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

Gene therapy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Human Genetic Engineering  Comments Off on Gene therapy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jul 282015

Gene therapy is the therapeutic delivery of nucleic acid polymers into a patient’s cells as a drug to treat disease. Gene therapy could be a way to fix a genetic problem at its source. The polymers are either expressed as proteins, interfere with protein expression, or possibly correct genetic mutations.

The most common form uses DNA that encodes a functional, therapeutic gene to replace a mutated gene. The polymer molecule is packaged within a “vector”, which carries the molecule inside cells.

Gene therapy was conceptualized in 1972, by authors who urged caution before commencing human gene therapy studies. The first gene therapy experiment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) occurred in 1990, when Ashanti DeSilva was treated for ADA-SCID.[1] By January 2014, some 2,000 clinical trials had been conducted or approved.[2]

Early clinical failures led to dismissals of gene therapy. Clinical successes since 2006 regained researchers’ attention, although as of 2014, it was still largely an experimental technique.[3] These include treatment of retinal disease Leber’s congenital amaurosis,[4][5][6][7]X-linked SCID,[8] ADA-SCID,[9][10]adrenoleukodystrophy,[11]chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL),[12]acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL),[13]multiple myeloma,[14]haemophilia[10] and Parkinson’s disease.[15] Between 2013 and April 2014, US companies invested over $600 million in the field.[16]

The first commercial gene therapy, Gendicine, was approved in China in 2003 for the treatment of certain cancers.[17] In 2012 Glybera, a treatment for a rare inherited disorder, became the first treatment to be approved for clinical use in either Europe or the United States after its endorsement by the European Commission.[3][18]

Following early advances in genetic engineering of bacteria, cells and small animals, scientists started considering how to apply it to medicine. Two main approaches were considered replacing or disrupting defective genes.[19] Scientists focused on diseases caused by single-gene defects, such as cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, muscular dystrophy, thalassemia and sickle cell anemia. Glybera treats one such disease, caused by a defect in lipoprotein lipase.[18]

DNA must be administered, reach the damaged cells, enter the cell and express/disrupt a protein.[20] Multiple delivery techniques have been explored. The initial approach incorporated DNA into an engineered virus to deliver the DNA into a chromosome.[21][22]Naked DNA approaches have also been explored, especially in the context of vaccine development.[23]

Generally, efforts focused on administering a gene that causes a needed protein to be expressed. More recently, increased understanding of nuclease function has led to more direct DNA editing, using techniques such as zinc finger nucleases and CRISPR. The vector incorporates genes into chromosomes. The expressed nucleases then “edit” the chromosome. As of 2014 these approaches involve removing cells from patients, editing a chromosome and returning the transformed cells to patients.[24]

Other technologies employ antisense, small interfering RNA and other DNA. To the extent that these technologies do not alter DNA, but instead directly interact with molecules such as RNA, they are not considered “gene therapy” per se.[citation needed]

Gene therapy may be classified into two types:

Here is the original post:

Gene therapy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 …

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 …

Government Explains Away Fourth Amendment Protection for …

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Government Explains Away Fourth Amendment Protection for …
Jun 092015

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their private digital communications such as email, and therefore the Fourth Amendment protects those communications. It’s a simple extension of the Supreme Courts seminal 1967 ruling in Katz v. United States that the Fourth Amendment protected a telephone conversation held in a closed phone booth. But in a brief recently filed in a criminal terrorism case arising from surveillance of a United States citizen, the government needs only a few sentences to argue this basic protection doesnt apply, with potentially dramatic consequences for the rest of us.

United States v. Mohamud

Mohamed Mohamud is a Somalia-born naturalized U.S. citizen who was convicted in 2012 of plotting to detonate a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. Shortly after he was arrested, he was given notice by the government that it had used evidence obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) against him.

But it wasnt until after Mohamud was convicted and just a few weeks before he was to be sentenced that the government belatedly gave him notice for the first time that it had also used evidence derived under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). The government continues to withhold the details of the FAA surveillance, forcing Mohamud (and other defendants receiving delayed FAA notice) to raise generalized challenges to the constitutionality of the FAA based only on what is publicly known about Section 702 surveillance. Mohamud did exactly that in April, raising several legal challenges to the FAA and arguing he should receive a new trial.

The Governments Talking to a Foreigner Exception to the Fourth Amendment

While theres a lot unknown about Section 702 surveillance, we do know it authorizes the targeting of foreigners even when this targeting results in the incidental collection of constitutionally protected Americans communications. As a result, the government can acquire the contents of Americans e-mails, VOIP calls, chat sessions, and more when they communicate with people outside the US.

