

Today we see the corrosive impact of mega-lobbying by all types of special interests, including but certainly not limited to major banks now involved in “Foreclosuregate.” The Founders recognized, in our framework of checks and balances, the right to sue any person in America for civil wrongs, and have those suits heard before a jury of peers, and state constitutions echo that recognition. Imagine how easily the “Foreclosuregate” banks would have ripped off thousands of American families without the backstop of the 7th Amendment and the corresponding provisions in state constitutions. The GOP and Tea Party must resist continued attempts by those banks to preempt that right in the name of “efficiency.”

Watch Rick Perrys Flip-Flop on States Rights

Rick Perry used to be a sincere advocate of states’ rights. He was against a federal tort reform bill as recently as last year.

Rick Perry, November 4, 2010, on CNN:

“One of the reasons why I was never for a national tort reform was because I think we do it better in the state of Texas… that ought to be our decision in the state of Texas.”

Now? Well, he’s under pressure from other Republican candidates, so he whipped out his big applause line last night.

Rick Perry, September 12, 2011, during the CNN-Tea Party Express debate:

“…one of the things that’s really important, one of the things that the Fed Reserve chairman said was the most powerful, one of the most powerful thing that happened, was tort reform that we passed in that state. You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That’s what needs to happen in the states. and it’s also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels.”

But you don’t have to take my word for it, watch it yourself on YouTube below!

Rob Natelson ObamaCare Federal Tort Reform Are Unconstitutional

Conservative legal expert Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute in Colorado, author of the book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, was interviewed on October 6 on the nationally syndicated “What’s Up” radio program, hosted by Terry Lowry. Rob Natelson was the first conservative legal scholar to forcefully argue that federally imposed limits on medical malpractice and other health care-related lawsuits are unconstitutional, back in April and again in May. Terry Lowry interviewed him about (1) the status of the anti-ObamaCare cases and the prospects for the Supreme Court to rule against the individual mandate, and (2) the unconstitutionality of federal tort reform laws. Natelson said that he expects the Supreme Court to hear the 11th Circuit case, and he put forth various scenarios for the Court’s ultimate ruling (with no prediction). He added that Congress unconstitutionally stretched the Commerce Clause beyond all previous precedent in mandating the individual purchase of health insurance.

Natelson reiterated his opposition to federal tort reform laws. He said that this is another area where “the federal government simply has no business trying to impose one-size-fits-all on the entire country,” that federal tort reform proposals dictating to federal and state courts are “extremely intrusive” and “pretty clearly unconstitutional.”

You can download and listen to the entire interview.

The Only Real Medical Malpractice Reform Is Prevention

There’s a great article in The Washingtonian magazine today titled, “Minor Mistakes, Deadly Results,” about the thousands of deadly medical errors occurring annually and the measures taken by Washington-are hospitals to prevent them. Here’s the beginning of the article, with a story that illustrates the cases and should break your heart:

When Frances Barnes had a stroke in August 2008, she was taken by ambulance to Howard University Hospital. The 80-year-old grandmother was there for about two weeks when she began complaining about pain in her legs. Her daughter Althea Hart pulled back her mother’s blankets and noticed a strange odor. Hart thought the smell was coming from the compression stockings wrapped around Barnes’s legs to help with circulation, so she took them off. She found that her mother’s left foot had turned black.

Hospital staff had failed to follow physician orders, which required taking off the compression stockings after each shift for at least 30 minutes, according to a DC Department of Health investigation.

“We called a nurse right away, and they tried to heal her infection,” says Patricia Moss, another of Barnes’s daughters. “But they couldn’t.”

Barnes’s family moved her to Providence Hospital in Northeast DC, where she had to have her lower leg amputated. Barnes moved to a nursing home, where she continued to get infections; she died at Providence in February 2009, five months after her foot turned black. Barnes left behind eight children, 15 grandchildren, and 16 great-grandchildren.

The facts are startling. Medical malpractice appears to be worsening. “In 2010, the federal government estimated that faulty medical care contributed to the death of about 15,000 Medicare patients per month. By these measures, faulty hospital care is one of the leading causes of death, behind heart disease and cancer.” And surgery on the wrong location in body happens “as often as 40 times a week in US hospitals and clinics,” according to the Joint Commission, which accredits American hospitals. All this despite the use of a universal protocol in accredited hospitals as a way to eliminate wrong-site surgeries.

