Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Earlier this week, the federal governments National Science Foundation, an entity created to encourage the study of science — encouragement that it achieves by awarding grants to scholars and universities — announced that it had awarded a grant to study what people say about themselves and others in social media.

The NSF dubbed the project Truthy, a reference to comedian Stephen Colberts invention and hilarious use of the word truthiness.

The reference to Colbert is cute, and he is a very funny guy, but when the feds get into the business of monitoring speech, it is surely no joke; it is a nightmare. It is part of the Obama administrations persistent efforts to monitor communication and scrutinize the expressions of opinions it hates and fears.

We already know the National Security Agency has the digital versions of all telephone conversations and emails sent to, from or within the U.S. since 2005. Edward Snowden’s revelations of all this are credible and substantiated, and the governments denials are weak and unavailing — so weak and unavailing that many NSA agents disbelieve them.

But the governments unbridled passion to monitor us has become insatiable. Just two months ago, the Federal Communications Commission, which licenses broadcasters, threatened to place federal agents in cable television newsrooms so they can see how stories are generated and produced. The FCC doesnt even regulate cable, yet it threatened to enhance its own authority by monitoring cable companies from the inside.

Whats going on here?

Whats going on here, and has been going on since President Obama took office in January 2009, is a government with little or no fidelity to basic constitutional norms. There is no defense under the Constitution to any aspect of the government’s — federal, state, regional, local or hybrid; or any entity owned or controlled by any government; or any entity that exercises the governments coercive powers or spends or receives its money — monitoring the expressive behavior of anyone in the U.S., not in a newsroom, on social media or anywhere else.

The NSFs stated purpose of the Truthy squad is to look for errors in speech, particularly errors that fuel hatred or political extremes. This monitoring — this so-called search for error — is totalitarian and directly contradicts well-grounded Supreme Court jurisprudence, for several reasons.

First, for the government to gather information — public or private — on any person, the Constitution requires that the government have articulable suspicion about that person. Articulable suspicion is a mature and objective reason to believe that the person has engaged in criminal behavior. Without that level of articulable belief, the government is powerless to scrutinize anyone for any reason.

The articulable suspicion threshold is vital to assure that people in America have the presumption of liberty and are free to choose their behavior unimpeded or threatened by the government. The feds cannot cast a net into the marketplace of ideas and challenge what it brings in. Were they able to do so, the constitutional protections for free expression and the primacy of liberty would be meaningless.

More:
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Chilling free speech Fed's passion to monitor us has become insatiable

Pro-life protestors had planned to put a JumboTron outside the Alamo with abortion images on it, but the City of San Antonio shut down the protest Wednesday morning. Demonstrators said it’s a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Protestors have put up a JumboTron with abortion images in other cities already and Love of Truth ministries said they cleared a permit with the City of San Antonio to do so a month ago. It wasn’t until Tuesday night that the City said the demonstration violates a sign ordinance.

“Part of the permit, which would have enabled them to put a JumboTron on the plaza, was revoked this morning,” said San Antonio Police Chief William McManus.

“If we were going to preform abortion today the city would allow that, cause that’s legal, but showing it, somehow they’re finding a way to find that against the law,” said Mark Harrington, national director of Created Equal that was co-hosting the protest.

Harrington said now his organization has two causes to fight for; the end of abortion and first amendment rights.

“Unpopular speech is the reason the First Amendment was written to begin with. It protects disturbing, unpopular, offensive speech,” said Harrington.

Several people visiting the Alamo Wednesday said they had differing opinions on whether the JumboTron should be allowed.

“When people don’t have the choice whether to see those images or not, I don’t think that’s right,” said Shannon Thomas who was at the Alamo Wednesday.

“I think they should be allowed to do what they were permitted for, and I think it’s just the government trying to squelch anything that has to do with religion, or anything faith based,” said Ava Tanner who was also visiting the Alamo.

“I don’t necessarily agree with their tactics, but I do believe that to a certain extent it’s protected by the First Amendment,” said Lyndon Lee, another Alamo visitor.