In its recently filed response to Mohamuds motion to suppress and for new trial, the government concedes for the sake of argument that an American whose communications are incidentally collected as part of Section 702 surveillance has constitutional interests at stake. So far so good; these constitutional interests are in fact at the core of what the Supreme Court describes as the Fourth Amendments protection of the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. But then the government dismisses this fundamental protection with one staggeringly broad passage:

The Supreme Court has long held that when one person voluntarily discloses information to another, the first person loses any cognizable interest under the Fourth Amendment in what the second person does with the information. . . . For Fourth Amendment purposes, the same principle applies whether the recipient intentionally makes the information public or stores it in a place subject to a government search. Thus, once a non-U.S. person located outside the United States receives information, the sender loses any cognizable Fourth Amendment rights with respect to that information. That is true even if the sender is a U.S. person protected by the Fourth Amendment, because he assumes the risk that the foreign recipient will give the information to others, leave the information freely accessible to others, or that the U.S. government (or a foreign government) will obtain the information.

It is true that individuals assume the risk that the people they communicate with will turn over a recording to the government. So, for example, in the cases the government cites in the passage above, United States v. White and Hoffa v. United States, the Supreme Court found there is no Fourth Amendment violation if you have a private conversation with someone who happens to be a government informant and repeats what you said to the government or even surreptitiously records it. In those instances, individuals misplaced confidence that people they are communicating with wont divulge their secrets is not enough to create a Fourth Amendment interest.

But the government stretches these cases far beyond their limits, arguing that its own incidental collection of an Americans communications while targeting a foreigner is the same as having that person repeat what the American said to the government directly, even though it is the government that is eavesdropping on the conversation. In essence, when you communicate with someone whose communications are being targeted under the FAA, you have no Fourth Amendment rights. Under this reasoning, any time you send an email to someone in another country, you assume the risk that your intended recipient may be a foreigner and that the government can obtain the contents of the email without a warrant.

See more here:
Government Explains Away Fourth Amendment Protection for …

Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …
May 282015

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision inMcDonald v. City of Chicago(08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonaldchallenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through theincorporation doctrine.However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, andwhat level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

See constitutional amendment.

Read the original here:
Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …

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 Subscribe! 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

Tor Browser All Time United Kingdome IP address – Video

 Tor Browser  Comments Off on Tor Browser All Time United Kingdome IP address – Video
Apr 112015

Tor Browser All Time United Kingdome IP address
This video shows how to configure the Tor browser that England have IP address! Tor Browser installation, settings, enjoy! Tor Browser fix IP address!

By: Norbert Varga

Read the original:
Tor Browser All Time United Kingdome IP address – Video

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

United Federation of Cannabis Churches Announces World Congress for Cannabis Ministries

 Illuminati  Comments Off on United Federation of Cannabis Churches Announces World Congress for Cannabis Ministries
Apr 082015

New York, NY (PRWEB) April 08, 2015

Steven Hager is the founder of the Cannabis Cup, the first person to do 420 ceremonies outside Marin County, editor of Cannabis Spirituality by Stephen Gaskin, and the organizer behind the Pot Illuminati.

Chris Bennett is the author of the Soma Solution, and many other books on cannabis and sprituality, and has pioneered awareness about the role of cannabis in founding many of our greatest religions, knowledge that has been suppressed for centuries.

Bill Levin is a Libertarian organizer and former NORML board member active in the music scene in Indiana who fought against a religious rights bill that allows churches to discriminate against gay people. After the law was passed he applied and got permission for the First Church of Cannabis.

These three dynamic cultural pioneers have banded together to create the United Federation of Cannabis Churches, and already ministries in Alabama, Mississipi, Indiana, Oregon, Washington, Jamaica and the Czech Republic have requested to join the federation.

Their newly formed Federation of Cannabis Churches has announced a World Congress of Cannabis Ministries being planned for July 24-26, 2015, in Colorado.

There are numerous crowdfunders you can support.

For the U.F.C.C.:

For the First Church of Cannabis:

United Federation of Cannabis Churches Announces World Congress for Cannabis Ministries


 Islands  Comments Off on Pacquiao on disputed islands: SMALLER, POORER PHILIPPINES MUST DEFEND ITS TERRITORIES
Apr 082015


Saranggani Congressman Manny Pacquiao early this week called on the Filipinos to rally behind the flag to show support for the Philippines in its dispute with economic and military giant China over several islands and atolls in the West Philippine Sea.