On March 23 of last year, I wrote about surveys of operating room and critical care nurses that revealed shocking instances of medical malpractice. For instance, 85% of 2,383 nurses surveyed said they’d been in a situation where measures such as checklists and protocols warned them of a problem that would have otherwise harmed a patient. But 58% of the nurses said they’d been in situations where it was either unsafe to speak up or they were unable to get others to listen.

Tort reformers screaming for an unconstitutional federal takeover of state courtrooms and tort law should think a little more logically. The most important and successful way to institute valuable reforms in the medmal area is to institute cost-effective prevention mechanisms. State legislatures and Medicare should concentrate on requiring such protocols, not trying to limit the damage on the back end through limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. As the libertarian Cato Institute demonstrated last year, caps on medmal awards only hurt consumers, they don’t reduce deadly medical errors.

Fix the problem at its source and you’ll see real reductions in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits.

The Ugly Un-American Face of Sharia Coming Soon Near the White House

British Islamist extremist Anjem Choudary, who once said “the flag of Islam will fly over the White House,” and recently called Americans “the biggest criminals in the world today,” plans to bring his pro-sharia message to a rally near the White House on March 3. Choudary told a British newspaper that the rally will be “a call for the Sharia, a call for the Muslims to rise up and ­establish the Islamic state in America.”

I wonder if Choudary would ever be willing to answer some questions about his beliefs and the real nature of sharia law, such as the following:

1. Does Choudary agree with the following statement from the Islamic legal manual “Umdat al-Salik”: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Does he expect American Muslims to follow that practice when they establish their Islamic state here?

2. Does he endorse the ritual of gang rape of women in the name of sharia, committed in numerous Islamic countries around the world in this decade?

3. Does he expect that American Muslims will endorse wife-beating (Koran 4:34) and female genital mutilation, which is practiced throughout the Muslim world? Does he agree with top Islamic clerics in Denmark and Lebanon who recently stated that women who do not wear a headscarf are asking to be raped? Does he think that Lara Logan was “asking for it” when she entered the mob in Egypt, near a famous university where the anti-women tenets of sharia are taught and honored?

4. Does he demand that American Muslims adopt sharia and swear off the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the rights to a jury trial for criminal and civil cases, and also to substitute the judgment of a local Imam during the trial for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and centuries of law protecting the rights of the accused? Does he expect Muslims here to form secret neighborhood courts, as they have in Europe and elsewhere, under which sharia justice will be imposed without regard to Constitutionally protected rights or the rule of law?

As a Catholic, I have to ask: Can you imagine if a group of American Catholics decided to call for “the establishment of a Papist state in America?” The mainstream networks would have us for lunch. But they’re dead silent on the Choudary rally and on the ugly side of sharia. Choudary isn’t kidding, though; he’s even created a Shariah4America website, although he obviously doesn’t know much about capitalism, since he misspelled the term. Americans who cherish fundamental liberties have to remove their heads from the sand and pay some attention to whackjobs like Choudary and the company they attract. It will be interesting to see if Choudary makes it across the pond and who joins him near the White House on March 3.

South Dakota Lawmakers Uniting to Prevent Use of Shariah Principles

I wrote on September 8 and on August 30 about the fact that under strict Islamic Shariah law, there are no juries for civil and criminal cases. And during the panel discussion on November 16 that I assembled on Capitol Hill, I discussed the lack of civil or criminal procedure or discovery under Shariah. It’s a system that is not only un-Constitutional but anti-Constitutional, and it has no place in American jurisprudence.

So it’s encouraging to see that states legislators are recognizing the dangers of Shariah principles and acting to prevent their use in state courts. The latest state to pursue the matter is South Dakota, where a bipartisan effort is underway to enact SB 201, which would, according to the Dakota Voice, “prohibit South Dakota courts from using dangerous foreign laws that deprive parties of the same fundamental rights granted under the constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.” State Senator Dan Lederman gets it right, saying, “Invoking Shariah law, in criminal and especially in civil cases, is a means of imposing an agenda on the American people while circumventing the US and state constitutions by using foreign laws which do not recognize our constitutional rights and liberties in US courts. It’s a hostile foreign law that has no place in American courts.” And he would know, since Muslim women are signing marriage contracts offered by the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls, where the mosque leader advised Muslim husbands whose wives are “disloyal” to “admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly).”

