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

Human Genetic Engineering – Popular Issues

 Human Genetic Engineering  Comments Off on Human Genetic Engineering – Popular Issues
Jul 282015
 

Human Genetic Engineering – A Hot Issue! Human genetic engineering is a hot topic in the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government. Time will tell how committed the United States will be regarding the absolute ban on human cloning.

Human Genetic Engineering – Position of the U.S. Government Human genetic engineering has made its way to Capitol Hill. On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would ban human cloning, not only for reproduction, but for medical research purposes as well. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, sponsored by Rep. Weldon (R-fL) and co-sponsored by over 100 Representatives, passed by a bipartisan vote of 265-to-162. The Act makes it unlawful to: “1) perform or attempt to perform human cloning, 2) participate in an attempt to perform cloning, or 3) ship or receive the product of human cloning for any purpose.” The Act also imposes penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and no less than $1,000,000 for breaking the law. The same bill, sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-kS), is currently being debated in the Senate.

The White House also opposes “any and all attempts to clone a human being; [they] oppose the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning techniques either to assist human reproduction or to develop cell or tissue-based therapies.”

Human Genetic Engineering – The Problems There are many arguments against human genetic engineering, including the established safety issues, the loss of identity and individuality, and human diversity. With therapeutic cloning, not only do the above issues apply, but you add all the moral and religious issues related to the willful killing of human embryos. Maybe the greatest concern of all is that man would become simply another man-made thing. As with any other man-made thing, the designer “stands above [its design], not as an equal but as a superior, transcending it by his will and creative prowess.” The cloned child will be dehumanized. (See, Leon Kass, Preventing a Brave New World: Why we should ban human cloning now, New Republic Online, May 21, 2001.)

Human Genetic Engineering – A Final Thought Human genetic engineering leads to man usurping God as the almighty creator and designer of life. No longer will a child be considered a blessing from God, but rather, a product manufactured by a scientist. Man will be a created being of man. However, man was always intended to be a created being of God, in His absolute love, wisdom and glory.

Learn More Now!

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Continued here:

Human Genetic Engineering – Popular Issues

Cryonics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Cryonics  Comments Off on Cryonics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jul 282015
 

For the study of the production of very low temperatures, see Cryogenics. For the low-temperature preservation of living tissue and organisms in general, see Cryopreservation. For the Hot Cross album, see Cryonics (album).

Cryonics (from Greek ‘kryos-‘ meaning ‘icy cold’) is the low-temperature preservation of animals and humans who cannot be sustained by contemporary medicine, with the hope that healing and resuscitation may be possible in the future.[1][2]

Cryopreservation of people or large animals is not reversible with current technology. The stated rationale for cryonics is that people who are considered dead by current legal or medical definitions may not necessarily be dead according to the more stringent information-theoretic definition of death.[3] It is proposed that cryopreserved people might someday be recovered by using highly advanced technology.[4]

Some scientific literature supports the feasibility of cryonics.[4][5] An open letter supporting the idea of cryonics has been signed by 63 scientists, including Aubrey de Grey and Marvin Minsky.[6] However, many other scientists regard cryonics with skepticism.[7] As of 2013, approximately 270 people have undergone cryopreservation procedures since cryonics was first proposed in 1962.[8][9] In the United States, cryonics can only be legally performed on humans after they have been pronounced legally dead, as otherwise it would be considered murder or assisted suicide.[10]

Cryonics procedures ideally begin within minutes of cardiac arrest, and use cryoprotectants to prevent ice formation during cryopreservation.[11] However, the idea of cryonics also includes preservation of people long after legal death because of the possibility that brain structures that encode memory and personality may still persist and be inferable in the future. Whether sufficient brain information still exists for cryonics to successfully preserve may be intrinsically unprovable by present knowledge.[12] Therefore, most proponents of cryonics see it as an intervention with prospects for success that vary widely depending on circumstances.

A central premise of cryonics is that long-term memory, personality, and identity are stored in durable cell structures and patterns within the brain that do not require continuous brain activity to survive.[13] This premise is generally accepted in medicine; it is known that under certain conditions the brain can stop functioning and still later recover with retention of long-term memory.[14][15] Additional scientific premises of cryonics[16] are that (1) brain structures encoding personality and long-term memory persist for some time after legal death, (2) these structures are preserved by cryopreservation, and (3) future technologies that could restore encoded memories to functional expression in a healed person are theoretically possible. At present only cells, tissues, and some small organs can be reversibly cryopreserved.[17][18]

Cryonics advocates say it is possible to preserve the fine cell structures of the brain in which memory and identity reside with present technology.[19] They say that demonstrably reversible cryopreservation is not necessary to achieve the present-day goal of cryonics, which is preservation of brain information that encodes memory and personal identity. They say current cryonics procedures can preserve the anatomical basis of mind,[11] and that this should be sufficient to prevent information-theoretic death until future repairs might be possible.[20]

A moral premise of cryonics is that all terminally ill patients should have the right, if they so choose, to be cryopreserved.[21] Some cryonicists believe as a matter of principle that anyone who would ordinarily be regarded as dead should instead be made a “permanent patient” subject to whatever future advances might bring.[22]