“Ito ang pagkakataon na dapat magkaisa ang ating bansa upang harapin ang malaking problema na ito na hindi lamang nangangahulugan ng pagkawala ng mga teritoryo ng ating bansa kundi ang pagkawala ng pambansang dangal,” he said in a prepared statement issued early this week.

(This is the moment when the country should unite and confront this huge problem which could not only mean the loss of our territory but also national dignity and pride.)

China is at odds with several smaller countries in Asia after it drew an imaginary 9-dash lines which included the vast ocean and islands and atolls which are also being claimed by other countries, including the Philippines.

Using its military might and economic power, China has already occupied several islands belonging to the Philippines and built airstrips, an apparent attempt to establish military presence in the disputed area.

The Saranggani solon who is on his second term said he supports the national government’s efforts to take up the dispute over the islands in the West Philippine Sea to the United Nations but added that other options should be considered.

“Dapat tingnan pa natin kung ano pa ang maaring gawin upang ipa-unawa sa China na ang Pilipinas ay handang makipag-usap para lang maayos ang problemang ito at maigalang ang ating pagma-may-ari sa mga isla sa West Philippine Sea,” Pacquiao said.

(We should look at other options to make China understand that the Philippines is willing to talk to resolve this problem to make sure that the rights of the country over the islands in the West Philippine Sea are respected.)

Pacquiao said he supported the position of Davao City Mayor Rody Duterte who earlier said that aside from the country’s appeal for adjudication in the United Nations, there should be efforts to talk to the Chinese government directly.

Read the original post:

Liberty Reserve laundered $6 billion

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty Reserve laundered $6 billion
Apr 052015


The Liberty Reserve electronic currency was really a front for a $6 billion money-laundering operation online, according to US federal prosecutors in New York.

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, told the New York Times that Liberty Reserve was one of the best ways for criminals to shift their cash around.

Liberty Reserve traded in virtual currency and provided the kind of anonymous and easily accessible banking infrastructure increasingly sought by criminal networks, he said.

Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, and other law enforcement officials, said that the charges mark the end of the largest online money-laundering case in history.

He claimed that over seven years, Liberty Reserve was responsible for laundering billions of dollars, conducting 55 million transactions that involved millions of customers around the world, including about 200,000 in the United States.

Liberty Reserve created a convenient way for criminals to make financial transactions. There was a complicated system designed to allow people to move sums large and small around the world with virtual anonymity.

Liberty Reserve was at the heart of the indictment of eight New Yorkers accused who nicked $45 million from bank machines in 27 countries.

The outfit was incorporated in Costa Rica in 2006 by Arthur Budovsky he was arrested in Spain on last week. He was among seven people charged in the case; five of them were under arrest, while two remained at large in Costa Rica.

Continued here:
Liberty Reserve laundered $6 billion

Marshall Islands to appeal in nuclear case vs. US; says US is modernizing arsenal, not cutting

 Islands  Comments Off on Marshall Islands to appeal in nuclear case vs. US; says US is modernizing arsenal, not cutting
Apr 052015

UNITED NATIONS The tiny Pacific nation of the Marshall Islands is persisting with an unprecedented lawsuit demanding that the United States meet its obligations toward getting rid of its nuclear weapons. It filed notice Thursday that it will appeal a federal judge’s decision to dismiss the case.

The island group was the site of 67 nuclear tests by the U.S. over a 12-year period after World War II, with lasting health and environmental impacts, including more than 250 people exposed to high amounts of radiation.

The Marshall Islands filed its lawsuit last year, naming President Barack Obama, the departments and secretaries of defense and energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Obama in 2009 called for “a world without nuclear weapons” and said the U.S. would take concrete steps toward that goal, a declaration highlighted by the committee that awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize months later.

The U.S. is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a landmark agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The United Nations this month will host the treaty’s latest five-year review conference.

But the Marshall Islands claims the U.S. is modernizing its nuclear arsenal instead of negotiating in good faith on disarmament, as the treaty requires. The lawsuit seeks action on disarming, not compensation.

A federal judge in San Francisco last month granted the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the Marshall Islands didn’t have standing to bring the case.

“Requiring the court to delve into and then monitor United States policies and decisions with regard to its nuclear programs and arsenal is an untenable request far beyond the purview of the federal courts,” the judge’s order said. It added that the authority to negotiate with foreign countries falls under the government’s executive branch, not the judicial one.

The Marshall Islands says the executive branch is the very one that has neglected its disarmament obligations for years.

“We believe the district court erred in dismissing the case,” the lead attorney for the Marshall Islands, Laurie Ashton, said in a statement announcing the appeal in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “The Marshall Islands, like every party to the NPT, is entitled to the United States’ fulfillment of its NPT promise.”