Read more:
San Antonio tells pro-life protestors they can't use JumboTron at Alamo

Your computer, phone, and other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal information about you and your family. This sensitive data is worth protecting from prying eyes, including those of the government.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?

EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else. Keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment is the minimum standard, and your specific state may have stronger protections.

Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney. Remember generally the fact that you assert your rights cannot legally be used against you in court. You can always state: “I do not want to talk to you or answer any questions without my attorney present.” If they continue to ask you questions after that point, you can say: “Please don’t ask me any further questions until my attorney is present.” And if the police violate your rights and conduct an illegal search, often the evidence they obtain as a result of that search can’t be used against you.

We’ve organized this guide into three sections:

If you consent to a search, the police don’t need a warrant.

The most frequent ways police are able to search is by asking you for permission. If you say “yes” and consent to the search, then police don’t need a warrant. You can limit the scope of that consent and even revoke or take it back after the officers begin searching, but by then it may be too late.1 That’s why it’s better not consent to a searchpolice may drop the matter. If not, then they will generally need to get a search warrant to search.

Law enforcement may show up at your door. Apart from a few exceptions, police need a warrant to enter your home.

The police can’t simply enter your home to search it or any electronic device inside, like a laptop or cell phone, without a warrant.

Originally posted here:
When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer?

The Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority and the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands today filed a multi-million dollar malpractice lawsuit seeking punitive and compensatory damages for the failure of its law firm Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC, and its financial advisor, Bank of America, to properly advise the PFA and GVI in its issuance of over $219 million worth of bonds in 2006.

Continue reading here:
Virgin Islands and Its Public Finance Authority File Suit against Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney and Bank of America …

October 20, 2014

The tax exemption would benefit the islands and residents and would not have a negative impact to their economy.

LABUAN:Duty-free islands of Langkawi, Tioman and Labuan will be exempted from the Goods and Services (GST), said Deputy Finance Minister Ahmad Maslan.

He said the tax exemption would benefit the islands and residents and would not have a negative impact to their economy.

Addressing a GST briefing here on Sunday, he said the government would take measures to ensure that the transition from the Sales and Services Tax to the GST from April next year would not be drastic to ease the burden of the people.

He said the government would strengthen the GST Enforcement Unit with an addition of 2,270 members, 1,300 Price-Watch Team members and 202,800 Consumer Squad members as well as the inclusion of 579 penghulu and penggawa.

The Price watch team, made up of consumer associations, have been allocated funds to monitor profiteering by traders, he said.

– BERNAMA

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Go here to see the original:
Duty-free islands exempted from GST

By SiliconIndia| Friday, 17 October 2014, 15:14 IST

BANGALORE: Beaches are some of the favorite vacation, honeymoon and adventurous destinations for people around the world. Though we know beaches to be filled with sand that is draped in gold which shimmers under the sunlight, there are strangely beautiful beaches that may just shock you when you look through them.

The beaches on this list will amaze viewers and also stir a desire to go visit them. These beaches are mouth gaping, exciting, fascinating and ones that will leave the viewers awe-struck. Dont be too surprised if some of these beaches defy logic and seem like they are from another planet.

The Starry Shores of Maldives:

This beach is located on one of the islands of Maldives is a real treat to the eyes. The shore of the beach comes to life when small creatures called bioluminescent phytoplankton come together and creates a starry blue-lit shore.

They create a natural light show along the island which is like watching the stars on the sand.

The Hidden Beach, Mexico:

A natural wonder, astonishing creation and a destination for lovers is the hidden beach or the Playa de Amor (beach of love) located in Marieta, Mexico. This beach is hidden out of sight since it is located underground and can be accessed only through being dropped from a helicopter or canoeing through a small tidal wave opening.

This beach came to be when the government of Mexico used this land as a bomb testing facility but later turned it into one of natures most beautiful sites. Today it is listed under UNESCOs world heritage sites.

