The European Union Times |
- Cancer risk highly linked to mere bad luck
- France does nothing as 940 vehicle torched on New Year’s
- Who Is Behind The Oil War, And How Low Will The Price Of Crude Go In 2015?
- Ebola fight in West Africa not over
- Denmark invests $75mn in offensive cyber division
- Deadly New Year: Tragedies mar festivities around the world
- Fiat Chrysler recalls thousands of trucks over technical issue
- UN Seeks to Criminalize Free Speech, Citing “Human Rights”
- US may wage a global war in 2015
- Computer glitch prevents US’ most advanced F-35 fighter jet from firing until 2019
|
Posted: 02 Jan 2015 02:17 PM PST
 This means more effort is needed for early detection. There are many types of cancer, but they are all basically cells running amok and multiplying without check, which leads to tumors growing and interfering with the normal functioning of an organ. This happens when mutations, random changes in genetic code, accumulate and change the way genes make the cell work. Carcinogenic factors like smoking and exposure to sun or hereditary factors contribute to the probability of getting the disease. But the majority of cancers just happen, because that is the way our bodies are, a new study by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center says. The study published on Thursday in the journal Science used a statistical model to compare lifetime incidence rates of various kinds of cancer with division rates of stem cell in 31 corresponding tissue types. Stem cells are the source of new cells that replace those that die from age or damage. A stronger correlation between the two indicates that the chance of getting cancer largely depended on how fast stem cells divide, and thus risk getting a mutation. In 22 cancer types such “bad luck” would be the prime cause of the disease, the study showed. “If two-thirds of cancer incidence across tissues is explained by random DNA mutations that occur when stem cells divide, then changing our lifestyle and habits will be a huge help in preventing certain cancers, but this may not be as effective for a variety of others,” said biomathematician Cristian Tomasetti, one of the authors of the paper. “We should focus more resources on finding ways to detect such cancers at early, curable stages,” he added. This certainly doesn’t make smoking and tanning less dangerous for health, researchers warn. Lung cancer and skin cancer are among the one third, where poor lifestyle factors are a major contributor. “Cancer-free longevity in people exposed to cancer-causing agents, such as tobacco, is often attributed to their ‘good genes,’ but the truth is that most of them simply had good luck,” said the study co-author Bert Vogelstein. A possible flaw in the research is that it doesn’t include some cancer types like breast and prostate cancer, which are the most common cancer in women and second-most common cancer in men. The scientists say they were not able to find reliable stem cell division rates in scientific literature for those types of tissue. Source           |
|
Posted: 02 Jan 2015 02:10 PM PST
 New Year’s Eve in France was a tale of two cities: In the rich areas a vast police presence presided over joyous public parties, but in the poor suburbs an appalling 940 cars were set on fire nationwide by Muslim immigrants. Such violent and depressing scenes are what many impoverished French woke up to on January first, as they have for over two decades. Perhaps most shocking is that the nation’s government and media now treat this mass arson as if it is something quite normal. It’s almost as if the nation’s leaders and opinion-makers don’t realize that having cars torched in your neighborhood is not something which should be tolerated. The county of Seine-Saint-Denis, one of the youngest, poorest and most Muslim in France, has a major police presence for 364 days out of the year. Sadly, French society prefers to allow this destructive annual ritual rather than provide these areas with constructive futures or even basic security. Despite the recent pronouncement by the Interior Ministry that “There were no major incidents”, France’s poor do not agree. As they watch their neighborhood burn every New Year’s Eve, it would be only human if their alienation and anger continued to grow.      |
|
Posted: 02 Jan 2015 01:59 PM PST
 Who is to blame for the staggering collapse of the price of oil? Is it the Saudis? Is it the United States? Are Saudi Arabia and the U.S. government working together to hurt Russia? And if this oil war continues, how far will the price of oil end up falling in 2015? As you will see below, some analysts believe that it could ultimately go below 20 dollars a barrel. If we see anything even close to that, the U.S. economy could lose millions of good paying jobs, billions of dollars of energy bonds could default and we could see trillions of dollars of derivatives related to the energy industry implode. The global financial system is already extremely vulnerable, and purposely causing the price of oil to crash is one of the most deflationary things that you could possibly do. Whoever is behind this oil war is playing with fire, and by the end of this coming year the entire planet could be dealing with the consequences. Ever since the price of oil started falling, people have been pointing fingers at the Saudis. And without a doubt, the Saudis have manipulated the price of oil before in order to achieve geopolitical goals. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Andrew Topf… We don’t have to look too far back in history to see Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter and producer, using the oil price to achieve its foreign policy objectives. In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat convinced Saudi King Faisal to cut production and raise prices, then to go as far as embargoing oil exports, all with the goal of punishing the United States for supporting Israel against the Arab states. It worked. The “oil price shock” quadrupled prices. It happened again in 1986, when Saudi Arabia-led OPEC allowed prices to drop precipitously, and then in 1990, when the Saudis sent prices plummeting as a way of taking out Russia, which was seen as a threat to their oil supremacy. In 1998, they succeeded. When the oil price was halved from $25 to $12, Russia defaulted on its debt. The Saudis and other OPEC members have, of course, used the oil price for the obverse effect, that is, suppressing production to keep prices artificially high and member states swimming in “petrodollars”. In 2008, oil peaked at $147 a barrel. Turning to the current price drop, the Saudis and OPEC have a vested interest in taking out higher-cost competitors, such as US shale oil producers, who will certainly be hurt by the lower price. Even before the price drop, the Saudis were selling their oil to China at a discount. OPEC’s refusal on Nov. 27 to cut production seemed like the baldest evidence yet that the oil price drop was really an oil price war between Saudi Arabia and the US. If the Saudis wanted to stabilize the price of oil, they could do that immediately by announcing a production cutback. The fact that they have chosen not to do this says volumes. In addition to wanting to harm U.S. shale producers, some believe that the Saudis are determined to crush Iran. This next excerpt comes from a recent Daily Mail article… Above all, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies see Iran, a bitter religious and political opponent, as their main regional adversary. They know that Iran, dominated by the Shia Muslim sect, supports a resentful underclass of more than a million under-privileged and angry Shia people living in the gulf peninsula, a potential uprising waiting to happen against the Saudi regime. The Saudis, who are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims, also loathe the way Iran supports President Assad’s regime in Syria, with which the Iranians have a religious affiliation. They also know that Iran, its economy plagued by corruption and crippled by Western sanctions, desperately needs the oil price to rise. And they have no intention of helping out. The fact is that the Saudis remain in a strong position because oil is cheap to produce there, and the country has such vast reserves. It can withstand a year, or three, of low oil prices. There are others out there that are fully convinced that the Saudis and the U.S. are actually colluding to drive down the price of oil, and that their real goal is to destroy Russia. In fact, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro openly promoted this theory during a recent speech on Venezuelan national television… “Did you know there’s an oil war? And the war has an objective: to destroy Russia,” he said in a speech to state businessmen carried live on state TV. “It’s a strategically planned war… also aimed at Venezuela, to try and destroy our revolution and cause an economic collapse,” he added, accusing the United States of trying to flood the market with shale oil. Venezuela and Russia, which both have fractious ties with Washington, are widely considered the nations hardest hit by the global oil price fall. And as I discussed just the other day, Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to agree with this theory… “We all see the lowering of oil prices. There’s lots of talk about what’s causing it. Could it be an agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to punish Iran and affect the economies of Russia and Venezuela? It could.” Without a doubt, Obama wants to “punish” Russia for what has been going on in Ukraine. Going after oil is one of the best ways to do that. And if the U.S. shale industry gets hurt in the process, that is a bonus for the radical environmentalists in Obama’s administration. There are yet others that see this oil war as being even more complicated. Marin Katusa believes that this is actually a three-way war between OPEC, Russia and the United States… “It’s a three-way oil war between OPEC, Russia and North American shale,” says Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War”, and chief energy investment strategist at Casey Research. Katusa doesn’t see production slowing in 2015: “We know that OPEC will not be cutting back production. They’re going to increase it. Russia has increased production to all-time highs.” With Russia and OPEC refusing to give up market share how will the shale industry compete? Katusa thinks the longevity and staying power of the shale industry will keep it viable and profitable. “The versatility and the survivability of a