Long-term cryopreservation can be achieved by cooling to near 77.15 Kelvin (approximately -196.01C), the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. It is a common mistaken belief that cells will lyse (burst) due to the formation of ice crystals within the cell, since this only occurs if the freezing rate exceeds the osmotic loss of water to the extracellular space.[23] However, damage from freezing can still be serious; ice may still form between cells, causing mechanical and chemical damage. Cryonics organizations use cryoprotectants to reduce this damage. Cryoprotectant solutions are circulated through blood vessels to remove and replace water inside cells with chemicals that prevent freezing. This can reduce damage greatly,[24] but freezing of the entire body still causes injuries that are not reversible with present technology. The difficulties of recovering complex organisms from a frozen state have been long known. Attempts to recover large frozen mammals by simply rewarming were abandoned by 1957.[25]

When used at high concentrations, cryoprotectants stop ice formation completely. Cooling and solidification without crystal formation is called vitrification.[26] The first cryoprotectant solutions able to vitrify at very slow cooling rates while still being compatible with tissue survival were developed in the late 1990s by cryobiologists Gregory Fahy and Brian Wowk for the purpose of banking transplantable organs.[27][28] These solutions were adopted for use in cryonics by the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, for which they are believed to permit vitrification of some parts of the human body, especially the brain.[29] This has allowed animal brains to be vitrified, warmed back up, and examined for ice damage using light and electron microscopy. No ice crystal damage was found.[20][30] The Cryonics Institute also uses a vitrification solution developed by their staff cryobiologist, Yuri Pichugin, applying it principally to the brain.[31]

More:

Cryonics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fourth Amendment – the Text, Origins, and Meaning

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Fourth Amendment – the Text, Origins, and Meaning
Jul 242015
 

Yellow Dog Productions/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Text of Amendment:

Writs of Assistance:

The Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official.

These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all. Since many of the founding fathers were smugglers, this was an especially unpopular concept in the colonies.

Limited Power:

In practical terms, there is no means by which the government can exercise prior restraint on law enforcement officials. If an officer in Jackson, Mississippi wants to conduct a warrantless search without probable cause, the judiciary is not present at the time and can’t prevent the search. This meant that the Fourth Amendment had little power or relevance until 1914.

The Exclusionary Rule:

In Weeks v. United States (1914), the Supreme Court established what has been known as the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is inadmissible in court and cannot be used as part of the prosecution’s case. Before Weeks, law enforcement officials could violate the Fourth Amendment without being punished for it, secure the evidence, and use it at trial.

The exclusionary rule establishes consequences for violating a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The rest is here:
Fourth Amendment – the Text, Origins, and Meaning

Dover Beaches North, New Jersey – Wikipedia, the free …

 Beaches  Comments Off on Dover Beaches North, New Jersey – Wikipedia, the free …
Jul 242015
 

“Normandy Beach” redirects here. For the beaches involved in the World War 2 invasion of Normandy, see Normandy Landings.

Dover Beaches North is an unincorporated community and census designated place (CDP) located within Toms River, in Ocean County, New Jersey, United States.[7][8][9] As of the 2010 United States Census, the CDP’s population was 1,239.[3] The CDP includes the communities of Ocean Beaches 1, 2 and 3, Chadwick Beach, Chadwick Island, Seacrest Beach, Monterey Beach, Silver Beach, Normandy Shores and half of Normandy Beach. Dover Beaches North is situated on the Barnegat Peninsula, a long, narrow barrier peninsula that separates Barnegat Bay from the Atlantic Ocean.

Toms River Township is split by the United States Census Bureau into three CDPs; Toms River CDP on the mainland including over 95% of the township’s population, along with Dover Beaches North and Dover Beaches South.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP had a total area of 1.587 square miles (4.111km2), of which, 0.922 square miles (2.387km2) of it was land and 0.665 square miles (1.723km2) of it (41.92%) was water.[1][10]

At the 2010 United States Census, there were 1,239 people, 702 households, and 364.3 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 1,344.2 per square mile (519.0/km2). There were 4,071 housing units at an average density of 4,416.6 per square mile (1,705.3/km2). The racial makeup of the CDP was 98.71% (1,223) White, 0.24% (3) Black or African American, 0.40% (5) Native American, 0.32% (4) Asian, 0.00% (0) Pacific Islander, 0.16% (2) from other races, and 0.16% (2) from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 1.94% (24) of the population.[3]

There were 702 households, of which 6.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 45.4% were married couples living together, 4.7% had a female householder with no husband present, and 48.1% were non-families. 43.7% of all households were made up of individuals, and 24.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 1.76 and the average family size was 2.36.[3]

In the CDP, 6.1% of the population were under the age of 18, 2.7% from 18 to 24, 11.5% from 25 to 44, 36.2% from 45 to 64, and 43.4% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 62.6 years. For every 100 females there were 88.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.6 males.[3]

As of the 2000 United States Census[4] there were 1,785 people, 974 households, and 529 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 703.3/km2 (1,821.8/mi2). There were 4,119 housing units at an average density of 1,622.8/km2 (4,203.9/mi2). The racial makeup of the CDP was 100% White.[11]

There were 974 households out of which 9.5% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 46.7% were married couples living together, 5.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 45.6% were non-families. 42.2% of all households were made up of individuals and 24.0% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 1.83 and the average family size was 2.44.[11]

In the CDP the population was spread out with 9.0% under the age of 18, 3.6% from 18 to 24, 18.2% from 25 to 44, 30.7% from 45 to 64, and 38.5% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 58 years. For every 100 females there were 90.1 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 91.0 males.[11]