The statement also said the nuclear threat is “now magnified by the deteriorating relationship between Russia and the U.S., which between them control over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

Follow this link:
Marshall Islands to appeal in nuclear case vs. US; says US is modernizing arsenal, not cutting

EPA: Pesticide may have caused illness in family staying at Virgin Islands resort

 Islands  Comments Off on EPA: Pesticide may have caused illness in family staying at Virgin Islands resort
Apr 052015

ST. JOHN, Virgin Islands, April 4 (UPI) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday said exposure to a pesticide with restricted use in the United States may have caused severe illness in a Delaware family vacationing at a Virgin Islands resort.

Steve Esmond, his wife and two teenage sons had been renting a villa at the Sirenusa resort on St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands since March 14. The EPA received reports of the family falling ill on March 20; paramedics had found Esmond unconscious and his wife and sons, 14 and 16, having seizures.

According to family attorney James Maron, Esmond is still unable to move or talk, and his two sons are in critical condition after being airlifted to the United States, where on Saturday they remained in a coma at a Philadelphia hospital. Esmond’s wife, Theresa Devine, was released after treatment but remains in occupational therapy.

Speaking Friday, EPA spokesman Elias Rodriguez said preliminary tests did “show that there was a presence of methyl bromide in the unit where the family was staying.”

The EPA defines methyl bromide as a “broad spectrum pesticide” designed to control “pest insects, nematodes, weeds, pathogens, and rodents,” but that it “will affect not only the target pests it is used against, but non-target organisms as well.”

“Human exposure to high concentrations of methyl bromide can result in central nervous system and respiratory system failure, as well as specific and severe deleterious actions on the lungs, eyes, and skin,” according to the agency.

Because of its toxicity, methyl bromide is only permitted for outdoor use by certified professionals in the United States.

Sirenusa resort was reportedly fumigated on March 18, and the EPA is working with local investigators to discern whether any laws or regulations were breached.

Sea Glass Vacations, the rental agency for several villas at Sirenusa resort, said it uses an outside pest control company called Terminix.

“We’re thinking about the family, and we join the community in wishing them a speedy recovery,” Terminix wrote in an email statement to CNN, noting also that it is “looking into this matter internally, and cooperating with authorities.”

More here:
EPA: Pesticide may have caused illness in family staying at Virgin Islands resort

FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e12 (3-28-15) – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e12 (3-28-15) – Video
Apr 052015

FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e12 (3-28-15)
VIDEOS: 1) RAW FOOTAGE Germanwings Airbus A320 4U 9525 PLANE CRASH SITE – compared to flight 93 on 9/11, below… 2) Crash of United Flight 93 Shanksville 911 Terrorist Attacks 3) George…

By: 251omega

Read more:
FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e12 (3-28-15) – Video

Afghan Police and Army Spending – Video

 NATO  Comments Off on Afghan Police and Army Spending – Video
Apr 032015

Afghan Police and Army Spending
Fiscal discipline: how NATO and the United States are helping the Afghan security forces and institutions manage their budget. NATO's new mission to help train, advise, and assist the Afghan…


See the rest here:
Afghan Police and Army Spending – Video

Cosmic Heaven: Researching Heaven and Flat Earth (A …

 Cosmic  Comments Off on Cosmic Heaven: Researching Heaven and Flat Earth (A …
Apr 032015

Then I unfolded an election newspaper and saw the face of Aspen, the workers’ friend, a reasonably good-looking man in his early forties, frowning slightly with the concentrated effort of bringing us all a new heaven and a new earth which would still be acceptable to the Gnomes of Zurich.

– Quote from John Mortimer, Rumpole and the Honourable Member”

It is like we are all born onto a vast military base with people continually conducting live fire live science fiction “movie” operations.

James Cameron consulting for the Mars landings and Stanley Kubrick for the Moon.

An American Journalist named Naomi Wolf has stated for the record that it is long been law in the United States that the U.S. military can conduct (and presumably has been conducting) what they call “theatrical operations” upon the population of not only the United States but also upon the entire World.

There is more of an international military complex than we are taught in school. The Cold War, for instance, was a farce.

GPS (and Antarctica) is all regulated by the same military agencies for the entire world.

Remember a time when priests had to tell people what was “In the Bible”?

Just think about how much we are taught or trained or forced to rely upon whatever science or the news or experts tell us. Just the fact that we are taught to never question anything should make us question everything.