lot of these shale producers will surprise people. I don’t see that the shale sector is going to collapse over night,” he says. Shale sweet spots like North Dakota’s Bakken region and Texas’ Eagle Ford area will help keep production levels up and output steady. Whatever the true motivation for this oil war is, it does not appear that it is going to end any time soon. And so that means that the price of oil is going to go lower. How much lower? One analyst recently told CNN that we could see the price of oil dip into the $30s next year… Few saw the energy meltdown coming. Now that it’s here, industry analysts warn another move lower is possible as the momentum remains firmly to the downside. “If this doesn’t hold, we could go back to price levels in late 2008 and early 2009, down in the $30s. There’s no reason why it couldn’t happen,” said Darin Newsom, senior analyst at Telvent DTN. Others are even more pessimistic. For instance, Jeremy Warner of the Sydney Morning Herald, who correctly predicted that the price of oil would fall below $80 this year, is now forecasting that the price of oil could fall all the way down to $20 next year… Revisiting the past year’s predictions is, for most columnists a frequently humbling experience. The howlers tend to far outweigh the successes. Yet, for a change, I can genuinely claim to have got my main call for markets – that oil would sink to $US80 a barrel or less – spot on, and for the right reasons, too. Just in case you think I’m making it up, this is what I said 12 months ago: “My big prediction is for $US80 oil, from which much of the rest of my outlook for the coming year flows. It’s hard to overstate the significance of a much lower oil price – Brent at, say, $US80 a barrel, or perhaps lower still – yet this is a surprisingly likely prospect, the implications of which have been largely missed by mainstream economic forecasters.” If on to a good thing, you might as well stick with it; so for the coming year, I’m doubling up on this forecast. Far from bouncing back to the post crisis “normal” of something over $US100 a barrel, as many oil traders seem to expect, my view is that the oil price will remain low for a long time, sinking to perhaps as little as $US20 a barrel over the coming year before recovering a little. But even Warner’s chilling prediction is not the most bearish. A technical analyst named Abigail Doolittle recently told CNBC that under a worst case scenario the price of oil could fall as low as $14 a barrel… No one really saw 2014’s dramatic plunge in oil price coming, so it’s probably fair to say that any predictions about where it’s going from here fall somewhere between educated guesses and picking a number out of a hat. In that light, it’s less than shocking to see one analyst making a case—albeit in a pure outlier sense—for a drop all the way below $14 a barrel. Abigail Doolittle, who does business under the name Peak Theories Research, posits that current chart trends point to the possibility that crude has three downside target areas where it could find support—$44, $35 and the nightmare scenario of, yes, $13.65. But the truth is that none of those scenarios need to happen in order for this oil war to absolutely devastate the U.S. economy and the U.S. financial system. There is a very strong correlation between the price of oil and the performance of energy stocks and energy bonds. But over the past couple of weeks this correlation has been broken. The following chart comes fromZero Hedge… It is inevitable that at some point we will see energy stocks and energy bonds come back into line with the price of crude oil. And it isn’t just energy stocks and bonds that we need to be concerned about. There is only one other time in all of history when the price of oil has crashed by more than 50 dollars in less than a year. That was in 2008 – just before the great financial crisis that erupted in the fall of that year. For much, much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “Guess What Happened The Last Time The Price Of Oil Crashed Like This?…” Whether the price of oil crashed or not, we were already on the verge of massive financial troubles. But the fact that the price of oil has collapsed makes all of our potential problems much, much worse. As we enter 2015, keep an eye on energy stocks, energy bonds and listen for any mention of problems with derivatives. The next great financial crisis is right around the corner, but most people will never see it coming until they are blindsided by it. Source      |
|
Posted: 02 Jan 2015 01:29 PM PST
 “I think the response (to Ebola) has been successful but we have a long way to go,” Anthony Banbury, the outgoing head of the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER), said at a press conference in Ghana on Friday. On the eve of his departure for New York to take up a new UN position, Banbury warned of an “epic battle” still ahead to control the spread of the disease. He expressed confidence that the number of Ebola cases would fall in the first months of 2015. “But two cases here and three there presents a grave threat to any community or country,” Banbury noted, calling on all countries not to turn a blind eye on the outbreak until it is completely over. Banbury, a US national, will be succeeded by Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, a Mauritanian diplomat who has held different UN posts. The Ebola outbreak has killed 7,989 people around the world, almost all of them in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, the three West Africa countries hardest hit by the disease, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday. Ebola is a form of hemorrhagic fever, whose symptoms are diarrhea, vomiting, and bleeding. The virus spreads through direct contact with infected blood, feces, or sweat. It can be also spread through sexual contact or the unprotected handling of contaminated corpses. Source      |