Read the original here:
Dover Beaches North, New Jersey – Wikipedia, the free …

Bloodlines of the Illuminati: Fritz Springmeier …

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Bloodlines of the Illuminati: Fritz Springmeier …
Jul 222015
 

The latest edition of Bloodlines of the Illuminati… Direct from the Distrubutor *************************** You’ve seen pieces of the puzzle, but still you wonder… Bloodlines of the Illuminati is a unique historical genealogical who’s-doing-it book, rich in detail, providing a devastating expos of the people and families who are THE movers and shakers of the United States and the entire world. You will recognize some of the names instantly. Many names have been purposely hidden from mainstream view. From international finance to war, presidents and dictators alike pay heed to these people. “Influence” doesn’t even come close to describing their power. They have plans for you. Who are they? Author, Fritz Springmeier provides a wealth of material and inside information based on eyewitnesses. His outstanding research provides facts that are not available elsewhere. When you finish reading this book, the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place and you’ll see the fascinating big picture. You will know who actually runs the New World Order conspiracy, and who is in the Illuminati. You may discover for yourself why Bloodlines of the Illuminati was a bestseller in Japan, a nation which thrives on detail. IF YOU ENJOYED THE PREVIOUS EDITION OF BLOODLINES, YOU’LL LOVE THE NEW EDITION EVEN MORE… completely revised, the new “Bloodlines of the Illuminati” has more info and better photos. The 3rd Edition’s large print size (7″ X 10″) makes for easier reading. * Hot new information exposing Wolf Head (a group similar to Skull & Bones). * New genealogy charts, one shows how 25 Presidents are related, another how Prince Charles is related to Count Dracula. * More information on all the bloodlines.

View original post here:
Bloodlines of the Illuminati: Fritz Springmeier …

About Regenerative Medicine Research at the Texas Heart …

 Regenerative Medicine  Comments Off on About Regenerative Medicine Research at the Texas Heart …
Jul 222015
 

Dr.DorisTayloris involved in both laboratory and clinical studies using cell therapy to treat disease. Almost5 million Americans are living with heart failure and more than half a million new cases are diagnosed annually. Almost 50,000 people die each year while awaiting a heart transplant and, for a decade or more, only about 2,200 heart transplants have been performed in the entire United States. The need is dwarfed by the availability of donor organs.

This is one of the reasons there is such hope placed in the promising field of regenerative medicine. The groundbreaking work of Dr. Taylor and her team has demonstrated the ability in the lab to strip organs, including the heart, of their cellular make-up leaving a decellularized “scaffold.” The heartcan then be re-seeded with cells that, when supplied with blood and oxygen, regenerate the scaffold into a functioning heart. Dr. Taylor calls this using nature’s platform to create a bioartificial heart.

The hope is that this research is an early step toward being able to grow a fully functional human heart in the laboratory. Dr. Taylor has demonstrated that the process works for other organs as well, such as kidney, pancreas, lung, and liver where she has already tested the same approachopening a door in the field of organ transplantation.

Read more from the original source:
About Regenerative Medicine Research at the Texas Heart …

eugenics | genetics | Britannica.com

 Eugenics  Comments Off on eugenics | genetics | Britannica.com
Jul 212015
 

eugenics,the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwins theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable. Social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by survival of the fittest, helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I, many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and 40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.

Galton, Sir FrancisCourtesy of The National Portrait Gallery, LondonAlthough eugenics as understood today dates from the late 19th century, efforts to select matings in order to secure offspring with desirable traits date from ancient times. Platos Republic (c. 378 bce) depicts a society where efforts are undertaken to improve human beings through selective breeding. Later, Italian philosopher and poet Tommaso Campanella, in City of the Sun (1623), described a utopian community in which only the socially elite are allowed to procreate. Galton, in Hereditary Genius (1869), proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. In 1865, the basic laws of heredity were discovered by the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel. His experiments with peas demonstrated that each physical trait was the result of a combination of two units (now known as genes) and could be passed from one generation to another. However, his work was largely ignored until its rediscovery in 1900. This fundamental knowledge of heredity provided eugenicistsincluding Galton, who influenced his cousin Charles Darwinwith scientific evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

The advancement of eugenics was concurrent with an increasing appreciation of Charles Darwins account for change or evolution within societywhat contemporaries referred to as Social Darwinism. Darwin had concluded his explanations of evolution by arguing that the greatest step humans could make in their own history would occur when they realized that they were not completely guided by instinct. Rather, humans, through selective reproduction, had the ability to control their own future evolution. A language pertaining to reproduction and eugenics developed, leading to terms such as positive eugenics, defined as promoting the proliferation of good stock, and negative eugenics, defined as prohibiting marriage and breeding between defective stock. For eugenicists, nature was far more contributory than nurture in shaping humanity.

During the early 1900s, eugenics became a serious scientific study pursued by both biologists and social scientists. They sought to determine the extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited. Among their greatest concerns were the predictability of intelligence and certain deviant behaviours. Eugenics, however, was not confined to scientific laboratories and academic institutions. It began to pervade cultural thought around the globe, including the Scandinavian countries, most other European countries, North America, Latin America, Japan, China, and Russia. In the United States, the eugenics movement began during the Progressive Era and remained active through 1940. It gained considerable support from leading scientific authorities such as zoologist Charles B. Davenport, plant geneticist Edward M. East, and geneticist and Nobel Prize laureate Hermann J. Muller. Political leaders in favour of eugenics included U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, Secretary of State Elihu Root, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall Harlan. Internationally, there were many individuals whose work supported eugenic aims, including British scientists J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley and Russian scientists Nikolay K. Koltsov and Yury A. Filipchenko.