Also Read: A New Drug To Soon Better Treat Heart Attack Cigarette Ash Can Remove Arsenic From Water

See more here:
The Most Bizarre Beaches In The World

Minister for Finance Michael Noonan announced the ending of the so-called double Irish tax structure. Photograph: Alan Betson

The international movement against aggressive tax planning by multinationals, which saw the Government this week announce the closing of a tax structure used by Google, Facebook and others, holds significant opportunties for Ireland, according to research by the Department of Finance.

The research concludes that the practice by multinationals of directing large amounts of their turnover to offshore tax havens where their intellectual property resides is set to come under ever greater pressure.

This in turn will prompt multinationals to look to move their intellectual property from tax havens and Ireland should continue to monitor change in this area, as a competitive tax rate could become highly relevant.

The research by the department concludes the work being done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is aimed at drafting new global rules for corporate taxation, fits with the policy that has operated in Ireland since the 1950s.

This is because the OECD is seeking to create a greater alignment between where the substance of a companys business resides and where it pays tax. Historically, Ireland has used its low corporation tax base to attract real and substantial business activities here.

The same research notes the importance and risk to Irelands economy that lie in the fact it is so dependent on foreign direct investment. A paper by the Revenue Commissioners that forms part of the research shows one 1 out of every 8 in tax raised in 2012 came from corporation tax, and almost three-quarters of the corporation tax raised in 2008 to 2012 came from foreign-owned multinationals.

The top ten companies were responsible for 24 per cent of the corporation tax raised. Furthermore, foreign multinationals have higher productivity than most domestic companies and wages tend to be twice those paid by indigenous firms.

In his budget speech on Tuesday, Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan announced the ending of the so-called double Irish tax structure, where companies could book sales from around Europe and further afield to their operating company in Ireland, before that company paid huge royalty or licence payments to another, Irish-registered company that was tax resident offshore.

At the same time, he announced plans to put in place a so-called knowledge development box, a structure that would create tax advantages for companies that locate their intellectual property here.

Read more:
Global tax changes create Irish opportunity

Oct 152014



Bitcoin Trade 186
In this episode I introduce Bitcoin, digital crypto currency independent form Government and State backing and control, a new technology that allows easy flo…

By: James Bond

Continue reading here:
Bitcoin Trade 186 – Video

The Bitcoin market had an exciting week with the market value breaking over the $400 mark againbut its been hovering above and below the $400 band since that happened. Canada received an amazing talk from Andreas Antonopoulos, previous Chief Security Officer at Blockchain.info and author of Mastering Bitcoin, who spoke to the Canadian senate with an impassioned explanation of Bitcoin and its innovative future.

In the legal corner of Bitcoin news, Dorian Nakamotoa man outed by Newsweek alleged to be the Satoshi Nakamotois seeking a lawsuit against Newsweek for what happened after the article that brought attention to him. Still no word on who or what the actual Satoshi Nakamoto happens to be. And, Butterfly Labs is striking back against the Federal Trade Commission after a complaint shut down the business as part of an investigation into its practices.

Last, but not least, a new website has launched that gives an up-to-date measure of historical Bitcoin volatility at btcvol.info.

When the market value of bitcoin fell below $400 near September 27th, it must have led to a community-wide depression. It seems this way because now that the market value has risen, once again, above $400 (sometime midnight Sunday) it triggered a few joyous posts on reddit.

Since then, the price has hovered near $400, rising and falling in a band between $415 and $395.

Andreas Antonopolous last week went in front of the Senate of Canada and spoke to the government body about the regulating Bitcoin. The first eleven minutes is Antonopoulos speech and the remaining almost hour-and-a-half of the video is questions. Even if you dont have two hours to watch, its worth watching his opening statements.

Antonopoulos argues against tight regulation on Bitcoin because it will stifle innovation and during the questions segment rebutted numerous queries about crime and money laundering by discussing the nature of privacy and security with Bitcoin. He especially did a good job of showing how while BItcoin is more transparent than fiat money it can also be more secure.

The senators ask interesting and extremely thoughtful questions, most of which center around consumer protection and economics; but amid the most enlightening was Who are Bitcoins biggest detractors around the 41:20 mark.

