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

Illuminati – News, Updates, Images & Quotes

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Illuminati – News, Updates, Images & Quotes
Sep 232015

Status message You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, videos and photo galleries. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other users, upload videos and photos in your own photo album and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! Articles (7) Illuminati Cliff Notes By admin 3 years 1 week ago

Cliffs notes for those who care: Illuminatti was started by Adam Weishaupt in the 1760s, who was financed by the recently reorganized and consolidated House of Rothschild, the largest len…

“The question of how and why the United Nations is the crux of the great conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and the enslavement of the American people within a U.N. o…

The leader of the Earths Illuminati is called the “Pindar”. The Pindar is a member of one of the 13 ruling Illuminati families, and is always male. The title, Pindar, is an abbreviated ter…

Compartmentalization has been a key instrument in keeping people away from information that would make them free to discover the truth. The less information people have to go off, the smalle…

The illuminati Big Brother is listening the illuminati Big Brother wants you, and the illuminati Big Brother actually already has you under his full surveillance. But we still accept this fa…

In the Preface to “Brave New World,” (1932) Aldous Huxley wrote: “As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to increase. And the dictator will do…

This article illustrates a few key distinguishing factors between you and the Illuminati….

Here is the original post:
Illuminati – News, Updates, Images & Quotes

Statue of Liberty – New Jersey

 Liberty  Comments Off on Statue of Liberty – New Jersey
Sep 222015

A Symbol of Friendship

Located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, the statue commemorates the friendship between the United States and France that began during the American Revolution. Her official name is “Liberty Enlightening the World.”

The statue – also known as “Lady Liberty” – has many symbolic features. Her torch represents liberty. In Roman numbers, her tablet reads “July 4, 1776,” America’s independence day.

Her crown has 25 windows, recognizing the gemstones found on the earth and the heaven’s rays shining over the world. The rays of her crown symbolize the seven continents and seven seas. At her feet are chains, representing the tyranny of colonial rule from which America escaped.

Building the Statue

In 1876 French sculptor Frederic Auguste Bartholdi began designing the statue. Alexandre Gustave Eiffel, the designer of the Eiffel Tower, worked with him. While Bartholdi developed the look of the statue, Eiffel worked on the framework. Bartholdi made the statue out of copper sheets, and Eiffel made the framework of steel. In July 1884, the statue was completed in France.

Richard Morris Hunt, designer of New York City’s first apartment building, designed the pedestal. The construction of the pedestal was completed in April 1886.

In addition to the architectural challenges of building the statue and pedestal, both countries faced challenges in getting money for the project. The French charged public fees, held fundraising events, and used money from a lottery to finance the statue.

In America, boxing matches, plays, art exhibitions, and auctions were used to raise money with limited success. Joseph Pulitzer, founder of the Pulitzer Prize, was able to more successfully motivate Americans with critical editorials in his newspaper, The World, and financing was completed in 1885.

On June 19, 1885, the French ship Isere arrived in New York Harbor with the Statue of Liberty. The statue was divided into 350 pieces held in 214 crates during the shipment. Over the next four months, a group of workers re-assembled Lady Liberty on the pedestal at Fort Wood on Bedloe Island, as Liberty Island was then known.

Thousands of people came to Fort Wood on October 28, 1886, as President Grover Cleveland officially accepted the statue.

Events in Statue History

In 1924, the statue became a national monument. Bedloe’s Island, home to Fort Wood and the statue, was renamed Liberty Island in 1956. That same year Ellis Island was included with Liberty Island to make up the Statue of Liberty National Monument. As the Lady Liberty’s 100th birthday neared, the country began working to restore the monument.

Starting in 1982, $87 million was raised for the restoration. When statue’s restoration began in 1984, the United Nations named it a World Heritage Site. The statue was re-opened on July 5, 1986, for her centennial celebration.

Visitors have not been able to enter the Statue of Liberty since September 11, 2001, but the island remains open. A fundraising drive is currently underway to make the necessary security and safety upgrades to re-open the statue itself.