Pearson, KarlCourtesy of Professor D.V. Lindley; photograph, J.R. Freeman & Co. Ltd.Galton had endowed a research fellowship in eugenics in 1904 and, in his will, provided funds for a chair of eugenics at University College, London. The fellowship and later the chair were occupied by Karl Pearson, a brilliant mathematician who helped to create the science of biometry, the statistical aspects of biology. Pearson was a controversial figure who believed that environment had little to do with the development of mental or emotional qualities. He felt that the high birth rate of the poor was a threat to civilization and that the higher races must supplant the lower. His views gave countenance to those who believed in racial and class superiority. Thus, Pearson shares the blame for the discredit later brought on eugenics.

In the United States, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was opened at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N.Y., in 1910 with financial support from the legacy of railroad magnate Edward Henry Harriman. Whereas ERO efforts were officially overseen by Charles B. Davenport, director of the Station for Experimental Study of Evolution (one of the biology research stations at Cold Spring Harbor), ERO activities were directly superintended by Harry H. Laughlin, a professor from Kirksville, Mo. The ERO was organized around a series of missions. These missions included serving as the national repository and clearinghouse for eugenics information, compiling an index of traits in American families, training field-workers to gather data throughout the United States, supporting investigations into the inheritance patterns of particular human traits and diseases, advising on the eugenic fitness of proposed marriages, and communicating all eugenic findings through a series of publications. To accomplish these goals, further funding was secured from the Carnegie Institution of Washington, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Battle Creek Race Betterment Foundation, and the Human Betterment Foundation.

Prior to the founding of the ERO, eugenics work in the United States was overseen by a standing committee of the American Breeders Association (eugenics section established in 1906), chaired by ichthyologist and Stanford University president David Starr Jordan. Research from around the globe was featured at three international congresses, held in 1912, 1921, and 1932. In addition, eugenics education was monitored in Britain by the English Eugenics Society (founded by Galton in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society) and in the United States by the American Eugenics Society.

Following World War I, the United States gained status as a world power. A concomitant fear arose that if the healthy stock of the American people became diluted with socially undesirable traits, the countrys political and economic strength would begin to crumble. The maintenance of world peace by fostering democracy, capitalism, and, at times, eugenics-based schemes was central to the activities of the Internationalists, a group of prominent American leaders in business, education, publishing, and government. One core member of this group, the New York lawyer Madison Grant, aroused considerable pro-eugenic interest through his best-selling book The Passing of the Great Race (1916). Beginning in 1920, a series of congressional hearings was held to identify problems that immigrants were causing the United States. As the countrys eugenics expert, Harry Laughlin provided tabulations showing that certain immigrants, particularly those from Italy, Greece, and Eastern Europe, were significantly overrepresented in American prisons and institutions for the feebleminded. Further data were construed to suggest that these groups were contributing too many genetically and socially inferior people. Laughlins classification of these individuals included the feebleminded, the insane, the criminalistic, the epileptic, the inebriate, the diseasedincluding those with tuberculosis, leprosy, and syphilisthe blind, the deaf, the deformed, the dependent, chronic recipients of charity, paupers, and neer-do-wells. Racial overtones also pervaded much of the British and American eugenics literature. In 1923, Laughlin was sent by the U.S. secretary of labour as an immigration agent to Europe to investigate the chief emigrant-exporting nations. Laughlin sought to determine the feasibility of a plan whereby every prospective immigrant would be interviewed before embarking to the United States. He provided testimony before Congress that ultimately led to a new immigration law in 1924 that severely restricted the annual immigration of individuals from countries previously claimed to have contributed excessively to the dilution of American good stock.

Immigration control was but one method to control eugenically the reproductive stock of a country. Laughlin appeared at the centre of other U.S. efforts to provide eugenicists greater reproductive control over the nation. He approached state legislators with a model law to control the reproduction of institutionalized populations. By 1920, two years before the publication of Laughlins influential Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), 3,200 individuals across the country were reported to have been involuntarily sterilized. That number tripled by 1929, and by 1938 more than 30,000 people were claimed to have met this fate. More than half of the states adopted Laughlins law, with California, Virginia, and Michigan leading the sterilization campaign. Laughlins efforts secured staunch judicial support in 1927. In the precedent-setting case of Buck v. Bell, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., upheld the Virginia statute and claimed, It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

During the 1930s, eugenics gained considerable popular support across the United States. Hygiene courses in public schools and eugenics courses in colleges spread eugenic-minded values to many. A eugenics exhibit titled Pedigree-Study in Man was featured at the Chicago Worlds Fair in 193334. Consistent with the fairs Century of Progress theme, stations were organized around efforts to show how favourable traits in the human population could best be perpetuated. Contrasts were drawn between the emulative, presidential Roosevelt family and the degenerate Ishmael family (one of several pseudonymous family names used, the rationale for which was not given). By studying the passage of ancestral traits, fairgoers were urged to adopt the progressive view that responsible individuals should pursue marriage ever mindful of eugenics principles. Booths were set up at county and state fairs promoting fitter families contests, and medals were awarded to eugenically sound families. Drawing again upon long-standing eugenic practices in agriculture, popular eugenic advertisements claimed it was about time that humans received the same attention in the breeding of better babies that had been given to livestock and crops for centuries.