SB 201 proponents have assembled a group of cases to cite as rationale for state legislative action. In one Massachusetts case, Rhodes v. ITT Sheraton Corp, the Massachusetts Superior Court, the judge ruled that “Saudi Arabia was not an adequate alternative forum because the Plaintiff would experience severely restricted rights under the Shariah-based Saudi legal code” due to the following deficiencies in basic civil procedure (quoting from the case):

“The first significant drawback to trial of this case in Saudi Arabia is that plaintiff would not be permitted to testify… All parties are presumed to be prejudiced in favor of themselves and therefore are not considered to be reliable witnesses… Prevailing in Saudi Arabia would be even more difficult for plaintiff in light of the requirement that, ‘[i]n financial matters, a party must produce two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses in order to prove a point.’…

Another disadvantage to a Saudi forum is that Saudi courts do not follow any uniform rules of procedureSaudi Arabia does not offer parties the opportunity to be heard by a jury… a Saudi forum would deprive plaintiff of basic procedures which she expects to enjoy in a Massachusetts forum.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nothing about Shariah jurisprudence is compatible with the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Shariah means NO civil (or criminal) procedure, NO due process, NO discovery, limited eyewitness testimony, and most importantly, NO JURIES IN ANY CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASE. State legislatures and Congress should mandate that courts not compromise our principles for Shariah, and also be very wary of recognizing foreign court decisions based on Shariah.

Republican Sen Mike Lee Opposes Current Federal Tort Reform Bills

During a speech on November 11 at the national convention of the Federalist Society, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah discussed why he could not vote for the jobs bill proposed by Senate Republican leadership (he voted “present”), even though it included many economic growth proposals with which he agreed. The Senator made it clear that he would have trouble voting for any federal tort reform bill, because most such bills inherently override states’ rights. Here is a transcript of the pertinent section of that speech:

I had a situation just yesterday in which members of my party put forward a proposal consisting of a lot of bills rolled together. I agreed with almost all of them. Almost all of them achieved some favorable policy objective. But there was one with which I fundamentally disagreed; not because it was bad policy, but because it was utterly reconcilable with principles of federalism to which I took an oath. There was one portion of this Republican jobs package that would have told state courts, applying state law, reviewing state causes of action, that they were subject to certain limits, all in the name of interstate commerce; all because these things, like everything else, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. I wanted to vote for the bill. Were I a member of the state legislature in the State of Utah, I would have voted for that kind of tort reform. But I couldn’t do it, because it’s not within my power. It was painful not to be able to vote in favor of that bill, but sometimes we have to do painful things, even when they undercut our underlying policy interests. In other words, just as textualism and originalism need to be protected and preserved, they need to be followed religiously so that they don’t come under fire, and correctly as I believe, as simple tools to bring about a conservative philosophical revolution of sorts, we in the political branches of government who are dyed-in-the-wool advocates of federalism need to stick to federalism. Federalism is the answer, not just because it leads to right results, but because it is the right result, and it is the law. (Emphasis mine.)

Senator Lee’s comments were met with applause by the audience, who obviously recognized and approved of his steadfast allegiance to constitutional principles.

During questioning by the audience, Senator Lee conceded that Congress could enact “some medical malpractice reforms” for federal suits brought in federal courts under federal law, or if such a bill is tied to “the provision of medical services with federal funds.” But the federal tort reform bills being pushed by the AMA and other medical groups are straightforward, head-on, bills to crush states’ and individual rights in health care-related lawsuits. Personally, I don’t foresee Republicans proposing a bill to limit Medicare or Medicaid recipients’ right to civil litigation, because of the political backlash it would generate.

Senator Lee’s courageous vote on that bill and his statement in his speech place him squarely among the many Republicans and Tea Party-side conservatives who have come to recognize the unconstitutionality of federal tort reform bills. That growing list includes Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli; constitutional law expert Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute; Professor Randy Barnett; Tea Party movement leaders Judson Phillips and Mark Meckler; and many others, including critics of the plaintiffs’ bar, all of whom insist on upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights over political objectives. They’ve found, as Rob Natelson has detailed in his new study, that the Founding Fathers clearly and specifically did not want state tort law and state courts pre-empted or overruled by Congress through federal tort reform.

You can watch Senator Lee’s entire speech below; scroll to the 20-minute mark to hear him discuss this issue.

Quote of the Day Thomas Jefferson Other Founders Supporting Jury Trial for Civil Suits

Tomorrow is the 222nd anniversary of the introduction by James Madison of the first proposed amendments to the Constitution, eventually the Bill of Rights, before the first Congress.