But someone might ask, Why? Why fake the Moon Landing or the Mars probes, or satellites or the International Space Station, which, if it is a sci-fi reality TV show it is a farce. It would not rank among even pulp science fiction.

Cosmic Heaven: Researching Heaven and Flat Earth (A …

The Walking Dead season 5 finale recap: Bloody Rick takes a lurch to the right

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on The Walking Dead season 5 finale recap: Bloody Rick takes a lurch to the right
Mar 312015

Bloody Rick: He didn’t let the walkers in to Alexandria but Rick (Andrew Lincoln) sure knew what to do once they arrived. Photo: AMC


They were the words we knew had been coming all along. “Rick, do it.”

That was all the urging Rick needed to pull out the pistol Deanna had tried to ban and, at her command, execute Pete, the wife-basher who had just slit the throat of Deanna’s peace-and-light architect husband Reg.

A place to call home? The survivors contemplate the welcoming but somehow unsettling environs of Alexandria. Photo: AMC

And with that, the Second Amendment triumphed over wishy-washy liberalism and The Walking Dead lurched unmistakably to the right.


Not that it hasn’t done so before, and not to say that it will stay there, for above all else The Walking Dead is an arena in which competing political philosophies do gladiatorial combat – not to the death so much as “until next time”.

And with the finale drawing a record audience of 15.8 million viewers in the United States, and with catch-up viewers topping the 20 million mark, there are likely to be a lot of next times.

This won’t end well: Rick and Pete (Corey Brill) fast became enemies, and rivals for the affections of Pete’s wife Jessie (Alexandra Breckenridge). Photo: AMC

More here:
The Walking Dead season 5 finale recap: Bloody Rick takes a lurch to the right

Worrying about online privacy

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Worrying about online privacy
Mar 292015

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. When the government oversteps its authority, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. With few exceptions, however, government surveillance focuses on protecting life, property and the American way. Private surveillance, on the other hand, is governed by no laws, and is conducted for self-interest and profit. In volume, stealth and intrusiveness, the private sector far surpasses anything the government has attempted or even contemplated doing. Yet, while Americans regularly read or hear about the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agencys (CIA) intrusion into their lives, not many seem to be accusing private companies like Walmart or the Ford Motor Company of spying on people. It comes down to whether Americans trust companies like Verizon, Target, and Google to respect their privacy more than they trust the US government. The intelligence communitys focus is on foreign threats and activities overseas. The CIA and NSA operate under strict rules and regulations, including a ban against collecting information on Americans. The current policy states that signals intelligence shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support national and departmental missions and not for any other purposes. The private sector, on the other hand, focuses on the bottom line and operates unfettered. Google a resort in Mexico, and see how ads for that destination continue to pop up every time you open your Internet browser. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. You cant imagine all the things going on behind the scenes that you arent able to see. Government surveillance, of course, increases when a known terrorist or other enemy of the United States contacts an American citizen. Following 9/11, NSA analysts were given limited access to the bad guys communication links to the United States. Even then, however, the privacy of American citizens remained a top priority. Going forward, if a known terrorist communicates with an American citizen, I suspect most Americans would feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching their back. Having spent more than 40 years as an intelligence officer, I know first-hand that the US intelligence community has made its share of mistakes (being dead wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and condoning torture spring readily to mind). And I continue to believe in the necessity of strict congressional oversight and restrictions, which separate the US intelligence community from other intelligence organizations like the KGB. This oversight is critical for an intelligence community serving a democratic country. It is true that the US intelligence community has at times been overzealous in protecting against terrorist threats and others who could do the United States harm, but not because it was seeking to pry into the private affairs of American citizens. For me, the NSA and Drug Enforcement Administrations (DEA) bulk collection and storage programs fall into the overzealous category. I am aware of the argument that more is better, but when weighed against privacy rights and the questionable predictive value of these materials, these arguments dont make sense. As in other areas, the Intelligence Community tends to overstate its capability to predict future events. I suspect the efforts to stop or disrupt terrorist attacks are on par with law enforcements (rather poor) record on stopping premeditated murders, kidnappings, and the spread of illegal drugs. For me, the larger problem is the massive effort by private companies to collect every bit of data they can about me: my health, what I buy, what I eat, where I shop, who I talk to, and on and on. All of this is done not only without my permission, but also without my knowledge and it is legal. Of course, I dont want the government snooping around in my private affairs any more than you do. Yet, if it is in the nations security interest and my privacy remains protected, access to my metadata doesnt seem like too much for my government to ask of me. The writer is the former head of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), US State Department. (In partnership with The Mark News)

See original here:
Worrying about online privacy

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