Read the original post:

eugenics | genetics | Britannica.com

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …
Jul 212015
 

Eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[1] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[2] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[3]

Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Khl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]

During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered[by whom?] a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements[citation needed] (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics.

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[8] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”.[9] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix.[10] W. E. B. Du Bois believed only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the races heritage of moral iniquity.”[10][11]

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[6] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[8] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[8][12] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[13] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[6] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[14] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[15]

By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeders Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[16][17] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[18] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[19][verification needed]

Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Womens Clubs, the Womans Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[20]

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[21][22] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. She advocated sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.[21] Unlike other eugenicists, she rejected euthanasia.[23] For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[24][25]

In the Deep South, womens associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[26] Between 1915 and 1920, federated womens clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[27] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Womens Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[28] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent them from breeding more feebleminded” individuals.

See the original post:

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

America in Prophecy: A Transhuman Replicant Future | Paul …

 Transhuman  Comments Off on America in Prophecy: A Transhuman Replicant Future | Paul …
Jul 212015
 

The Bible warned about global government with the account of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, mankinds first global government. The Tower of Babel and Babylon were not the product of primitive cultures. It is very possible that the charismatic leader, Nimrod, who planned and organized the Tower of Babel, was a genetically enhanced super-being, who was the product of interspecies breeding between fallen angels and human women. As such, Nimrod would have been one the worlds first posthuman leaders and a Nephilim. This would have supported the thesis that some human civilizations before the Flood of Noah were highly technologically advanced and that the Tower of Babel was a stargate or portal, which allowed entities from different dimensions access to planet earth. These ancient Babylonian occult religions and their technology may have reappeared on the scene after the Flood. Francis Bacons ideas of a New Atlantis, which seems to be the secret philosophy upon which America was built, appears to be acting like a nano-technology guidance system that is reshaping Americas body electric. Just as electrical signals can cause eyes to be grown in a frogs stomach, so ideas can radically transform America as we know it. Transhumansim and global government, managed by a scientific elite, appear to be the plan for the United States of America. The NATO Summit in Chicago, which may look like something out of the movie Blade Runner, could be the dream of global governance in Daniels prophecy of a Revived Roman Empire. Instead of Roman legions, there could be Russian Special Forces troops protecting the empire.

Currently Russian soldiers are training near Fort Carson, Colorado as part of a bi-lateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia in order to improve skills related to fighting terrorism. In an April 23, 2012 article entitled, Blade Runner: What It Means to Be Human in the Cybernetic State by John W. Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, Whitehead writes:

If Michelangelo were alive in Ridley Scotts future world, rather than portraying God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, he would likely paint the human creators of the Tyrell Corporation, the worlds leading manufacturer of replicants which has just introduced the Nexus-6, a replicant with far greater strength and intelligence than human beings. These latest-model replicants represent an obvious potential danger to human society, and their introduction on Earthan offense calling for the death penaltyhas been strictly outlawed. When the replicants somehow make their way back to Earth, they are systematically retired (but not killed since they are inhuman) by special detectives or Blade Runners trained to track down and liquidate the infiltrators.

The signs of the times that Jesus Christ warned us about are happening right before our eyes. Jesus Christ predicted that there would be wars and rumors of wars, nation fighting nation, which comes from the word ethnos, which could imply conflict between ethnic and racial groups. A comprehensive translation of the words of Jesus would include earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods, famines, plagues, lawlessness, anarchy and immorality, in what the Bible calls the Last Days. But Christ also warned of a coming charismatic politician who would unite the world into a one world government.

The signs are now occurring with increasing intensity and frequency. A super volcano under Yellowstone could trigger a global chain reaction connected to other super volcanoes. Earthquakes are shaking every continent on planet earth and earthquakes near the Canary Islands could send a five hundred foot high wall of water across the Pacific Ocean and submerge parts of the coastlines. The tsunamis produced by powerful earthquakes could submerge part of the West Coast of the United States and put parts of Europe under water.

A pervasive lawlessness and immorality is engulfing every nation. Human sex trafficking that includes little babies is becoming a multi-billion dollar industry. Israel was reformed as a nation in 1948, as the ancient Hebrew prophets predicted, and the Revived Roman Empire that the prophet Daniel outlined may still arise from the chaos of the European Union. Yet, one nation seems conspicuously absent from the ancient Biblical prophecies and that is the United States of America.

People ask me all the time, Paul where is America in Bible prophecy? They cannot understand how a nation as large and powerful as the United States would not be mentioned by name in the Bible. The answer to that question may simply be that America will no longer exist as a separate and distinct nation. It will either exist under a different name or America will become part of the Revived Roman Empire or coming one world government. A clue to Americas prophetic destiny may be in the architecture and symbolism of our nations capitol, Washington D.C. Washington D.C. and its architectural design are built on the ideas of ancient Rome. In fact, the Capitol building is designed after the Roman Pantheon, which was dedicated not to the Judeo-Christian God, but to the pagan gods.

