http://www.icrc.org/eng/donations/index.jsp

http://www2.brent.gov.uk/caredirectory.nsf/Pages/LBB-85

Long distance running star Mo Farah launches the ‘Mo Farah Foundation’ with wife Tania to help bring aid to starving people in Somalia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltfaJJSKQE

DEC 18 2011, 12:13 AM ET 277
Three soldiers beat a defenseless woman, pull off her abaya, and drag her down a Cairo street

Reuters
The above photo shows Egyptian army soldiers beating a young woman in Tahrir Square in Cairo on Saturday, the second straight day of clashes with protesters that began on Friday and continued overnight. There’s no reason to believe that there was anything special about this woman or even about the way that soldiers treated her. Members of the army, once beloved by Egypt’s activists for standing by their side during the revolution in February, have sent hundreds of men and women to the hospital over the last 48 hours and have killed at least 10, some with live ammunition fired into crowds.

But there is something especially barbaric about this photo. The taboo of violence against unarmed women is unusually strong in the Arab world. But to watch three soldiers beat a defenseless woman with batons, their fists, and for one extraordinarily cruel soldier with his boot, is not even the most provocative part. For these men to pull her black abaya above her head and expose her midriff and chest is, for Egypt , a profound and sexually charged humiliation. And there is a certain awful irony of using that abaya, a symbol of modesty and piety, to cover her face and drag her on the street that, though probably not intentional, will not be lost on Egyptian eyes. Here, below, is part of the photo pulled out in detail.

Activists managed to capture a video of the incident. It is difficult to watch. She takes so many blows to her head, and one man stomps on her chest so forcefully, that it’s difficult to imagine she required anything less than hospitalization. Though one of the soldiers makes a half-hearted effort to cover her back up (after he is done beating her, of course, on the face and chest with a baton), she appears limp. Three soldiers pick her up from her arms and legs, and then the camera cuts away.
Outraged Egyptian Facebook users posted a composite of three photos from the above video. Taken together, they appear to show that a pair of bystanders — a man and a woman, both well dressed — watched the young woman’s beating, went to her side after the troops discarded her, and were then beaten themselves for their effort.

The Egyptian military, the strongest and most powerful institution in the country and perhaps the Arab world, has taken a dramatic and dark turn since winning power earlier this year. Though it initially safeguarded the revolution in February by protecting protesters from President Hosni Mubarak’s state security forces, it has gradually (if clumsily) consolidated power since his fall, declaring that it will retain independence from and control over any democratically elected government. As protests against the military have grown, the generals have abandoned their earlier pledges to support the people and refrain from violence against civilians. The SCAF — the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, a panel of top military leaders — increasingly looks like Egypt ‘s new dictator. Its troops, now openly attacking civilians, are unlikely to deescalate their war against democratic activism.
All crackdowns are brutal. Stories of violence against women, frequently tinged with sexual aggression, are as common in Egypt ‘s crackdown as they are in every other. The story behind this photo, of a modest young woman stripped down and beaten like an animal, is remarkable precisely because it is ordinary.

For more information visit our website at www.gl-nobledenton.com

REMEMBER AS YOU READ — IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER
Date: Tue. 15 January 2008 14:30

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth – Europe died in Auschwitz … We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe ..
***********************************
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 – Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 – Elias James Corey
1994 – Yaser Arafat:
1999 – Ahmed Zewai

Economics:
(zero)

Physics:
(zero)

Medicine:
1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
1998 – Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1910 – Paul Heyse
1927 – Henri Bergson
1958 – Boris Pasternak
1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 – Nelly Sachs
1976 – Saul Bellow
1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 – Elias Canetti
1987 – Joseph Brodsky
1991 – Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:
1911 – Alfred Fried
1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 – Rene Cassin
1973 – Henry Kissinger
1978 – Menachem Begin
1986 – Elie Wiesel
1994 – Shimon Peres
1994 – Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 – Henri Moissan
1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
1910 – Otto Wallach
1915 – Richard Willstaetter
1918 – Fritz Haber
1921 – Albert Einstein
1922 – Niels Bohr
1925 – James Franck
1925 – Gustav Hertz
1943 – Gustav Stern
1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 – Felix Bloch
1954 – Max Born
1958 – Igor Tamm
1959 – Emilio Segre
1960 – Donald A. Glaser
1961 – Robert Hofstadter
1961 – Melvin Calvin
1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 – Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 – Julian Schwinger
1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
1971 – Dennis Gabor
1972 – William Howard Stein
1973 – Brian David Josephson
1975 – Benjamin Mottleson
1976 – Burton Richter
1977 – Ilya Prigogine
1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
1978 – Peter L Kapitza
1979 – Stephen Weinberg
1979 – Sheldon Glashow
1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
1980 – Paul Berg
1980 – Walter Gilbert
1981 – Roald Hoffmann
1982 – Aaron Klug
1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
1985 – Jerome Karle
1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 – Robert Huber
1988 – Leon Lederman
1988 – Melvin Schwartz
1988 – Jack Steinberger
1989 – Sidney Altman
1990 – Jerome Friedman
1992 – Rudolph Marcus
1995 – Martin Perl
2000 – Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 – Simon Kuznets
1972 – Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
1976 – Milton Friedman
1978 – Herbert A. Simon
1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 – Franco Modigliani
1987 – Robert M. Solow
1990 – Harry Markowitz
1990 – Merton Miller
1992 – Gary Becker
1993 – Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
1908 – Paul Erlich
1914 – Robert Barany
1922 – Otto Meyerhof
1930 – Karl Landsteiner
1931 – Otto Warburg
1936 – Otto Loewi
1944 – Joseph Erlanger
1944 – Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
1952 – Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 – Hans Krebs
1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 – Joshua Lederberg
1959 – Arthur Kornberg
1964 – Konrad Bloch
1965 – Francois Jacob
1965 – Andre Lwoff
1967 – George Wald
1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 – Salvador Luria
1970 – Julius Axelrod
1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
1972 – Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 – Howard Martin Temin
1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 – Daniel Nathans
1980 – Baruj Benacerraf
1984 – Cesar Milstein
1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 – Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 – Gertrude Elion
1989 – Harold Varmus
1991 – Erwin Neher
1991 – Bert Sakmann
1993 – Richard J. Roberts
1993 – Phillip Sharp
1994 – Alfred Gilman
1995 – Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino
TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.

The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respect them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel’s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel .” Benjamin Netanyahu

General Eisenhower Warned Us It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

‘Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses – because somewhere down the road of history some bastards will get up and say that this never happened’

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it ‘offends’ the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were ‘murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated’ while many people looked the other way.

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center ‘NEVER HAPPENED’ because it offends some Muslim in the United States?

Do not just delete this message; it will take only a minute to pass this along.

Well, it has happened, Tun Dr M suggested that U S of A staged the attack on WTC themselves to put the blame on the muslims, muslim terrorism had no role in it!

Chinese would say this is “killing people without blinking”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-biggest-losers-on-wall-street-in-2011-2011-12-20?Link=obinsite

By David Weidner, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Warren Buffett reportedly once said “you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.”

Well folks, as we turn the page on 2011, let’s just say it’s been a big year for birthday suits on Wall Street.

So, without further ado, here is Writing on the Wall’s countdown of the Street’s biggest embarrassments, frauds, phonies, failures and fools. It comes with a parental advisory for nudity.

10. Warren Buffett

It pains me to say it, but it was terrible year for Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. BRK.A +0.13% BRK.B +0.16% The “Oracle” did some of his traditional dealmaking, but he was also burned by David Sokol, who may or may not have been profiting from insider knowledge of the deals. The scandal was bad enough, but Berkshire investors can’t be happy either. The stock is down nearly 9% year to date, compared with a roughly 4% decline in the S&P 500 SPX +0.20% . Profit-wise, Berkshire is on pace to have its worst year since the financial crisis of 2008. Read related column on David Sokol and Warren Buffett .

9. Steve Jobs as a guiding influence

Corporate America has taken a lot of hits from the world since our economy imploded. But in 2011 it lost its brightest star, Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple Inc. AAPL +0.27% Jobs was part P.T. Barnum, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. He created products that we needed but we didn’t even know we did. Apple was an unstoppable stock. With all due respect to his successor, Tim Cook. He’s not Steve Jobs.

8. The bank sector

The Philadelphia KBW Bank Index BKX +1.02% is down 29%, eight-times lower than the decline for the S&P 500. Consider that 70 of that index’s members are financial institutions and you realize that the market is actually doing well. In fact, during the April rally, the S&P 500 was at an all-time high excluding the banks. See Big Picture blog post on bank-less market rally .

7. Raj Rajaratnam

For as long as there’s been a Wall Street, insider trading has been a nasty side-effect. Unfortunately, for all of the talk about it being rampant, there hasn’t been a major insider case in more than two decades. Enter Rajaratnam whose Galleon Group was a sprawling organization that thrived on knowledge, both legitimate and insider. It finally took an aggressive federal investigation using wiretaps and informants to bring down the billionaire. He was found guilty on 14 counts and sentenced to 11 years. Read related commentary on Rajaratnam verdict .

6. U.S.A.

No deal was more crushing to the national psyche than the sale of NYSE Euronext Inc. NYX +0.04% to the Deutsche Boerse DBOEF -1.43% in a deal announced in February. So goes the Big Board, so goes America.

5. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS +1.12%

Five years ago, Goldman would have been the last company you would expect to be on this list. It was Wall Street’s gold standard. Since 2008, it’s hard to imagine Goldman off it. Just about everything keeps going wrong. It lost $393 million in the third quarter. It botched the private placement of Facebook shares in the U.S. market. A board director was accused of leaking information to Rajaratnam. Goldman is the subject of investigations by multiple regulators. It’s being sued by investors in its questionable mortgage securities. It’s laying people off and shipping new jobs overseas. Somehow Lloyd Blankfein holds on. Read related column on Blankfein and Goldman .

4. The 99%

Despite the efforts of Occupy Wall Street, the 99% continues to see its tiny sliver of pie shrink. Census data revealed that half of the nation is either in poverty or slipping close to it. Food stamps are becoming the currency of choice in the nation’s supermarkets with 430,434 Americans added to the roles last month. Participation is up 7.8% against 2010. Meanwhile, income for the wealthiest 1% tripled during the last three decades. See story on income growth .

3. Anyone connected with MF Global (except Jon Corzine)

MF Global wasn’t supposed to happen. Big brokerages were supposed to be safer, less leveraged and regulated. Guys like Jon Corzine, the bankrupt firm’s CEO, weren’t supposed to be able to be wilfully ignorant or play as if they were anymore. Customer funds were supposed to be accounted for after Bernie Madoff. Guess what? It happened again.

2. Bank customers

After Elizabeth Warren bailed on the job to seek the glory of a Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat, President Obama nominated Richard Cordray who was less polarizing. So much for that, the Senate blocked his nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, leaving the entity that would require more disclosure on loans and credit agreements essentially in a coma.

1. Investors

Remember when the representative from your 401(k) provider came to your company to explain that the market returned around 7% a year based on historical returns? Well, 2011 followed a more recent history: the lost decade kind. The S&P and Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA +0.03% are flat to lower. Bond yields are minuscule. The 10-year Treasury is yielding less than 2%. A one-year certificate of deposit is yielding less than 1% nationally. Even gold is 16% off its high in August.

The market is up 7% all right, if you invested in 2004.

The emperor and the 401(k) guy aren’t wearing clothes.

David Weidner covers Wall Street for MarketWatch.

I’d like to look at a matter that has come up repeatedly in the discussion group and seems clear to me but sometimes perhaps not to others. Please let me know if you see something amiss in my argument.

Every human right or freedom implies a limit on human behavior.

If I argue that I have the right, as a student at University of California Davis, to peacefully protest, peacefully speak, etc. (notice the limit implied immediately in the word “peacefully”), and the police do not have the right to pepper-spray me for it, for me to have that human right and freedom, does it not mean that the freedom of the police to pepper-spray has to be curtailed?

For me to assert a human right or freedom means for another to limit their behavior, does it not? Philosophically speaking, we’re discussing the situation where person A interacts with person B and the granting of the right or freedom to person A means the curtailing of the behavior of person B.

It may vary somewhat from society to society what people regard as human rights and as a violation of them. But below those variations will be some standard of a “universal” human right, such as the right to speak, assemble, choose whom we wish to marry, etc.

In our societies, neither are freedoms absolute nor are limits on behavior absolute. I cannot argue that my freedom is absolute and therefore I have the right to torture and kill you. That’s what Gaddhafi did and was overthrown. That’s what al-Assad does and his people will probably also overthrow him.

It seems to me that we prefer to shy away from the notion that the provision of human rights entails curtailing behavior. We don’t like to think of ourselves as constraining the behavior of others. Until those others threaten us and then we look around for those who would enforce the law against the violation of human rights. The question is not as black and white as it seems.

At the very basis of the notion of a human right lies the necessity that, in its name, some are called upon to restrict their behavior. To me that notion seems self-evident. Why else would we have human rights or discuss them if what is also not being discussed is the restriction that is implied on some other form of behavior that threatens them? If no restriction were needed, then no right would need to be articulated.