|
Posted: 02 Jan 2015 01:06 PM PST
 The Danish Defence Intelligence Service (FE) has stated its readiness to launch cyberattacks against hostile states and organizations, according to Politiken daily. Over the next 2 years some $75 million will be invested in an “offensive” cyber division. By 2017 Denmark will pour some 465 million kroner ($75 million) into developing an offensive cyber-attack capability, according to the report. This is apparently so that Denmark can expand its capabilities from focusing solely on defending itself against hacker attacks, to also attacking hostile targets. The idea is being developed in the wake of attacks over past several years which allegedly targeted the country’s defense and business sector for sensitive information. Since 2012 at least four Danish companies have reportedly been targeted in “incredibly” sophisticated, “state-sponsored” attacks blamed on the usual suspect, China, according to the report from FE. While an offensive cyberattack should typically be conducted in secrecy in order to surprise the target, some experts have suggested it must be viewed in the same light as a military operation, meaning it would need an authorization from the parliament. “When we go to war, it is parliament that declares war and the military that carries it out,” Anders Henriksen, an expert in international law at the University of Copenhagen, told Politiken. Professor of constitutional law at the University of Copenhagen, Jens Elo Rytter, expressed agreement. “The use of force is such an important thing, according to the constitution there must be parliamentary inspection and control, when Denmark uses the power,” Rytter told regional daily Jydske Vestkysten. However, the Defense ministry believes only those cyberattacks that would result in physical damage to the target should be considered warfare and require prior parliamentary approval, according to Politiken. Using a “hypothetical’ attack on Moscow’s water supply systems as an example, the publication said that while it would not destroy computers, management applications or physical installations, yet could interrupt the supply itself, it may not have to be subjected to approval. Launching an attack on foreign state or company without parliamentary approval would not breach the constitution, believes the current Defense Minister Nicolai Wammen. “I am convinced that the constitutional requirement to include parliament in the given situation can be reconciled with any concerns in relation to the operation’s implementation and security,” Wammen told Politiken. Source      |
|
Posted: 01 Jan 2015 02:41 PM PST
 Stampede ‘over fake money’ kills dozens At least 36 people were killed in China’s Shanghai on New Year’s Eve in a stampede, city authorities said. It was later reported that they rushed to pick up what turned out to be fake US money bills thrown from a building in Chen Yi Square in the city’s Bund waterfront district. An eyewitness said the coupons, which looked like banknotes, were thrown from a bar above the street as part of the New Year’s celebration. “It’s too cruel. People in front of us had already fallen to the floor, and others were stepping all over them,” said another witness, Cui Tingting, 27, who had picked up some of the coupons. However, local police denied that the fake money was the cause. President Xi Jinping ordered the Shanghai city government to conduct a swift investigation into the tragedy. Afghan army shells wedding  With hundreds of guests, many of them women and children, present, the attack turned to be pretty deadly. At least 26 people were killed on the spot while more than 40 sustained injuries and were rushed to hospital. “What we know so far is that our soldiers fired mortar rounds from three outposts but we do not know whether it was intentional,” General Mahmoud, deputy commander of the Afghan 215 Corps in the province, told Reuters. Helmand province is one of Afghanistan’s most troubled, with Taliban fighters regularly clashing with government security forces. French nurse kills ex-girlfriend, party guests A tragedy occurred on New Year’s Eve in France’s St Catherine, in the north of the country. A 45-year-old male nurse brought a shotgun to a family party and killed three guests, including his former girlfriend. Two others were injured, one of them seriously enough to be taken to hospital for intensive care. The assailant then drove away in his car and was chased by police. The man eventually turned the firearm on himself, local authorities said. The killing spree came as a shock to the usually quiet French community, AFP reported. “This is a very quiet, peaceful area – there is never