Through the influence of a Rosicrucian-Masonic brotherhood, Washington D.C. seems to be constructed to be the capital of Francis Bacons vision of the New Atlantis, which is likely to become the center of the New World Order. On the back of the dollar bill we read the words Novus Ordos Seclorum, which means New Order of the Ages or New World Order. These words are found below an Egyptian pyramid with the all-seeing eye of Lucifer above it, inside of a smaller pyramid. This occult symbolism signifies that in the New World Order, a Luciferian elite will rule the masses; or to use the terminology of the Fabian socialists like H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, a scientific elite. This is the restructuring that is going on in America right now.

Nimrod ruled the first global government in Babylon and built the Tower of Babylon as an astrological worship portal that would place men to rule like gods in the heavens. Ancient Babylon, along with its mystery religions, is the spiritual fountainhead for the New World Order. The Freemason architects astrologically aligned the U.S. capital with the constellation Virgo (Isis). There is a picture of George Washington wearing a Masonic apron during a ceremony which dedicates the Washington capitol to these unseen pagan gods or entities that were allegedly present during the ceremony.

If you look carefully at Washingtons apron, you see the symbolism of a radiant eye or the all-seeing eye of Lucifer. The occult ceremony was an invitation for participation by the Egyptian god Horus or Osiris, which is the Greek god Apollo. The Roman gods Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are an important part of astrology, but they are also the names of many of the NASA space programs. Is this merely coincidence?

Go here to read the rest:
America in Prophecy: A Transhuman Replicant Future | Paul …

Libertarianism in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarianism in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …
Jun 202015
 

Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting individual liberty and minimized government.[1][2] The Libertarian Party, asserts the following to be core beliefs of libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.[3][4]

Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17%- 23% of the US electorate.[5] This includes members of the Republican Party (especially Libertarian Republicans), Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, and Independents.

In the 1950s many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.”[6] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market libertarianism has spread beyond the U.S. since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[7][8] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[9][10] However, libertarian socialist intellectuals Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward, and others argue that the term “libertarianism” is considered a synonym for social anarchism by the international community and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.[11][12][13]

Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement,[14] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.[15] Goldwater’s speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[16]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[17][18] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.[19]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty, and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[20] The split was finalized in 1971 when conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., in a 1971 New York Times article, attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: “The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded.”[21]

In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party.[22] Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[23]

Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[24] According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia.”[25]

Texas congressman Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns for the Republican Party presidential nomination were largely libertarian. Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization.

Original post:
Libertarianism in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

First Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

 First Amendment  Comments Off on First Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com
Jun 192015
 

First Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, which reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually interpreted this to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by the federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, procommunist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. Furthermore, the government may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, public figures may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles, unless the articles are not just offensive but include statements that fall within the false statements of fact exception.

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Read the original:
First Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Why Do The UK And Argentina Hate Each Other? – Video

 Islands  Comments Off on Why Do The UK And Argentina Hate Each Other? – Video
Apr 132015
 



Why Do The UK And Argentina Hate Each Other?
Why Venezuela Hates The United States http://testu.be/1FjzsAt Subscribe! http://bitly.com/1iLOHml For the past few centuries, relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina have been pretty…

By: TestTube

Excerpt from:
Why Do The UK And Argentina Hate Each Other? – Video

PunditFact: Fact-checking John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden about NSA surveillance

 NSA  Comments Off on PunditFact: Fact-checking John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden about NSA surveillance
Apr 112015
 

Most Americans have a fuzzy understanding of what the National Security Agency can and cannot see with its surveillance programs, much less what a former NSA contractor named Edward Snowden tried to do about it.

That’s the finding, anyway, of informal street interviews by John Oliver’s crew at Last Week Tonight on HBO.

Oliver devoted his April 5 show to the NSA spying story. It included an exclusive interview with Snowden, who is living in Russia after the State Department canceled his passport. And it included the topic of this fact-check: Can emails sent between two people living in the United States unwittingly end up on the computer screen of some NSA analyst?

Oliver, who blends comedy with journalism, framed the discussion around the NSA peeping on nude pictures.

Oliver asked Snowden to describe the capability of various NSA surveillance programs in relation to nude pictures sent by Americans, starting with “702 surveillance.” This refers to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This section was added in 2008 and was renewed under President Barack Obama in 2012.

Could the NSA see a picture of, say, Oliver’s privates under this provision, he asked?

“Yes,” Snowden said, “the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which Section 702 falls under, allows the bulk collection of Internet communications that are one-end foreign.”

After an Oliver joke about “bulk collection,” Snowden continued, “So if you have your email somewhere like Gmail, hosted on a server overseas or transferred overseas or any time crosses outside the borders of the United States, your junk ends up in the database.”

Oliver jumped in and asked Snowden to clarify that the racy picture if you’ve seen the interview, you know we’re paraphrasing wouldn’t necessarily have to be sent to Germany in order to end up in NSA storage.

“No,” Snowden said. “Even if you sent it to someone within the United States, your wholly domestic communication between you and your wife can go to New York to London and back and get caught up in the database.”

View original post here:
PunditFact: Fact-checking John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden about NSA surveillance

Is encryption the Second Amendment for the Internet?

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Is encryption the Second Amendment for the Internet?
Apr 112015
 

Last week, FBI Director James Comey once again campaigned for backdoors into the encryption programs of tech companies, writes Sunday Yokubaitis at the Daily Dot.