Freedom of religion curtails people who are not of that religion to discriminate against its followers. Freedom of assembly curtails the police from breaking up peaceful demonstrations. Freedom of speech restricts one group from preventing another from speaking under normal circumstances and within limits.

In my view, the notion of human rights and freedoms is meant to provide a guide that will allow people to interact peacefully when living together in society. If I lived on a desert island, where no one else lived, I would have complete freedom, as far as I can see. But when other people enter the picture, then we may need some guidelines and agreements on how to be and interact with each other.

I would think that any society, with the best interests of its citizens at heart, would want to ensure to them the maximum freedom possible. But where the society would limit behavior would be where the actions of one person promise to inflict serious harm or injury on another.

I believe we’ve often watched those who would like to inflict serious harm or injury, such as a skinhead, fall back on the argument that when they say that Jews and blacks should be killed, they are exercising their freedom of speech. But typically that argument does not hold up in a court where law prevails, only in a setting where violence prevails.

The same person who doesn’t want the police to harm them for speaking freely would also like, I’d imagine, the police to protect them from others who intend to harm them for speaking freely. So it isn’t the case that the idea of “police” is totally irrelevant to a society that values human rights. It’s that we wish them to behave “properly”; i.e., in defence of human rights by limiting the free actions of others who would bring serious harm or injury to those practicing that right.

A second concept: what constitutes a human right or freedom may vary from setting to setting. Human rights and freedoms are in some respects malleable and negotiable and may vary, depending on circumstance. In a general assembly of people, where the general interest is what is sought, rather than a special interest, the right of freedom of speech may be valued above all else.

But in a special assembly, where people gather because they have a special interest (a Christian church, Muslim mosque, or Jewish synagogue, for instance), the assembly agrees to more restriction of speech in order to pursue the special interest that the assembled citizens share. Is that not so?

So, for instance it would be inappropriate to come into a Christian church and say that Jesus was a fraud; the people there have assembled to worship him. Or to come into a Muslim temple and berate Mohammed, or Buddha in a Buddhist temple, and so on. At least not in a society that valued the freedom of assembly.

So the freedom of assembly may put further constraints upon freedom of speech, by common consent. The resort of a person who believes Jesus is a fraud is to start their own group or church, which is based on that belief, and invoke freedom of speech and assembly to keep out others who wish to change their point of view. Again their freedom of speech may be curtailed if what they advocate in that special assembly is harm to people who consider Jesus not to be a fraud.

To reframe Newton, for every right, there is an equal and opposite constraint.

The subjects we pursue here – the existence of extraterrestrials, NESARA, Ascension, for example – have cost many of us the good regard of our friends and families. Can it not be seen that we would then like to limit discussion in our discussion groups to those who are friendly to those things and events and not have people ridicule us in the special assembly we’ve formed to permit our discussing them without being ridiculed? It seems evident to me.

When people who criticize us for discussing those matters freely in the group are reminded of the focus of the group, they typically say that their freedom of speech is being limited or curtailed. But the charter for the group says that all who congregate here have done so exactly for that purpose – to focus discussion on those subjects and to allow a space where advocates of them can gather without being molested. Where are grounds for grievance?

Very soon we’re promised a return to individual sovereignty, by people whose very existence most members of society deny (angels and extraterrestrials). But that return to individual sovereignty does not mean that I can torture, maim, or kill you. I have not complete independence to do whatever I please.

Even if we had no courts of law, we would still have the natural law of karma which would say that I cannot kill another. When God gave Moses divine laws, one of the chief of them was “Thou shalt not murder,” was it not? So among the first things God did was to constrain behavior.

And did not Moses speak of “living in accordance with the law”? And did that not involve a voluntary constraint of certain lines of behavior – taking the Lord’s name in vain, failing to observe the Sabbath, etc.? The fact that we no longer observe those “laws” very much does not make them any less desirable to those who do. People have a right to agree on how they shall live, in general and special assembly, as long as it does not bring serious harm or injury to another.

For every protester, there is someone who hopes that the person they protest against will limit or curtail their behavior. I don’t think we can escape, probably ever, wedding the two concepts: freedom and limits on behavior. If there is somewhere where this conception of human rights and freedoms falls down, I’d welcome hearing about it.

http://the2012scenario.com/human-rights/human-rights-imply-limits-on-behavior/