I posted long excerpts of Madison’s remarks here on March 30, including the language of his amendment to protect the right to a jury trial for civil suits: In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate. Madison went on to describe that right “as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”

Of course, he was one of many of the Founding Fathers who supported the unfettered right to a civil jury trial. Quote of the Day has been a feature of this website since I opened almost a year ago, in order to highlight the Founding Fathers’ quotes in favor of the 7th Amendment. Here are more such quotes by Thomas Jefferson and other Founders and commentators:

I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine States. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these, suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil. In disputes between a foreigner and a native, a trial by jury may be improper. But if this exception cannot be agreed to, the remedy will be to model the jury by giving the mediatas linguae, in civil as well as criminal cases.Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, July 31, 1788.

In conformity with these principles, and from respect for the public sentiment on this subject, it is submitted, that the new constitution proposed for the government of the United States be bottomed upon a declaration or bill of rights, clearly and precisely stating the principles upon which this social compact is founded, to wit: … that the trial by jury in criminal and civil cases, and the modes prescribed by the common law for the safety of life in criminal prosecutions shall be held sacred,… Richard Henry Lee, proposed amendments to the Constitution, October 16, 1787.

Your constitution further provides ‘that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.’ … Whether the trial by jury is to continue as your birth-right, the freemen of Pennsylvania, nay, of all America, are now called upon to declare… The late Convention have submitted to your consideration a plan of a new federal government–The subject is highly interesting to your future welfare–And it is worthy of remark, that there is no declaration of personal rights, premised in most free constitutions; and that trial by jury in civil cases is taken away… ‘Centinel,’ presumed to be “Antifederalist” Samuel Bryan, in letter to fellow Pennsylvanians, October 5, 1787.

If the federal constitution is to be construed so far in connection with the state constitutions, as to leave the trial by jury in civil causes, for instance, secured; on the same principles it would have left the trial by jury in criminal causes, the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, &c. secured; they all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans, and have been recognized by the state constitutions… “Federal Farmer IV”, another of the “Antifederalists,” in letter of October 12, 1787.

These quotes are the seeds of our democracy, planted by our forefathers, nurtured and fed with the blood, toil, and sweat of two hundred years of Americans who served the cause of freedom.

Tea Party Leader Federal Tort Reform Kills State Sovereignty

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, continuously “gets it.” He knows that Obamacare and federal tort reform bills are “the Wickard twins,” equally unconstitutional ideas arising from the Supreme Court decision in 1942 that unleashed a runaway Commerce Clause on an unsuspecting American public. States’ and individual rights don’t have a prayer if we let an unlimited Commerce Clause govern aspects of American life in ways never envisioned by the Founders, starting with health care and tort law. That’s why Judson has written and spoken often against federally imposed on caps in medical malpractice cases, such as those proposed in H.R. 5. We’ve even seen the spectacle of Democrats challenging the states’ rights position of Republicans with Judson’s own words, for which the pro-H.R. 5 Republicans have no response.

He’s at it again in a post on Tea Party Nation, as follows:

If the Republicans are successful in taking the White House and the Senate (they will keep the House), then we will see the next incarnation of attacks on state sovereignty.

That will come in the form of Federal Tort Reform. Some Republicans want to impose Federal Tort Reform on all of the states. Many people have a knee jerk reaction to tort reform. Oh, we don’t like the trial lawyers. We don’t like lawyers, period. Let’s hurt the lawyers.

Since 1787, states have regulated state courts. Since 1787, states have regulated licensed professionals in those states including doctors, lawyers and others. In Federal Court, unless there is a lawsuit governed by a specific federal statute, state law controls the federal courts. Lawyers cannot be admitted to practice before federal courts until they are admitted before the highest court of one of the states.

To allow the Federal Government to impose tort reform on the states wipes out some of the last vestiges of state sovereignty, namely the ability to make its own laws.

State sovereignty has always been the bulwark against they tyranny of a massive federal government. Our founding fathers knew that. That is why they purposefully made the Federal Government weak.

As we hopefully approach the end of the Obamacare Era, either by judicial decision or through an election, Republicans must resist the urge to respond to polls favorable to medmal caps. After all, polls were once favorable to Obamacare, too.

Instead, they should listen to the wisdom of Tea Party-side experts and activists such as Judson Phillips, and avoid any incursion on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.