In an attempt to resolve the hunt for the legendary Satoshi Nakamotothe mythical Batman and inventor of BitcoinNewsweeks Leah McGrath Goodman claimed that Dorian Nakamoto of California happened to be the mythical Bitcoin inventor. This led to a major disruption of Nakamotos life.

This has happened before. A reporter for The New Yorker interviewed Michael Clear, another cryptographer with a math backgroundyet also denied being Satoshi. However, Dorian Nakamoto had the benefit of a very similar name.

Read the original post:
Bitcoin Weekly 2014 October 15: Bitcoin breaks $400, Antonopoulos speaks to Canadian Senate, Butterfly Labs vs. FTC

Microsoft says it’s patching a Windows security flaw cited in a report on alleged spying by Russian hackers. Ted S. Warren/AP hide caption

Microsoft says it’s patching a Windows security flaw cited in a report on alleged spying by Russian hackers.

A group of hackers, allegedly from Russia, found a fundamental flaw in Microsoft Windows and exploited it to spy on Western governments, NATO, European energy companies and an academic organization in the United States.

That’s according to new research from iSight Partners, a Dallas-based cybersecurity firm.

Last month, the U.S. and the U.K. were preparing to meet at a NATO summit to talk about Ukraine. Emails were flying back and forth. Different experts were offering to talk at the conference. And in the midst of all the digital traffic, hackers jumped into the conversation.

Patrick McBride, a spokesman with iSight, says the hackers targeted specific officials using a well-known kind of attack called spear-phishing. Hackers would craft a message with a PowerPoint document attached. For example, they’d say, “We’d like to be involved in the conference.”

And when an unknowing recipient opened the corrupted PowerPoint, the file was exploited to load a piece of malware onto the computer that the attacker could then use later to “exfiltrate documents,” McBride says.

The hacker group, dubbed the “Sandworm Team,” allegedly pulled emails and documents off computers from NATO, Ukrainian government groups, Western European government officials, and energy sector and telecommunications firms.

In the mad dash to grab information, McBride says, the hackers got a little sloppy and dropped hints about their identity. He says they’re Russian, “but we can’t pinpoint if they work for the Russian government or work in a particular department in the government.”

The Russian embassy did not immediately respond to NPR’s inquiry. Microsoft says that Tuesday, it’s patching the security flaw so that PowerPoint and other Office products can’t be exploited again in the same way.

See original here:
Microsoft Windows Flaw Let Russian Hackers Spy On NATO, Report Says



NSA Re-Classifies Public Information
It's hard to get information from the government. Even when the NSA releases information about itself, it claims the intel is classified. Follow Alex on TWITTER – https://twitter.com/RealAlexJon…

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

View post:
NSA Re-Classifies Public Information – Video



RON PAUL: Liberty, Not Government, is Key to Containing Ebola – 10/13/14
RON PAUL: Liberty, Not Government, is Key to Containing Ebola – 10/13/14 PLEASE click here to SUBSCRIBE to my channel.. SUBSCRIBE for more latest news / Economy | money | Economic collapse …

By: Super Documentary TV

Continued here:
RON PAUL: Liberty, Not Government, is Key to Containing Ebola – 10/13/14 – Video

Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor and infamous leaker of the agencys massive surveillance program, is again asking the government to allow him to return to the United States and stand trial for his alleged crimes. In an exclusive video interview with The New Yorker on Saturday, Snowden said government officials had routinely declined his requests to allow him to come back and stand trial.

Original post:
Edward Snowden Asks U.S. for a Fair Trial

noun 1.

an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, providing chiefly that no person be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case and that no person be subjected to a second trial for an offense for which he or she has been duly tried previously.

British Dictionary definitions for Fifth Amendment Expand

an amendment to the US Constitution stating that no person may be compelled to testify against himself and that no person may be tried for a second time on a charge for which he has already been acquitted

(US) take the fifth, take the fifth amendment, to refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it might incriminate oneself

Fifth Amendment in Culture Expand

One of the ten amendments to the United States Constitution that make up the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment imposes restrictions on the government’s prosecution of persons accused of crimes. It prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy and mandates due process of law.