any trouble. We are all in a state of absolute shock. You just don’t expect this kind of thing to happen over the holidays,” one local resident said. The nurse’s name was not reported, but he is said to have a history of domestic violence. UK axe attack One person died and several others were wounded after a pub in Plymouth, south west England, was attacked by a man or men wielding an axe and a knife. Police were called at approximately 01:30 GMT. Two men, aged 20 and 21, have both been arrested on suspicion of murder. A 27-year-old died on-site and two of the attack’s victims have been hospitalized after suffering stab wounds. Police have requested that witnesses to come forward to aid with the investigation. Massive fire torches Philippines slums Hundreds of shanty dwellings in a slum in the Philippines’ capital, Manila, have been destroyed by a huge fire, which is believed to have been started by firecrackers set off by children during New Year celebrations. The fire erupted after dawn and was quickly spread by strong winds through a nearly kilometer-long row of shanty dwellings stretching along a creek, AP reported. The agency didn’t say whether there were any casualties in the blaze. Slum residents were trying to save their possessions and pets as the flame was spreading. Some used makeshift floating devices to cross the creek. Firefighters had problems responding to the emergency as their vehicles found it difficult to navigate the narrow passages of the slums. “It’s really a tragic way to welcome the New Year,” said Noel Carino, a local official. At least 14 fires were reported across the Philippines on New Year’s Eve night, two of them killing a total of seven people, a firefighting official told the media. Thousands of residents were displaced after their homes were destroyed or damaged. Over 100 injured by fireworks in Italy  European revelers are no more immune to consequences of reckless firework displays than their Asian counterparts. At least 102 people were injured in Italy by fireworks and firecrackers during the New Year’s Eve celebration, La Repubblica newspaper reported. The southern region of Campania was hit from fireworks, with 71 injuries reported to medics. In Naples, a 10-year-old boy was hurt as he was setting off fireworks. The number of casualties is expected to rise as information from across the country is being compiled. Last year, some 350 Italians were injured by fireworks. Source      |
|
Posted: 01 Jan 2015 12:25 PM PST
 The automaker says approximately 67,000 model year 2006 and 2007 pickups are recalled because of the problem with a wire in the clutch ignition interlock switch. The trucks are Dodge Dakota, Dodge Ram 1500, 2500, 3500, and Mitsubishi Raider which were manufactured between July 2005 and June 2006. The company says the wire could break and as a result, the stating process of the trucks could be disrupted or the trucks could move when the ignition key is turned. Chrysler has confirmed one death due to the problem. The switches will be replaced at no cost to the consumers.      |
|
Posted: 01 Jan 2015 12:19 PM PST
 Indeed, working alongside radical government-funded activist groups and anti-liberty politicians around the world, the UN and other totalitarian-minded forces have now reached the point where they openly claim that what they call “international law” actually requires governments to ban speech and organizations they disapprove of. Critics, though, are fighting back in an effort to protect freedom of speech — among the most fundamental of all real rights. While Americans’ God-given right to speak freely is firmly enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, the UN and its hordes of “human rights” bureaucrats are currently terrorizing and bullying the people of Japan — among others — in an effort to drastically curtail speech rights. Pointing to a tiny group of anti-Korean activists holding demonstrations in Japan, politicians and self-styled promoters of “human rights” have also joined the UN in its Soviet-inspired crusade to ban free expression. The Japanese Constitution, however, like the American one, includes strong protections for freedom of speech. Still, that has not stopped the UN from seeking to impose its radical speech restrictions on Japan anyway. At least two separate UN outfits, the dictator-dominated “Human Rights Commission” and the UN “Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,” have condemned Japan so far this year for failing to criminalize free speech while demanding immediate bans. The UN racial committee even released a report calling on Japanese politicians to overthrow the nation’s Constitution and take “appropriate steps to revise its legislation” by criminalizing and punishing speech, rallies, and groups considered “hateful.” The outfit also demanded a “comprehensive law prohibiting racial discrimination.” The “human rights” committee, meanwhile, demanded that Japanese authorities “prohibit all propaganda advocating racial superiority or hatred that incites to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Even speech on the Internet is in the UN’s “human rights” crosshairs for regulation and prohibition. While anti-Korean speeches and rallies by the Japanese group “Zaitokukai” are being used as the pretext to terrorize