Tech execs say privacy should be the paramount virtue, he told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. When I hear that, I close my eyes and try to imagine what the world looks like where pedophiles cant be seen, kidnappers cant be seen, [and] drug dealers cant be seen.

The United States government is playing to fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The reality is the government already collects a tremendous amount of personal data about its citizens through the location data our phones give away, National Security Agency metadata programs and online shopping habits without our consent.

Encryption is how privacy-conscious Internet users fight back against the unblinking eye of government mass surveillance and protect themselves online. Even if the NSA can break some encryption technologies, were at least making it harder and more expensive for them to track law-abiding citizens en masse. When Comey asks for backdoors, he is really just asking to make his job easierwith dubious benefits and very serious risks.

We must protect encryption because backdoors are inherently insecure.

Todays Question: Is encryption the Second Amendment for the Internet?

Read more:
Is encryption the Second Amendment for the Internet?

Whistleblower William Binney on NSA Spying – Video

 NSA  Comments Off on Whistleblower William Binney on NSA Spying – Video
Apr 082015
 



Whistleblower William Binney on NSA Spying
William Edward Binney is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency (NSA) turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more…

By: Non Mirage Truth Vision

Continue reading here:
Whistleblower William Binney on NSA Spying – Video

The NSA Is Collecting Your Racy Pics, Snowden Says

 NSA  Comments Off on The NSA Is Collecting Your Racy Pics, Snowden Says
Apr 082015
 

Americans shouldn’t curb their use of the Internet simply to avoid having intimate pictures or personal information intercepted by the NSA, according to Edward Snowden.

“You shouldn’t change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing,” the former surveillance contractor turned leaker told HBO’s John Oliver. “If we sacrifice our values because we’re afraid, we don’t care about those values very much.”

Snowden spoke to the “Last Week Tonight” host in Moscow, where he has been for more than a year since being charged with espionage after leaking classified information regarding the NSA’s extensive surveillance programs.

Oliver asked Snowden to explain the implications of NSA surveillance on racy personal photos.

“The good news is there’s no program named ‘the d*** pic program’,” Snowden said. “The bad news is they’re still collecting everybody’s information including your d*** pics.

He added: “When you send your junk through Gmail, for example, that is stored on Google’s servers. Google moves that data from data center to data center invisibly to you. Without your knowledge, your data could be moved outside the borders of the United States temporarily. When your junk was passed by Gmail the NSA caught a copy of that.”

The North Carolina-born Snowden also explained his decision to reveal classified information, saying he wanted to make Americans aware that government agencies were snooping on U.S. citizens.

“I worked with mass surveillance systems against Chinese hackers I saw that these things have some purpose,” he told Oliver. “What you don’t want is them spying inside your own country. Spies are great when they’re on your own side. When they’re off the leash they can end up coming after us.

“I did this to give the American people a chance to decide for themselves the kind of government they want to have. That is a conversation that I think the American people deserve to decide.”

– Alastair Jamieson

Go here to read the rest:
The NSA Is Collecting Your Racy Pics, Snowden Says

Pence signs 'fix' for religious freedom law

 Freedom  Comments Off on Pence signs 'fix' for religious freedom law
Apr 082015
 

Top Indiana Republican lawmakers overhauled their week-old religious freedom law Thursday with a follow-up measure intended to ease concerns driven by businesses that it could lead to discrimination. Gov. Mike Pence then signed it into law.

The changes appear to have tamped down some of the criticism — but in doing so Pence and lawmakers infuriated social conservative activists and set the stage for a bigger fight next year over expanding Indiana’s anti-discrimination law to cover gays and lesbians.

Republican legislative leaders unveiled their series of changes Thursday morning to the law that triggered intense backlash from businesses, sports associations, pro-LGBT groups and even fiscally-focused conservatives when Pence signed it last week.

The GOP-dominated House and Senate approved a legislative fix, which was added into an unrelated bill, on Thursday, sending it to Pence’s desk almost immediately.

Despite last-minute lobbying from conservative groups like Indiana Right to Life to get Pence to veto the fix, the governor signed it Thursday evening.

“In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful,” Pence said in a statement.

“There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, ‘What is best for Indiana?'” he said. “I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana.”

The changes prohibit businesses from using the law as a defense in court for refusing “to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing” to any customers based on “race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.”

It doesn’t accomplish what the law’s critics wanted most: Adding sexual orientation to the list of categories protected by Indiana’s anti-discrimination law.

But that debate, GOP legislators acknowledged, is coming soon. House Speaker Brian Bosma said the backlash against the religious freedom law has “opened many perspectives” and that the anti-discrimination law “needs to be discussed.”

See original here:
Pence signs 'fix' for religious freedom law

Bitcoin Foundation is effectively bankrupt, board member says

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on Bitcoin Foundation is effectively bankrupt, board member says
Apr 072015
 

Further Reading One of the newly-elected board members of the Bitcoin Foundationthe 2.5-year-old organization that was meant to bring order to the famously open-source and freewheeling cryptocurrencyhas declared the group “effectively bankrupt.”

While the Bitcoin Foundation obviously does not have control over Bitcoin itself, its the closest thing to a public face that the community has. Individual memberships start at $25, while corporate memberships start at $1,000 annually. The non-profits own tax filings from 2013 show that it ended that year with over $4.7 million in total assetsnearly five times as much as it had at the same time the previous year. It has yet to release financial details for 2014.