Read the original post:
Fifth amendment | Define Fifth amendment at Dictionary.com

The criminal action taken by South Korean prosecutors against a former Seoul bureau chief of Japans Sankei Shimbun daily on the charge that his column posted online in August defamed President Park Geun-hye raises serious questions about the countrys commitment to freedom of the press. It could border on abuse of power if the South Korean investigators are using the charge of libel against a public figure like the president selectively on members of the media that are critical of her administration.

The column in question quoted rumors originally reported in the South Korean media and circulating in the financial industry that Park was with a man during the seven hours when her whereabouts was unconfirmed on April 16 the day the passenger ferry Sewol sank and killed more than 300 people, mostly teenagers on a school trip. The writer, Tatsuya Kato, was indicted Oct. 8 without being detained. He had been questioned three times by the prosecutors and banned from leaving the country since early August even though he was relieved of his position as bureau chief as of Oct. 1.

The Seoul prosecutors charge that Katos column defamed Parks reputation by carrying information without the minimum backup reporting necessary to support its validity.

The presidents office says Park was inside the presidential compound during the hours in question. The prosecutors were acting on a criminal complaint filed by a local conservative civic group against the article, but it would be safe to assume that the administration was behind the push for the indictment, given that a senior official of the presidents office said earlier that the South Korean authorities would pursue civil and criminal charges against the journalist.

When South Korea was under the rule of a succession of military dictators until the 1980s, people could be punished for defamation of the state by criticizing those in power.

Although such a law was abolished in the countrys subsequent democratization, certain restrictions linger on freedom of thought and expression, such as a national security law that can subject people to penalties for praising North Korea, which Seoul deems as illegally occupying the northern half of the peninsula.

There is reportedly criticism that the Park administration is also using the libel charge as a tool not only against members of the media but also against opposition lawmakers and lawyers that are critical of the government.

That no criminal action has been taken against or investigations made of Chosun Ilbo, a leading conservative South Korean newspaper that originally reported the rumors, has raised the question of whether the investigators selectively targeted the Japanese daily, which takes a position critical of the Park administration on many of the disputes between Japan and South Korea.

Sankei, which strongly protested and called for retraction of the action by the Seoul prosecutors, has said that the column was not meant to defame the president but to serve the publics interest by reporting on the developments in South Korea concerning the top government leaders whereabouts on the day the major accident took place.

Maximum restraint is urged on the use of defamation charges by those in power since such an action can be considered discretionary as a way of intimidating the people and organizations that criticize them.

See the article here:
Freedom of the press in South Korea

KUALA LUMPUR – There is a need to impose some restrictions on the freedom of speech to prevent abuse, said MCA deputy president Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong.

He, however, stressed that the law must be fair to everyone and no one should receive special treatment.

Stern action must be taken against those who have breached the law, whether they are from the ruling coalition or the Opposition, he said.

Abusing such freedom can destroy the peace and harmony of the society, he said, adding that acts such as the burning of Bibles could not be tolerated.

Dr Wee had called for a review of the Sedition Act to ensure fairness.

While respecting freedom of speech, there must be some restrictions (be it a new set of laws or amending existing ones) to prevent them from being abused, he said when opening the MCA Youth annual general assembly yesterday.

Dr Wee, who is also Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, said Chinese had gradually become a mainstream language in the world with emerging economic powers like China, adding that more than 40 million people were learning the language globally.

He described those who viewed Chinese education as a hindrance to national unity – whether such critics come from Barisan Nasional or the Opposition – were the real obstacles to nation building.

“MCA will not compromise and will fight till the end to defend Chinese education,” he reiterated, while stressing the need to build more Chinese schools and encourage more non-Chinese to be multi-lingual by learning Chinese as well as other languages such as Tamil and Arabic.

He noted that the Government had recognised these schools as part of the education system by allocating funds to them in Budget 2015.