Statue Statistics

Statue of Liberty – New Jersey

Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina |

 Liberty  Comments Off on Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina |
Sep 112015

Liberty is a town in Randolph County, North Carolina, United States. Originally named Liberty Oak, the town was founded in 1809 near the plantation of John Leak (according to: The Town of Liberty). The first church within the town was the Liberty Christian Church (now the United Church of Christ) founded on October 11, 1884. The town’s first school, the Liberty Academy, was founded on May 6, 1885 as a charter school and helped to foster the town’s early reputation as a place of higher learning. Liberty is home to the mother church of the Southern Baptist Religion (Sandy Creek Baptist Church), World Skeet Shoot Champion Craig Kirkman, and is the birthplace of professional baseball player Joe Frazier. Liberty is also home to The Liberty Antiques Festival a world famous antiques’ show that draws such famous faces as Julia Roberts and other Hollywood celebrities. Also The Liberty Showcase who has had many famous Nashville recording stars such as Ronnie McDowell, Lorrie Morgan, Gene Watson, Exile, and many more. The movies “Killers Three” (1968) and “Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice” (1992) were filmed in Liberty and the surrounding areas.

Visit link:
Map of Liberty NC | Liberty North Carolina |

What is Libertarianism? – Institute for Humane Studies

 Misc  Comments Off on What is Libertarianism? – Institute for Humane Studies
Sep 082015

According to Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary

lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.

NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservativesfavor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

According to What It Means to Be a Libertarian by Charles Murray, Broadway Books, 1997.

The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. . . .

A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. We believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.

The correct word for my view of the world is liberal. Liberal is the simplest anglicization of the Latin liber, and freedom is what classical liberalism is all about. The writers of the nineteenth century who expounded on this view were called liberals. In Continental Europe they still are. . . . But words mean what people think they mean, and in the United States the unmodified term liberal now refers to the politics of an expansive government and the welfare state. The contemporary alternative is libertarian. . . .

Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives-as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning-living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

More here:
What is Libertarianism? – Institute for Humane Studies

Eugenics in California – CSHPE – CSUS

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in California – CSHPE – CSUS
Sep 022015

Sir Francis Galton first defined the term eugenics in 1883, eventually describing it as the “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race” as well as those that “develop them to the utmost advantage.” In the early twentieth century, eugenics movements thrived across the globe, in dozens of countries as diverse as Argentina, Japan, India, and Germany. Although the scope of eugenics differed from place to place, its proponents shared the belief that directing reproduction and biological selection could better, even perfect, society.

California was home to an extensive eugenics movement in the twentieth century. Convinced that ideas of better breeding and genetic selection were central to settling the Pacific West, many European American migrants to California supported practices such as involuntary sterilization, immigration restriction, and racially-biased IQ testing. Indeed, 1/3 or 20,000 of the 60,000 sterilizations performed in the United States from 1900 to 1980 occurred in California under the aegis of the state government.

See the original post here:

Eugenics in California – CSHPE – CSUS

Second Amendment | United States Constitution |

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment | United States Constitution |
Sep 022015

Second Amendment,Second AmendmentNARAamendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment 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. Referred to in modern times as an individuals right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstones Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the true palladium of liberty. In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/481826) described as the last coup de grace that would enable the states to thwart and oppose the general government. Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen. (See also gun control.)

Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment. In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security. More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution and holding that the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution. Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length was not any part of the ordinary military equipment protected by the Second Amendment.

For more than seven decades after the United States v. Miller decision, what right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protected remained uncertain. This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail. In a narrow 54 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defense was the central component of the amendment and that the District of Columbias prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia. However, the court was clear to emphasize that an individuals right to an organized militia is not the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendments guarantee.

Because the Heller ruling constrained only federal regulations against the right of armed self-defense in the home, it was unclear whether the court would hold that the Second Amendment guarantees established in Heller were equally applicable to the states. The Supreme Court answered this question in 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. Chicago. In a plurality opinion, a 54 majority held that the Heller right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause.

However, despite the use of person in the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause, the McDonald plurality opinion did not extend to noncitizens. Clarence Thomass fifth and decisive vote only extended the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to citizens. Thomas wrote, Because this case does not involve a claim brought by a noncitizen, I express no view on the difference, if any, between my conclusion and the plurality with respect to the extent to which States may regulate firearm possession by noncitizens. Thomas further came to this conclusion because he thought the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendments privileges or immunities clause, which only recognizes the rights of citizens.

The relatively narrow holdings in the McDonald and Heller decisions left many Second Amendment legal issues unsettled, including the constitutionality of many federal gun-control regulations, whether the right to carry or conceal a weapon in public was protected, and whether noncitizens are protected through the equal protection clause.

The origins of the Second Amendment can be traced to ancient Roman and Florentine times, but its English origins developed in the late 16th century when Queen Elizabeth I instituted a national militia where individuals of all classes were required by law to take part in defending the realm. Although Elizabeths attempt to establish a national militia failed miserably, the ideology of the militia would be used as a political tool up to the mid-18th century. The political debate over the establishment and control of the militia was a contributing factor in both the English Civil Wars (164251) and the Glorious Revolution (168889).

Despite recognition in the early 21st century by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protected armed individual self-defense in the home, many constitutional historians disagreed with the court that the Second Amendment protected anything but the right to participate in a militia force as the means of defending their liberties. For over two centuries there was a consensus that the Second Amendment protected only the right of individuals to keep and bear Arms in order to take part in defending their liberties as a militia force. However, by the late 20th century the popular consensus had shifted, many believing that the Second Amendment was framed to protect armed self-defense in the home.

In England, following the Glorious Revolution, the Second Amendments predecessor was codified in the British Bill of Rights in 1689, under its Article VII, which proclaimed that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. Often misinterpreted as a right to defend ones person, home, or property, the allowance to have arms ensured that Parliament could exercise its sovereign right of self-preservation against a tyrannical crown by arming qualified Protestants as a militia.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution undoubtedly had in mind the English allowance to have arms when drafting the Second Amendment. The constitutional significance of a well regulated Militia is well documented in English and American history from the late 17th century through the American Revolution; it was included in the Articles of Confederation (1781), the countrys first constitution, and was even noted at the Constitutional Convention that drafted the new U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. The right to keep and bear Arms was thus included as a means to accomplish the objective of a well regulated Militiato provide for the defense of the nation, to provide a well-trained and disciplined force to check federal tyranny, and to bring constitutional balance by distributing the power of the sword equally among the people, the states, and the federal government.

Read more:
Second Amendment | United States Constitution |

Nanorobotics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Nano Technology  Comments Off on Nanorobotics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aug 192015

“Nanobots” redirects here. For the They Might Be Giants album, see Nanobots (album).

Nanorobotics is the emerging technology field creating machines or robots whose components are at or close to the scale of a nanometre (109 meters).[1][2][3] More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.110 micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.[4][5] The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites have also been used to describe these devices currently under research and development.[6][7]

Nanomachines are largely in the research and development phase,[8] but some primitive molecular machines and nanomotors have been tested. An example is a sensor having a switch approximately 1.5 nanometers across, capable of counting specific molecules in a chemical sample. The first useful applications of nanomachines might be in nanomedicine. For example,[9]biological machines could be used to identify and destroy cancer cells.[10][11] Another potential application is the detection of toxic chemicals, and the measurement of their concentrations, in the environment. Rice University has demonstrated a single-molecule car developed by a chemical process and including buckyballs for wheels. It is actuated by controlling the environmental temperature and by positioning a scanning tunneling microscope tip.

Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution. Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy, instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can also be considered nanorobots.

According to Richard Feynman, it was his former graduate student and collaborator Albert Hibbs who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a medical use for Feynman’s theoretical micromachines (see nanotechnology). Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) “swallow the doctor”. The idea was incorporated into Feynman’s 1959 essay There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom.[12]

Since nanorobots would be microscopic in size, it would probably be necessary for very large numbers of them to work together to perform microscopic and macroscopic tasks. These nanorobot swarms, both those incapable of replication (as in utility fog) and those capable of unconstrained replication in the natural environment (as in grey goo and its less common variants[clarification needed]), are found in many science fiction stories, such as the Borg nanoprobes in Star Trek and The Outer Limits episode The New Breed.

Some proponents of nanorobotics, in reaction to the grey goo scenarios that they earlier helped to propagate, hold the view that nanorobots capable of replication outside of a restricted factory environment do not form a necessary part of a purported productive nanotechnology, and that the process of self-replication, if it were ever to be developed, could be made inherently safe. They further assert that their current plans for developing and using molecular manufacturing do not in fact include free-foraging replicators.[13][14]

The most detailed theoretical discussion of nanorobotics, including specific design issues such as sensing, power communication, navigation, manipulation, locomotion, and onboard computation, has been presented in the medical context of nanomedicine by Robert Freitas. Some of these discussions remain at the level of unbuildable generality and do not approach the level of detailed engineering.

The joint use of nanoelectronics, photolithography, and new biomaterials provides a possible approach to manufacturing nanorobots for common medical applications, such as for surgical instrumentation, diagnosis and drug delivery.[15][16][17] This method for manufacturing on nanotechnology scale is currently in use in the electronics industry.[18] So, practical nanorobots should be integrated as nanoelectronics devices, which will allow tele-operation and advanced capabilities for medical instrumentation.[19][20]

Nubot is an abbreviation for “nucleic acid robot.” Nubots are organic molecular machines at the nanoscale.[21] DNA structure can provide means to assemble 2D and 3D nanomechanical devices. DNA based machines can be activated using small molecules, proteins and other molecules of DNA.[22][23][24] Biological circuit gates based on DNA materials have been engineered as molecular machines to allow in-vitro drug delivery for targeted health problems.[25] Such material based systems would work most closely to smart biomaterial drug system delivery,[26] while not allowing precise in vivo teleoperation of such engineered prototypes.

A number of reports have demonstrated the attachment of synthetic molecular motors to surfaces.[27][28] These primitive nanomachines have been shown to undergo machine-like motions when confined to the surface of a macroscopic material. The surface anchored motors could potentially be used to move and position nanoscale materials on a surface in the manner of a conveyor belt.

Nanofactory Collaboration,[29] founded by Robert Freitas and Ralph Merkle in 2000 and involving 23 researchers from 10 organizations and 4 countries, focuses on developing a practical research agenda[30] specifically aimed at developing positionally-controlled diamond mechanosynthesis and a diamondoid nanofactory that would have the capability of building diamondoid medical nanorobots.

This approach proposes the use of biological microorganisms, like the bacterium Escherichia coli.[31] Thus the model uses a flagellum for propulsion purposes. Electromagnetic fields normally control the motion of this kind of biological integrated device.[32] Chemists at the University of Nebraska have created a humidity gauge by fusing a bacteria to a silicone computer chip.[33]

Retroviruses can be retrained to attach to cells and replace DNA. They go through a process called reverse transcription to deliver genetic packaging in a vector.[34] Usually, these devices are Pol Gag genes of the virus for the Capsid and Delivery system. This process is called retroviral Gene Therapy, having the ability to re-engineer cellular DNA by usage of viral vectors.[35] This approach has appeared in the form of Retroviral, Adenoviral, and Lentiviral gene delivery systems.[36] These Gene Therapy vectors have been used in cats to send genes into the genetic modified animal “GMO” causing it display the trait. [37]

A document with a proposal on nanobiotech development using open technology approaches has been addressed to the United Nations General Assembly.[38] According to the document sent to the UN, in the same way that Open Source has in recent years accelerated the development of computer systems, a similar approach should benefit the society at large and accelerate nanorobotics development. The use of nanobiotechnology should be established as a human heritage for the coming generations, and developed as an open technology based on ethical practices for peaceful purposes. Open technology is stated as a fundamental key for such an aim.

In the same ways that technology development had the space race and nuclear arms race, a race for nanorobots is occurring.[39][40][41][42][43] There is plenty of ground allowing nanorobots to be included among the emerging technologies.[44] Some of the reasons are that large corporations, such as General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Synopsys, Northrop Grumman and Siemens have been recently working in the development and research of nanorobots;[45][46][47][48][49] surgeons are getting involved and starting to propose ways to apply nanorobots for common medical procedures;[50] universities and research institutes were granted funds by government agencies exceeding $2 billion towards research developing nanodevices for medicine;[51][52] bankers are also strategically investing with the intent to acquire beforehand rights and royalties on future nanorobots commercialization.[53] Some aspects of nanorobot litigation and related issues linked to monopoly have already arisen.[54][55][56] A large number of patents has been granted recently on nanorobots, done mostly for patent agents, companies specialized solely on building patent portfolio, and lawyers. After a long series of patents and eventually litigations, see for example the Invention of Radio or about the War of Currents, emerging fields of technology tend to become a monopoly, which normally is dominated by large corporations.[57]

Potential applications for nanorobotics in medicine include early diagnosis and targeted drug-delivery for cancer,[58][59][60] biomedical instrumentation,[61]surgery,[62][63]pharmacokinetics,[10] monitoring of diabetes,[64][65][66] and health care.

In such plans, future medical nanotechnology is expected to employ nanorobots injected into the patient to perform work at a cellular level. Such nanorobots intended for use in medicine should be non-replicating, as replication would needlessly increase device complexity, reduce reliability, and interfere with the medical mission.

Nanotechnology provides a wide range of new technologies for developing customized solutions that optimize the delivery of pharmaceutical products. Today, harmful side effects of treatments such as chemotherapy are commonly a result of drug delivery methods that don’t pinpoint their intended target cells accurately.[67] Researchers at Harvard and MIT, however, have been able to attach special RNA strands, measuring nearly 10nm in diameter, to nano-particles, filling them with a chemotherapy drug. These RNA strands are attracted to cancer cells. When the nanoparticle encounters a cancer cell, it adheres to it, and releases the drug into the cancer cell.[68] This directed method of drug delivery has great potential for treating cancer patients while avoiding negative effects (commonly associated with improper drug delivery).[67][69] The first demonstration of nanomotors operating in living organism was carried out in 2014 at University of California, San Diego.[70] MRI-guided nanocapsules are one potential precursor to nanorobots.[71]

Another useful application of nanorobots is assisting in the repair of tissue cells alongside white blood cells.[72] The recruitment of inflammatory cells or white blood cells (which include neutrophil granulocytes, lymphocytes, monocytes and mast cells) to the affected area is the first response of tissues to injury.[73] Because of their small size nanorobots could attach themselves to the surface of recruited white cells, to squeeze their way out through the walls of blood vessels and arrive at the injury site, where they can assist in the tissue repair process. Certain substances could possibly be utilized to accelerate the recovery.

The science behind this mechanism is quite complex. Passage of cells across the blood endothelium, a process known as transmigration, is a mechanism involving engagement of cell surface receptors to adhesion molecules, active force exertion and dilation of the vessel walls and physical deformation of the migrating cells. By attaching themselves to migrating inflammatory cells, the robots can in effect hitch a ride across the blood vessels, bypassing the need for a complex transmigration mechanism of their own.[72]

In the United States, FDA currently regulates nanotechnology on the basis of size.[74] The FDA also regulates that which acts by chemical means as a drug, and that which acts by physical means as a device.[75] Single molecules can also be used as Turing machines, like their larger paper tape counterparts, capable of universal computation and exerting physical (or chemical) forces as a result of that computation. Safety systems are being developed so that if a drug payload were to be accidentally released, the payload would either be inert or another drug would be then released to counteract the first. Toxicological testing becomes convolved with software validation in such circumstances.With new advances in nanotechnology these small devices are being created with the ability to self-regulate and be smarter than previous generations. As nanotechnology becomes more complex, how will regulatory agencies distinguish a drug from a device?[75] Drug molecules must undergo slower and more expensive testing (for example, preclinical toxicological testing) than devices, and the regulatory pathways for devices are simpler than for drugs. Perhaps smartness, if smart enough, will someday be used to justify a device classification for a single molecule nanomachine. Devices are generally approved more quickly than drugs, so device classification could be beneficial to patients and manufacturers.

Read the rest here:

Nanorobotics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich |

 Misc  Comments Off on How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich |
Aug 082015

October 25, 2013 essays

Sweden often gets held up as an example of how socialism can work better than markets. But, as Norberg shows, Swedens history in fact points to the opposite conclusion.

Once upon a time I got interested in theories of economic development because I had studied a low-income country, poorer than Congo, with life expectancy half as long and infant mortality three times as high as the average developing country.

That country is my own country, Swedenless than 150 years ago.

At that time Sweden was incredibly poorand hungry. When there was a crop failure, my ancestors in northern Sweden, in ngermanland, had to mix bark into the bread because they were short of flour. Life in towns and cities was no easier. Overcrowding and a lack of health services, sanitation, and refuse disposal claimed lives every day. Well into the twentieth century, an ordinary Swedish working-class family with five children might have to live in one room and a kitchen, which doubled as a dining room and bedroom. Many people lodged with other families. Housing statistics from Stockholm show that in 1900, as many as 1,400 people could live in a building consisting of 200 one-room flats. In conditions like these it is little wonder that disease was rife. People had large numbers of children not only for lack of contraception, but also because of the risk that not many would survive for long.

As Vilhelm Moberg, our greatest author, observed when he wrote a history of the Swedish people: Of all the wondrous adventures of the Swedish people, none is more remarkable and wonderful than this: that it survived all of them.

But in one century, everything was changed. Sweden had the fastest economic and social development that its people had ever experienced, and one of the fastest the world had ever seen. Between 1850 and 1950 the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 per cent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. A poor peasant nation had become one of the worlds richest countries.

Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealthwithout hurting its productive capacity. And so Swedena small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europebecame a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Swedens biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state.

This is the story about how that happened. It is a story that must be learned by countries that want to be where Sweden is today, because if they are to accomplish that feat, they must do what Sweden did back then, not what an already-rich Sweden does now.

Read the original:
How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich |

Genetic engineering – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Human Genetic Engineering  Comments Off on Genetic engineering – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aug 042015

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology. It is therefore a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or “knocked out”, using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria generated in 1973 and GM mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. Glofish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States December in 2003.[1]

Genetic engineering techniques have been applied in numerous fields including research, agriculture, industrial biotechnology, and medicine. Enzymes used in laundry detergent and medicines such as insulin and human growth hormone are now manufactured in GM cells, experimental GM cell lines and GM animals such as mice or zebrafish are being used for research purposes, and genetically modified crops have been commercialized.

IUPAC definition

Process of inserting new genetic information into existing cells in order to modify a specific organism for the purpose of changing its characteristics.

Note: Adapted from ref.[2][3]

Genetic engineering alters the genetic make-up of an organism using techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and micro-encapsulation techniques.

Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4] However the European Commission has also defined genetic engineering broadly as including selective breeding and other means of artificial selection.[5]Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be used within them.[7]Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing artificially synthesized material from raw materials into an organism.[8]

If genetic material from another species is added to the host, the resulting organism is called transgenic. If genetic material from the same species or a species that can naturally breed with the host is used the resulting organism is called cisgenic.[9] Genetic engineering can also be used to remove genetic material from the target organism, creating a gene knockout organism.[10] In Europe genetic modification is synonymous with genetic engineering while within the United States of America it can also refer to conventional breeding methods.[11][12] The Canadian regulatory system is based on whether a product has novel features regardless of method of origin. In other words, a product is regulated as genetically modified if it carries some trait not previously found in the species whether it was generated using traditional breeding methods (e.g., selective breeding, cell fusion, mutation breeding) or genetic engineering.[13][14][15] Within the scientific community, the term genetic engineering is not commonly used; more specific terms such as transgenic are preferred.

Plants, animals or micro organisms that have changed through genetic engineering are termed genetically modified organisms or GMOs.[16] Bacteria were the first organisms to be genetically modified. Plasmid DNA containing new genes can be inserted into the bacterial cell and the bacteria will then express those genes. These genes can code for medicines or enzymes that process food and other substrates.[17][18] Plants have been modified for insect protection, herbicide resistance, virus resistance, enhanced nutrition, tolerance to environmental pressures and the production of edible vaccines.[19] Most commercialised GMO’s are insect resistant and/or herbicide tolerant crop plants.[20] Genetically modified animals have been used for research, model animals and the production of agricultural or pharmaceutical products. They include animals with genes knocked out, increased susceptibility to disease, hormones for extra growth and the ability to express proteins in their milk.[21]


Genetic engineering – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virginia Eugenics – University of Vermont

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Virginia Eugenics – University of Vermont
Aug 042015

Number of victims

In total, 7325 individuals were sterilized in Virginia under its sterilization law. Of those sterilized about half were deemed mentally ill and the other half deemed mentally deficient. Approximately 62% of total individuals sterilized were female. Some estimate the total number of sterilizations as high as 8,300 individuals (Dorr 2006, p. 382).

Period during which sterilization occurred

Sterilization in Virginia occurred under state law between 1924 and 1979. It thus appeared to have continued such sterilizations longer than any other state (Landman 1932, pp. 83-4; Largent 2008, p. 80). There are known instances of eugenic sterilization before 1924 (Dorr 2008, p. 116).

Temporal pattern of sterilization and rate of sterilization

Although Virginia formally adopted a sterilization law in 1924, sterilization was not practiced widely until after the United State Supreme Court ruling against Carrie Buck in 1927. This ruling set a precedent on the legality of sterilization not only in Virginia but also throughout the nation. During the 1930s, immediately after this Supreme Court ruling, sterilization in Virginia occurred at its highest rate with approximately 13 sterilizations per 100,000 state residents. A 1938 report stated that 632 of the first 1,000 patients sterilized had been paroled, and that 812 of the same group were from impoverished families (Trent 1994, 217). After the 1930s prior to, during, and following WWII sterilization initially decreased and thereafter maintained a fairly constant rate. After this, sterilization rates dropped dramatically until the practice faded out and then was subsequently forced out of practice with the repeal of the 1924 act in 1974 and the additional removal of all mention of eugenic sterilization to prevent hereditary forms of mental illness that are recurrent from being passed on from Virginia code in 1979 (Dorr 2008, p. 221, Lombardo 2008b, p. 250). Compulsory sterilizations for non-eugenic purposes continue today, but under very strict regulations. A compulsory sterilization patient must be unable to give informed consent, in need of contraception, unable to use any other form of contraception, and permanently unable to raise a child (Lombardo 2008b, p. 267).

More here:

Virginia Eugenics – University of Vermont

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

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

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