Japan into changing its policies and infringing on citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the UN’s anti-free speech scheming has far larger aims. Incredibly, despite constitutional protections for free speech and the lack of any statute even purporting to criminalize free expression, Japanese courts have actually been relying on UN agreements to punish alleged “hate” speakers. Last summer, the high court in Osaka upheld a previous ruling against the Zaitokukai organization for its speeches and rallies outside of a North Korean propaganda “school” in Kyoto that brainwashes children into worshipping mass-murdering North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The group was ordered to pay more than $100,000 for its supposed hate speech — again, despite the Constitution’s protections for free speech and the lack of a “hate speech” statute in Japan. Also alarming to critics is that top members of the Japanese political class are already plotting to use “hate speech” laws to criminalize criticism of government and politicians. According to a recent report in the Economist magazine, revisionist politician Sanae Takaichi said “hate-speech” laws should be used to stop people from protesting government actions outside of Parliament. Lawmakers must be free to work “without any fear of criticism,” she explained, sending shivers down the spines of free-speech advocates. Apparently the totalitarian sentiment is widespread among the political class, though Japan’s justice minister has so far resisted UN calls to pursue “hate speech” schemes. Much of the UN’s lobbying against freedom of speech in Japan, as in other nations, revolves around the “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” and similar planetary thought-police regimes. The radical UN agreement, which took effect in 1969 but was not ratified by Japanese authorities until the 1990s, purports to criminalize “discriminatory expression.” Under the global body’s anti-free-speech regime, national governments are supposedly “required” to ban all speech that might justify or promote racial hatred, hostility, or discrimination — and punish the perpetrators. Then UN “Human Rights” Czar Navi Pillay, a South African who was widely ridiculed after her half-baked attacks on the United States in recent years, also offered some chilling insight into the dictator-dominated global body’s views on liberty. “Defining the line that separates protected from unprotected speech is ultimately a decision that is best made after a thorough assessment of the circumstances of each case,” she argued. In other words, any time somebody speaks, he or she must wonder whether their speech might run afoul of dubious UN notions of “hate speech” — to be decided after the fact. Of course, the issue at hand is not really “hate speech.” Threats and incitement to violence are already crimes in Japan and virtually the entire civilized world, so no new statutes are needed to rein in the excesses of racist hatemongers. Instead, the real issues include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, real rights, national sovereignty, constitutional governance, and self-government. While racist speech is certainly ignorant, tasteless, and collectivist, using laws to criminalize it is not only futile — as has been shown on countless occasions — but extraordinarily dangerous. Instead, the free marketplace of ideas is the best way to counter hatemongering. Even the notion of “hate speech,” though, has long been used to persecute innocent people for their political and religious beliefs. Across much of Europe, for instance, pastors and street preachers are regularly arrested and jailed for referring to homosexual activity as a sin. In Sweden, under the guise of waging war on “hate speech,” the Justice Ministry even investigated the Holy Bible. Meanwhile, at the global level, a broad coalition of Islamic dictators is seeking to criminalize criticism of Islam, its prophet, and the Quran worldwide using UN agreements. The tyrannical origin of hate-speech laws, meanwhile, was highlighted in detail in a 2011 report by the respected Hoover Institution, exposing the origins of the machinations within the mass-murdering regime ruling the Soviet Union. “The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies,” the paper on the “sordid origin of hate-speech laws” explained. “Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.” Acceptance of hate-speech schemes by what remains of the free world, the report added, could have “devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.” The UN, composed largely of brutal autocracies of various varieties, has also made its views on free speech rights perfectly clear. Just consider two examples documented by The New American in 2014. This summer, the head of a powerful UN agency, Director General Francis Gurry with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), threatened a journalist with criminal prosecution — for the “crime” of reporting on official documents alleging that he unlawfully sent U.S. technology to brutal dictators, retaliated against whistleblowers, and was involved in widespread corruption. More recently, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) physically removed the public and the media from a taxpayer-funded meeting in Moscow during which it decided to demand much higher global tobacco taxes. Even the whole UN notion of “human rights” should be viewed for what it is: a tool of tyrants to attack the real rights that have underpinned Western traditions since the Magna Carta. Indeed, unbeknownst to average Americans and humanity as a whole, the UN means something very different when it discusses “human rights” than, say, the unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In the American system, rights such as self-defense, free speech, religious liberty, trial by jury, privacy, and property ownership are endowed by the Creator upon every individual — a truth that America’s Founding Fathers viewed as “self-evident.” Because individuals’ human rights come from God, then, they cannot be legitimately infringed upon by any government. In fact, according to the Founders, government was instituted for the express purpose of protecting those God-given rights from infringement. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” explains the American Declaration of Independence, which formally gave birth to the independent United States of America. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” Under the UN’s version of “human rights,” however, “rights” are purportedly defined and granted to people by governments, dictators, treaties, and international organizations. Even more troubling, perhaps, is that they can be restricted or abolished by government at will under virtually any pretext, as the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” openly admits. Consider Article 29 of the declaration, which claims that the pseudo-rights can be limited “by law” under the guise of everything from “public order” to “the general welfare.” Separately, the same article claims that everyone has “duties to the community” and that “rights and freedoms” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” For perspective, that would be like the First Amendment saying Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech is being used to criticize Congress or otherwise makes Congress unhappy. Obviously, the two views on human rights are incompatible at a basic level. The two visions are actually almost opposites — unalienable God-given rights versus revocable government-granted privileges. More evidence of how the UN views “human rights” can be found with a brief examination of the composition of its “Human Rights Council,” the highest “authority” within the UN system on the issue. In November of 2013, the outfit selected the most barbaric regimes on the planet to sit on the body. Among the mass-murdering regimes selected to sit on the UN’s self-styled “human rights” entity, for example, were the communist dictatorships enslaving the people of China, Cuba, and Vietnam. The socialist regime in Namibia was selected for the council, too, joining the brutal socialist autocracy ruling Venezuela that recently disarmed law-abiding citizens with UN help. Also appointed were the hardline Islamist tyrants ruling over Algeria and Saudi Arabia, which considers converting to Christianity a capital offense and which continues to publicly behead “apostates” and others, ISIS-style. If the genocidal mass-murdering maniac ruling Sudan had not withdrawn his bid in the face of a global outcry, his seat on the council was all but assured. Ironically, the current UN “High Commissioner for Human Rights” comes from Jordan, where converting to Christianity is a crime. Less than a decade ago, the UN Commission on Human Rights, which preceded the council, was actually chaired by none other than brutal Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. While UN attacks on free speech under the guise of pseudo-human-rights are growing bolder with every passing day, the controversial global outfit — widely ridiculed as the “dictators club” — has no plans to stop there. In fact, in the United States, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and more, the UN has been using its phony notion of “rights” to attack real rights — ranging from self-defense and parental rights to self-government and even freedom of the press. In the upcoming January 19 print issue of The New American (available by subscription), this magazine extensively documents the full-scale UN attack on the U.S. constitutional system and the unalienable rights of Americans using “human rights” as the weapon. Rather than entertaining the outlandish and totalitarian demands of the dictators club against the free world, civilized nations and free peoples should force their governments to defund and withdraw from the UN. Only then will the non-stop UN attacks on freedom and real rights come to an end. Until then, though, humanity must firmly oppose the UN’s autocratic scheming at every turn — lest the people’s true unalienable rights be usurped and trampled under the guise of bogus “human rights.” Source      |
|
Posted: 01 Jan 2015 12:03 PM PST
 The United States could possibly wage a war at a global level in the new year, says political analyst Stephen Lendman. “America is the rogue state that literally risks the possibility of a global war that could even erupt this year,” Lendman, an author and a radio host, told Press TV on Thursday. He made the remarks when asked about new US threats against Russia and its plan to deploy more than 150 tanks and armored vehicles in Europe. Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges, commander of the US Army in Europe, has said the Pentagon had planned to deploy the tanks and vehicles by the end of 2015. Lendman said “the possibility of the world’s two most formidable nuclear powers coming to some kind of conflict together possibly in the new year” is something that scares everyone. The US is making new threats amid media reports that Washington and Moscow are holding talks aimed at reducing tension between the two states. However, Lendman said “Don’t look at the statements that come out of Washington or in the major media, look at the policies that have been instituted and judge America based on that.” “While these talks are going on, America gets increasingly belligerent against Russia,” he said. He went on to say that “the so-called Ukraine Freedom Act…authorizes lethal and non-lethal aid to the fascist that America installed running Ukraine giving them weapons so they can wage war against their own people so they can saber rattle against Russia.” “The US-dominated NATO is to pull in increasing numbers of US forces in eastern Europe together with other NATO countries, Eastern European countries, all of these extremely belligerent, extremely hostile to Russia,” he noted. The US and its allies accuse Russia of sponsoring military activities in Ukraine. The Kremlin has firmly rejected the accusations.      |
|
Posted: 01 Jan 2015 11:54 AM PST
 The Pentagon’s fighter jet F-35 may not be fully operational until 2019 due to a newly discovered computer glitch. The $400 billion ultra-sophisticated jet, the most expensive in US history, was expected to enter service in 2015. F-35 is the fifth generation combat aircraft which is designed in three variations for US Air Force, Navy and Marines to replace out of date aircraft. It was planned to join the Marines in 2015 and Air Force in 2016. It is planned to replace the Air Force’s A-10 Warthog ground attack plane and Lockheed F-16 multirole fighter, the Navy instead of Boeing F/A-18 Hornet carrier-based fighter, and the Marines instead of Boeing AV-8B Harrier II jump-jet. However, the most awaited plane’s main weapon will not be able to fire due to a computer glitch. The four-barreled rotary cannon for the Air Force version of the F-35 cannot function until new software is elaborated, despite jet scheduled to join the army this year. “There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” an Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program told the Daily Beast. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?” This problem is especially acute as this version of the jet is planned for close air support (CAS) operations. While the F-35 is equipped with other armaments, it might be not enough. “Lack of forward firing ordnance in a CAS supporting aircraft is a major handicap,” an experienced pilot commented for the Daily Beast. “CAS fights are more fluid than air interdiction, friendlies and targets move… Often times quickly. The ability to mark the target with rockets and attack the same target 10 seconds later is crucial.” Equipped with a gun, Air Force’s F-35A version barely carries enough ammunition. Despite being able to shoot 3,300 rounds per minute, it will only be carrying 180 to 220 rounds. The two other versions of F-35 – for the Navy and Marine Corps – have different configurations with external gun pods, however, they will not have a software for them either, the Daily Beast reported. F-35 production has been facing delays and cost overruns due to numerous software problems and production defects. The jet which has already cost $400 billion dollars to US taxpayers since the program started in 2006. The costs doubled since the start of construction in 2011 making it the most expensive project in military history. However, the Pentagon denied the aircraft will be delayed, the International Business Times reports as well as neither Lockheed nor the F-35 Joint Program Office responded to inquiries. Last December, a problem with fuel was discovered. The engine of the aircraft can shut down when the fuel gets too hot to work as a coolant, although this information was disputed by the Pentagon. Last summer, the F-35 was supposed to be the star attraction at the Farnborough Air Show in Hampshire, but it did not appear after the entire fleet was grounded after a fire at a Florida airbase in June. The Pentagon plans to buy 2,433 jets in three variations. Great Britain has also ordered 14 jets. However, the program is getting more and more severe criticism. “To me, the more disturbing aspect of this delay is that it represents yet another clear indication that the program is in serious trouble,” an Air Force official told the Daily Beast. “F-35 maker “Lockheed Martin is clearly in a situation where they are scrambling to keep their collective noses above the waterline, and they are looking to push non-critical systems to the right in a moment of desperation.” The F35 is designed and built by American Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company which manufactures the widely spread military aircraft F-16, also known as the Fighting Falcon, successful all-weather multirole plane. Source     |