View post:
Free speech restrictions in Malaysia needed to 'prevent abuse'

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

A US District Court has shot down a motion to toss out the government’s evidence against alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht, ruling that the FBI’s investigation did not violate Ulbricht’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In a 38-page ruling, District Judge Katherine Forrest wrote that the defense could not exclude evidence gathered from the Icelandic server that hosted the Silk Road darknet service, rejecting Ulbricht’s attorneys’ argument that the probe was conducted illegally.

The order, in large part, sides with the arguments put forward by the prosecutors in the case.

Ulbricht’s lawyers had argued that the FBI’s search of the server, which was carried out without a warrant, violated Ulbricht’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Judge Forrest, however, ruled that the Fourth Amendment did not apply in Ulbricht’s case.

In particular, the judge noted that Ulbricht had failed to establish that he had a “personal privacy interest” in the server. Had he submitted a sworn statement asserting such interest, she observed, it could not have been admitted as evidence of his guilt during his trial, although it could have been used to poke holes in his testimony should he take the witness stand.

Ulbricht has offered no such statement, however, presumably to keep his story straight: he denies being the operator of Silk Road. But if he doesn’t come forward and say the server is his, Judge Forrest said, he can’t establish that he has a personal privacy interest in it and absent the expectation of privacy, he can’t claim Fourth Amendment protection.

“Here, the Court does not know whether Ulbricht made a tactical choice because he is as they say between a rock and a hard place, or because he truly has no personal privacy interest in the servers at issue,” the judge wrote. “It is clear, however, that this Court may not proceed with a Fourth Amendment analysis in the absence of the requisite interest.”

The information gathered from the search of the Icelandic server was later used to issue warrants within the US to gather information in the investigation leading up to Ulbricht’s arrest on drug and conspiracy charges. Judge Forrest acknowledged that had the defense prevailed, virtually all of the evidence pinning Ulbricht as the head of Silk Road would have been excluded.

As it is, the judge declined Ulbricht’s lawyers’ motion to suppress the evidence against him and his case will move forward, with his trial due to begin in November.

Go here to read the rest:
Judge nukes Ulbricht's complaint about WARRANTLESS FBI Silk Road server raid

Twitter filed a lawsuit against the federal government this week over First Amendment rights, marking the latest round in a battle between tech companies and the government over how much they can reveal about government requests for their user information.

This debate began when Edward Snowden revealed information about the PRISM program, which suggested that the government was asking tech companies for private user information. Tech companies can report the number of requests they receive in broad terms. Twitter hopes to put users at ease by giving them more detail about the requests, but the government is keeping them quiet.

Here are some questions we thought you might be asking:

What kinds of requests is Twitter is being told it can’t talk about?

These are requests that basically could be related to people who the government thinks might be connected to, for example, terrorism. The government sends notices to a company like Twitter saying, “We want information about this individual or this group, and because it’s a matter of national security, you can’t even tell anyone we asked.” In its lawsuit, Twitter is saying that it has a First Amendment right to reveal that the government is asking it for information.

What is the government saying?

The government says that this is a matter of national security and revealing any information at all could actually jeopardize the investigation.

Why is Twitter taking up this fight?

Twitter and other tech companies were really put on the spot when Edward Snowden leaked information about the so-called PRISM program, which suggested there was wide government surveillance of user information that was stored with tech companies. For a company like Twitter, Google, Microsoft or any of these big players, it left them in this position of not being able to deny or confirm how much information they had given to the government. This made their customers uneasy. So they basically have said to the government that they want to be able to say something, and they’ve been fighting with the government for at least some degree of transparency.

So they can’t say anything at this point?

See the original post here:
Twitter Is Suing The U.S. Over Free Speech (Its Own)



Indian journalism and Government surveillance Part 1
Growing surveillance and monitoring of communication affects journalists and bloggers who work on investigative stories. Their sources and they need protection. The Hoot's Free Speech Hub,…

By: NitiCentral

See the original post:
Indian journalism and Government surveillance Part 1 – Video

Bujumbura (Burundi) (AFP) – Arrests, harassment, a clampdown on free speech: with less than a year before elections in Burundi, critics say the government is doing all it can clamp down on political challengers.

More here:
Burundi opposition under threat as elections approach



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com