The organization was founded in 2012 by a number of Bitcoin luminaries who have since fallen, and the group itselfhas been marred by controversy in recent months. Of its original five founders, one is in now prison (Charlie Shrem), another oversaw the collapse of the largest Bitcoin exchange (Mark Karpeles), and yet another has since left the United States for a Caribbean nation known for offshore banking (Roger Ver). Of the original board members, only Bitcoin lead developer Gavin Andresen has remained.

The Bitcoin Foundation did not immediately respond to Ars request for comment, nor did it address the issue on Twitter or its blog.

In a Saturday blog post, the new member, Olivier Janssens, claimed that the group has been hiding this financial distress from its membership. As he wrote:

The Bitcoin Foundation hates transparency. If they would have been transparent then everyone would know there is no money left. Something I think the members have a right to know, wouldnt you think? Members have a right to know that the current board failed to tell them the truth, and that their way of running the organization resulted in it going bankrupt. But instead of taking responsibility, they want to find the next executive director that will come up with another magic plan. Ironically, being transparent from the start might have prevented this whole thing to begin with.

Janssenspreviously said in May 2014 that he would resign his lifetime membership from the organization after board member Brock Pierce wasallegedlylinked to a sex abuse case. He ultimately decided not to leave it and wanted to reform thingsfrom withinJanssens recently stood for election to the groups board and succeeded on that effort.

“My big issue was that they did not tell the membership about the real financial status,” Janssens told Ars via an encrypted chat on the Telegraph app.”You cant be a member-run non-profit and still try to get money from your corporate or individual sponsors while hiding the fact that youre near-bankrupt. Thats the reason I came forward, I could not live with that. Thats up to the members to decide.”

Janssens said he would prefer to heed whatever the groups existing members decide.

“If its up to me, Id make it a positive-only organization, no longer involved in any power position,” he added.”I would think its great to engage the members and make a map of every store in the USA, and have members go store to store to convince them of the benefits of Bitcoin, and in return they could get an affiliate percent or a referral reward. I also see the Foundation helping to organize mass changetip events to get a bitcoin (or bit) into the hands of every person in this world. For something like that, it can be very useful, and add a lot of value to Bitcoin itself. Its a non-threatening, positive thing to do.”

Link:
Bitcoin Foundation is effectively bankrupt, board member says

United States: religious freedom law sparks controversy – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on United States: religious freedom law sparks controversy – Video
Apr 072015
 



United States: religious freedom law sparks controversy
Subscribe to France 24 now: http://bit.ly/France24Subscribe INSIDE THE AMERICAS : This week, lawmakers in Indiana brought in new legislation to protect religious freedom. But opponents say…

By: FRANCE 24 English

Originally posted here:
United States: religious freedom law sparks controversy – Video

Indiana, Arkansas, and other 'religious freedom' laws: Trouble for the GOP (+video)

 Freedom  Comments Off on Indiana, Arkansas, and other 'religious freedom' laws: Trouble for the GOP (+video)
Apr 072015
 

The governors of Indiana and Arkansas Republicans Mike Pence and Asa Hutchinson likely are spending Easter weekend wondering what they might have done to avert the adverse political wave that rolled them over this past week.

It was worse for Indianas Gov. Pence, who had to backtrack on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act hed just signed, calling on state legislators to clarify the law so that it no longer so obviously allowed for discrimination of gays and lesbians.

Arkansas Gov. Hutchinson, learning from Pences experience, quickly said hed veto that states RFRA bill unless lawmakers wrote in that same clarification. That his own son had signed a petition against the bill no doubt got his attention.

“The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions,” Hutchison said at a press conference. “It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue. My son Seth signed the petition asking me, Dad, the governor, to veto this bill.”

That generational gap was a clear point former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made Friday in a Washington Post op-ed column excoriating his own Republican Party on the issue.

“As an American, Im incredibly concerned aboutwhat happened in Indiana this weekand thethreat of similar lawsbeing passed in other states, Mr. Schwarzenegger wrote. As a Republican, Im furious.

I know plenty of Republicans who are sensible and driven to solve problems for America. They believe in Reagans vision of a big tent where everyone is welcome. This message isnt for them, he wrote. It is for Republicans who choose the politics of division over policies that improve the lives of all of us. It is for Republicans who have decided to neglect the next generation of voters. It is for Republicans who are fighting for laws that fly in the face of equality and freedom.

“There are so many real problems that need solving. But distracting, divisive laws like the one Indiana initially passed arent just bad for the country, theyre also bad for our party, Schwarzenegger continued.In California, the GOP has seen the danger of focusing on the wrong issues. In 2007, Republicans made up nearly 35 percent of our registered voters. By 2009, ourshare droppedto 31 percent, andtoday, it is a measly 28 percent. That sharp drop started just after the divisive battle over Proposition 8 [which banned same-sex marriage]. Maybe thats a coincidence, but there is no question that our party is losing touch with our voters, especially with the younger ones who are growing the registration rolls.

(In 2013, the United States Supreme Court effectively killed Prop. 8.)

The struggle to balance religious freedoms with civil and personal rights continues in other states, where local and national businesses have become major players.

Go here to read the rest:
Indiana, Arkansas, and other 'religious freedom' laws: Trouble for the GOP (+video)




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism