Forums

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/12/2014 10:39:34 AM
	U.S. congressional staffers stage walkout in latest police protests 8 hours ago African-American Congressional staffers and representatives stage a walk out with a "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" pose on the steps of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol to protest the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, in Washington December 11, 2014. REUTERS/Gary Cameron WASHINGTON/OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) - Dozens of U.S. congressional staff staged a walkout on Thursday to protest decisions by grand juries not to charge white police officers in the killings of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York City. Related Stories More looting, one arrest as Bay Area protests dwindle Reuters 19 arrested in 4th night of California protests Associated Press Hundreds march as California protests continue Associated Press Protesters put 'hands up' across US over Ferguson AFP US Capitol staffers raise their hands for Ferguson Associated Press The staffers, including members of the Congressional Black Associates group, held a prayer service on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and raised their hands in a reference to the "Hands up, don't shoot" chants that have become a feature of protests around the nation. The action was the latest in a series of demonstrations over concerns about the policing of black communities. Some have turned violent, including this week's protests in northern California. Oakland and neighboring Berkeley, California, have seen nightly demonstrations all week in response to decisions by two grand juries not to charge white police officers in the killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York. On Wednesday night, about 150 protesters, fewer than on previous evenings, left the campus of University of California, Berkeley, and demonstrated without incident before marching south into Oakland, authorities said. By that point, the protesters had dwindled to about 50 people, some of whom broke windows at a T-Mobile store and a Chase bank branch, according to the city of Oakland. Looting was reported in an area of small businesses at a downtown intersection, the city said. At one point, a Reuters photographer witnessed a man who demonstrators said was an undercover police officer and who had been marching with them, pointing a pistol at protesters after he and another man were attacked. Within a minute or two, about 20 uniformed Oakland police officers arrived and detained one of the protesters. Chief Avery Browne, commander of the California Highway Patrol's Golden Gate Division, said two plainclothes CHP detectives were surrounded by up to 50 demonstrators who ignored orders to back off, despite one of the officers first taking out his baton and identifying himself as police. "We are extremely cognizant and very sensitive to the display of a gun. It's very upsetting. It's very disturbing to individuals who are attempting to peacefully protest, and we recognize that," Browne told reporters by telephone. But he said the detective involved told him he had been in fear for his and his partner's lives. "No one has provided any evidence that the officers were inappropriate in what they did," Browne said. On previous evenings this week in the Bay Area, riot police have fired tear gas and pepper spray to disperse crowds of demonstrators that have at times been hundreds strong, some of whom have thrown stones at the officers. (Reporting by Emmett Berg in Oakland and Paul Thomasch in New York; Additional reporting by Noah Berger in Oakland and Daniel Wallis in Denver; Editing by Bill Trott, Eric Walsh and Cynthia Osterman)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel

1162

61587

Lima

RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?

12/12/2014 10:48:23 AM

U.S. corporations winning fight over human rights lawsuits

By Lawrence Hurley4 hours ago

Plaintiff Esther Kiobel (L) joins a protest against Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington October 1, 2012. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2013 that made it all but impossible to sue foreign companies in U.S. courts for alleged roles in overseas human rights abuses is proving to be a boon for U.S. firms too, court documents show.

In the roughly year and a half since the ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, U.S. companies such as Chiquita Brands International Inc , IBM Corp and Ford Motor Co have successfully invoked the Supreme Court's reasoning to fend off lawsuits alleging they were involved in human rights abuses in South Africa, Colombia and elsewhere.

In the seven cases involving U.S. companies that federal appeals courts have decided since the Supreme Court rulings, corporate defendants have won five, according to a Reuters review of the court documents. Only one ruling was an outright win for plaintiffs.

A similar pattern has played out in lower courts, with judges citing the Kiobel decision in favor of defendants in seven of eight human rights cases involving U.S. companies that have been decided since the ruling

With rulings tending to favor companies, human rights lawyers are thinking twice before filing new lawsuits. The Reuters review shows only one new human rights lawsuit filed against a U.S. company since the ruling came down in April 2013. In the 1990s and 2000s, up to half a dozen cases were filed every year against U.S. or foreign corporations.

Paul Hoffman, a leading Venice, California-based human rights lawyer who argued Kiobel for the plaintiffs, said he has been fighting to keep his existing cases alive rather than planning new ones. He has been presenting legal arguments explaining why the Supreme Court decision does not mean his lawsuits should be dismissed.

"People are waiting to see what the landscape is going to look like," he said.

Lawyers on both sides of the issue say the Supreme Court might yet have to take another case to clarify exactly when U.S. companies can be sued.

TORTURE, MURDER

In the Kiobel case, the court unanimously threw out a lawsuit by 12 people from Nigeria that accused British and Dutch-based Royal Dutch Shell Plc of aiding state-sponsored torture and murder.

The court said the law under which the Nigerians brought the case, the 1789 Alien Tort Statute, was presumed to cover only violations of international law occurring in the United States. Violations elsewhere, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, must "touch and concern" U.S. territory "with sufficient force to displace the presumption."

Before the Kiobel ruling in April 2013, the law had been the primary vehicle for bringing human rights cases for more than 30 years, not just in the United States but globally.

"Human rights litigators have lost a significant weapon," said John Bellinger, a Washington-based lawyer at the Arnold & Porter law firm who has played a prominent role advocating for corporate defendants. Bellinger was the top legal adviser to the U.S. State Department under President George W. Bush when it filed briefs in various cases arguing that the scope of the law should be pared back.

OTHER OPTIONS

The Supreme Court ruling means human rights lawyers now have to look more seriously at alternative ways to seek redress for alleged abuses.

Human rights lawyers can sue multinational companies in other countries, which has happened in Canada, the United Kingdom, and a handful of other countries, but that option is usually only viable if the defendant is based in one of those countries. Bringing suit in a developing country where alleged violations occurred is often less appealing to plaintiffs, as such countries often have troubled judicial systems.

In theory, some of the major cases against U.S. companies filed before the Supreme Court ruling could go ahead on other grounds because the lawsuits cite other legal claims.

There is also the possibility that alleged human rights victims could sue companies in U.S. state courts, under common law theories of wrongdoing such as assault and battery. But that too has its drawbacks for plaintiffs, including a shorter window in which to file lawsuits, which are often based on alleged conduct that doesn’t come to light until years after it occurs.

Also, lawyers on both sides say such cases would lack the headline-grabbing punch of a case filed under the Alien Tort Statute alleging human rights violations.

A limited number of Alien Tort Statute cases could still move forward in the United States even under the new restrictive interpretation.

In the one clear victory for plaintiffs since the Supreme Court ruling, an appeals court in Virginia said in June that Iraqi nationals who complained of mistreatment at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad could sue a subsidiary of U.S.-based CACI International Inc , a military contractor that worked at the site.

Judge Barbara Keenan wrote that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient connection to the United States to "require a different result than that reached in Kiobel."

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Amy Stevens and Ross Colvin)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/12/2014 3:27:53 PM
	Global nuclear war is increasingly probable, experts warn Friday, December 12, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes (NaturalNews) With the end of the Cold War, you would think that the risk of global nuclear conflagration would have been dramatically reduced -- and, for a time, it was. With the U.S. as the only remaining superpower and a collapsing Soviet Union, most experts saw the risk of atomic war as minimal. But times change, and so do geopolitical scenarios. Today, in fact, more and more experts see greater risk of nuclear war, not less, due to a proliferation of the technology and because existing nuclear stockpiles are often less secure than they need to be. As reported by Britain's Independent newspaper recently: Urgent action is needed to minimise the risk of a nuclear war, more than 120 senior military, political and diplomatic figures from across the world have warned. Ahead of the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, which starts today, the experts wrote in a letter that the danger of such a conflict was "underestimated or insufficiently understood" by world leaders. Tensions rising between major and minor nuclear powers alike During the Cold War, the principle of MAD -- mutually assured destruction -- was what prevented America and the U.S.S.R. from engaging in a nuclear World War III. But economically desperate rogues states like North Korea and religious extremist regimes like the one ruling Iran make smaller-scale nuclear exchanges much more possible, the experts say. Signatories to the Vienna Conference letter included people from across political spectra: conservative UK Defense Secretary Lord King, liberal Labour Party colleague Lord Browne, former Foreign Secretaries Margaret Beckett and David Owen, and former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, the paper said. Also, John McColl, a former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Lord Richards, a former Chief of the Defense Staff; and U.S. Gen. James Cartwright, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were also signatories. But besides just rogue states becoming nuclear-armed, tensions are also rising between traditional nuclear powers, the experts noted. "Tensions between nuclear-armed states and alliances in the Euro-Atlantic area and in both South and East Asia remain ripe with the potential for military miscalculation and escalation," said the letter, addressed to Sebastian Kurz, Austria's Minister for Foreign Affairs. "In a vestige of the Cold War, too many nuclear weapons in the world remain ready to launch on short notice, greatly increasing the chances of an accident," the letter continued. "This fact gives leaders faced with an imminent potential threat an insufficient amount of time to communicate with each other and act with prudence." "An incredibly dangerous situation" The experts recommended the establishment of better crisis management in "conflict hotspots" as well as additional new security measures. The experts also warned that nuclear stockpiles were "insufficiently secure, making them possible targets for terrorism." As for the great powers, tensions have clearly risen between the U.S. and Russia, and the U.S. and China -- the former over its annexation of Crimea and suspected involvement in fomenting conflict in Ukraine, and the latter over its rising aggression towards neighbors, most of whom are U.S. allies, in Asia. But perhaps the most feasible of nuclear-war scenarios is a conflict between the U.S. and West against Russia, over its actions in Ukraine. Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician, advocate of citizen action to address nuclear and environmental crises, the founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and a 1985 Nobel Prize nominee, warned in October that a new Cold War had begun between the U.S. and Russia, and that nuclear conflict was once again a major concern. What's more, she says, the results of any such conflict would be devastating. "It's an incredibly dangerous situation. ... If there's a nuclear war tonight, that's the Northern Hemisphere (of the entire world) gone," she said at the National Press Club Newsmaker press conference, as quoted by the International Business Times. Sources: http://www.independent.co.uk http://www.allnewspipeline.com http://au.ibtimes.com Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047959_nuclear_war_global_conflict_World_III.html#ixzz3LhIb25Vx
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/12/2014 3:39:04 PM
	10 horrifying technologies that threaten humanity's existence Friday, December 12, 2014 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer (NaturalNews) Technology is the archetypal golden calf of the modern age. Everything that naturally exists in a purely analog and resonant state is being artificially mechanized, computerized, digitized and hybridized (think half-human, half-robot on this one). And with this gradual suffocation of the living, breathing fabric of our world comes the ominous threat of eventual human extinction, as the very essence of humanity is systematically uprooted in favor of a wholly synthetic and programmed existence. Much of what is considered technological advancement these days is inherently evil and has the potential to be used as a collective weapon of mass destruction against life itself. Synthetic biology, for instance, which involves re-engineering genes to manufacture fake organisms, is one such example that threatens to set off an unpredictable chain reaction of devastation and death within the larger ecosystem of life itself. "The idea that technology is neutral or amoral is a myth that needs to be dispelled," said Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Science Group at California Polytechnic University, as quoted by io9. "The designer can imbue ethics into the creation, even if the artifact has no moral agency itself. This feature may be too subtle to notice in most cases, but some technologies are born from evil and don't have redeeming uses...." Here are 10 other examples of horrifying technologies that, if fully implemented, could spell the death of humanity (H/T io9): 1. Weaponized nanotechnology. Nanotechnology has been billed as the solution to other supposedly imperfect technologies that rely on "flawed" natural materials. By giving scientists the ability to manufacture structures from the ground up, to precise molecular specifications, nanotechnology is often hailed as revolutionary in its potential to transform the way that we harvest energy, transfer and store information, and eat. But nanotechnology is easily weaponized and has the potential to take on a life of its own. According to io9, the threat of nanotechnology is two-fold: It has the potential to deconstruct into both unchecked self-replication and exponential growth. If this should occur unexpectedly, or be intentionally brought about, governments and other ominous forces could unleash it into the world and trigger a self-replicating army of planet-killing "biomass killers," which would leave in their wake an endless stream of useless "grey goo" byproducts. 2. Conscious machines. The idea of artificial consciousness, or machines that bear real human consciousness traits, is still something of a sci-fi pipe dream. But some scientists are actively developing ways to make it a reality, including efforts to engineer human brains inside machines, which would bear seemingly functional, human-like traits. "Since we plan to use artificial intelligence in place of human intellectual labor, I think it would be immoral to purposely program it to be conscious," stated futurist Louie Helm, as quoted by io9. "Trapping a conscious being inside a machine and forcing it to do work for you is isomorphic to slavery." 3. Artificial superintelligence. Building upon this idea is the horrifying concept of artificial "superintelligence." Machines intentionally designed with intellects superior to those of humans could easily outsmart humans and literally take over the world. Even if so-called firewalls were built into the technology, it is entirely possible that super-smart AIs could still try to enslave humanity, from which there would likely be no escape. 4. Time travel. There's very little evidence that time travel is even remotely possible at this point. But if quantum science was somehow able to develop a way to transcend the physical confines of time and space, the result would likely be catastrophic, both existentially and paradoxically. Even from a cultural perspective, if traveling back and forth between the ages were possible, it would more than likely trigger irrevocable turmoil between disparate civilizations. 5. Mind-reading devices. This one is already a reality, with scientists in the Netherlands having come up with a way to scan people's brains in order to determine what letter they're looking at on a screen. The fast food chain Pizza Hut recently developed a similar technology that scans customers' retinas to determine what toppings they want on their pizzas. "Such devices, if used en masse by some kind of totalitarian regime or police state, would make life intolerable," explains io9. "It would introduce an Orwellian world in which our 'thought crimes' could actually be enforced." 6. Brain-hacking devices. If the powers-that-be get their way, the whole of surviving humanity will eventually be micro-chipped, allowing for the likely uploading of people's thoughts and thought processes into a singular database. An international team of neuroscientists has already developed a way for people to communicate directly from brain to brain over the internet, opening up the possibility of this information being hacked. 7. Autonomous robots. If machines ever gain a similar level of intelligence as humans, they could easily be programmed to kill humans. The U.S. military is already developing this type of technology in the form of pilot-less killing drones, for instance, as well as robot tanks and other advanced forms of weaponry that don't require actual human operators. 8. Weaponized pathogens. It is speculated that diseases like Ebola, H1N1 "swine" flu, "seasonal" flu and various other virulent pathogens may have already been weaponized. If further tweaked, these viruses could be intentionally unleashed on humanity, potentially killing off half or more of the world's population. 9. Virtual prisons. If radical lifespan-enhancement technology successfully leads to humans living to 100, 200 or even longer, it is possible that the criminal justice system will have to be altered in response. Convicted criminals could one day have to serve much longer prison sentences, for instance, which if combined with so-called mind-uploading technology could lead to "virtual" prisons in which prisoners are subjected to artificial confinement within their own heads. 10. Genetically modified organisms. GMOs have already been linked to sterility, organ damage, allergies and other chronic illnesses in humans. And as they continue to be planted and harvested in open-air fields, their traits are progressively spreading and infecting other plants and crops, which will eventually trigger widespread crop failures and famine, not to mention an endless stream of new "superbugs" and "superweeds." Sources: http://io9.com http://www.foresight.org http://science.naturalnews.com http://truthwiki.org/Genetically_modified_cr... http://truthwiki.org/GMO_Dangers,_opinion Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047967_technology_human_extinction_GMOs.html#ixzz3LhLz7JR4
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/12/2014 4:03:06 PM
	Senate to take up $1.1T bill to keep govt running Senate to take up big $1.1T spending bill, which passed House after White House rescue effort By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press1 hour ago FOX News Videos House passes spending bill to avoid government shutdown Watch video Related Stories House approves $1.1T bill financing government Associated Press House GOP confident of finishing spending measure Associated Press House Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill Ahead of Midnight Deadline The Wall Street Journal Scrambled Alliances Complicate Spending Bill The Wall Street Journal Democrats Balk Over Dodd-Frank Push in Spending Bill The Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON (AP) -- A battle between the Senate's old school veterans and new-breed freshmen such as tea partier Ted Cruz and liberal Elizabeth Warren is taking shape Friday as leaders push for passage of a $1.1 trillion spending bill needed to keep the government running. Cruz and Warren each boast a national following, but the smart money is on Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the veteran lawmakers who steer the Senate. Once Reid and McConnell forge an alliance, the fix is in and passage is only a matter of time. Still, liberals including Warren, D-Mass., and conservatives such as Cruz, R-Texas, will make their points. Warren strongly opposes a provision of the spending bill that loosens rules on banks, while Cruz is incensed that the measure doesn't block the president's plan to deport fewer immigrants. The bill passed the House on Thursday after a day of drama but by a relatively comfortable 219-206 vote. The vote came after GOP leaders sent the House into a seven-hour recess to give the White House time to lobby Democrats angry that the measure weakens rules on trading risky financial products known as derivatives and allows wealthy donors to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into political parties. View gallery House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio holds what may be his last news conference of the 113th Congress … In the end, 57 House Democrats voted for the bill, including two of the party's top three leaders. Democrats argued that there was too much good in the bill to scuttle it and get a worse deal next year when Republicans seize control of the Senate. "Hold your nose and make this a better world," Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said. The measure would fund nearly every Cabinet agency through September 2015, awarding increases for health research, securities regulation, processing a backlog of rape kits and foreign aid. Republicans won cuts to the IRS and the Environmental Protection Agency. The 1,764-page bill is thick with carefully negotiated trade-offs on spending and policy "riders" on the environment, abortion and the lead content of ammunition. Democrats succeeded in getting the most politically toxic riders off the legislation. Reid said he hopes the measure will clear the Senate for Obama's signature on Friday, though a vote may not come until the weekend. Hours before the vote, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California delivered a rare public rebuke of Obama, saying she was "enormously disappointed" he had decided to embrace legislation that she described as an attempt at blackmail by Republicans. But Pelosi never lobbied Democrats to kill the bill, and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and No. 3 Democrat Jim Clyburn of South Carolina were a steadying force in support of the measure. U.S. Spending Bill Creates Strange Alliances in DCPlay video Republicans, meanwhile, limited their defections to 67, mostly conservatives seeking an immediate confrontation with Obama over his moves to relax enforcement of immigration laws. Others simply refuse to vote for spending bills. But Republicans scored many wins in the legislation, seizing on new leverage gained after their sweep in last month's midterm elections. One provision particularly galling to many Democrats would relax new bank regulations that force riskier trades in financial instruments known as derivatives into separate affiliates unprotected by deposit insurance. The White House stated its own objections to the bank-related proposal and other portions of the bill in a written statement. Even so, officials said Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both telephoned Democrats to secure the votes needed for passage, and the president stepped away from a White House Christmas party reception line to make last-minute calls. In addition to the government funding, the bill also sets a new course for selected, highly shaky pension plans. Despite the day's uncertainty, there was no threat of a shutdown in federal services — and no sign of the brinkmanship that marked other, similar episodes. Instead, the House and Senate quickly passed a measure providing a 48-hour extension in existing funding to give the Senate time to act on the larger bill. Obama promptly signed it. The spending measure was one of a handful on the year-end agenda, with the others including an extension of expiring tax breaks and a bill approving Obama's policy for arming Syrian forces fighting Islamic State forces. A bill extending the government's terrorism insurance backstop could get tripped up by procedural hurdles. A provision in the big bill relating to financially failing multiemployer pension plans would allow controversial cuts for current retirees, and supporters said it was part of an effort to prevent a slow-motion collapse of a system that provides retirement income to millions. "The multiemployer pension system is a ticking time bomb," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., who negotiated the agreement with Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who is retiring after 40 years in Congress. View Gallery
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1