No one is blaming the dude.

Indonesian Military Chief Defends “Two-Finger” Virginity Tests for Female Recruits

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/indonesias-military-chief-defends-virginity-tests-female-recruits-n360626

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/17/407526194/indonesian-military-chief-defends-virginity-tests-for-female-recruits








The commander of Indonesia’s armed forces believes that invasive virginity tests for female recruits are a good thing and the only way to gauge the women’s morality.

Asked for his response to growing international condemnation of the practice, Gen. Moeldoko insisted to reporters at the State Palace in Jakarta on Friday that the so-called two-finger test was one of the requirements for women joining the Indonesian Military, or TNI.

“So what’s the problem? It’s a good thing, so why criticize it?” he said.

He conceded, though, that there was no direct link between a woman being a virgin and her abilities as a member of the armed forces, but insisted that virginity was a gauge of a woman’s morality – one of the three key traits he said a woman must have to serve in the TNI, along with high academic aptitude and physical strength.

The virginity test “is a measure of morality. There’s no other way” to determine a person’s morality, Moeldoko claimed.

His statements came a day after the group Human Rights Watch urged Indonesia to abolish the practice, pointing out that international treaties had described it as degrading and cruel.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/indonesian-military-chief-defends-two-finger-virginity-tests-for-female-recruits/



-----------------------------------------------------------
"not stuck in the "old", outdated, violent traditions"...

Last month, Renald “Luz” Luzier announced that he would no longer draw Mohammed for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, saying “it no longer interests me.” Allahpundit found this declaration curious, especially Luz’ contention at the time that “the terrorists did not win,” and Luz’ focus on nationalist exploitation of the attacks rather than the attacks themselves.

It looks like the terrorists did win after all:


Cartoonist Renald Luzier, who drew the newspaper’s first cover after the Jan. 7 attack killed 12 people, said in an interview Tuesday in the daily Liberation that each issue is “torture, because the others are no longer there.” He will leave in September.

“The time came when it was just all too much to bear. There was next to nobody to draw the cartoons… Every print-run was torture because the others are no longer there,” said the cartoonist, who is known widely in France as Luz.


The CBS report also includes a tidbit that might have contributed to Luz’ despair. In the aftermath of the attacks, the magazine got €4.3 million in donations, and there appears to be dissension between staff and management on how to spend it. The publisher has announced that they will have a special commission make that decision, which seems pretty dysfunctional for a relatively small operation that one would expect to have been united in tragedy.

The terrorists got what they wanted out of the attacks, and are still getting what they want. They slaughtered the magazine’s staff and got worldwide attention to their depravity. They got one of the survivors to publicly announce he would no longer draw the cartoons that they dislike, and now they got him to quit altogether.

I don’t blame Luzier a bit for hanging up his pen at Charlie Hebdo, nor for feeling so much pain while trying to continue working with so many of his colleagues gone. But perhaps Luzier would have found it more palatable had he gotten more support from his colleagues and the cognoscenti on the Left, instead of having them rip Luzier and his dead colleagues for having brought it on themselves for the “crime” of offending others. That’s the victory won by terrorists; Charlie Hebdo was the battlefield on which they won it.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/19/je-suis-fini-charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-announces-retirement/

State Department plans to release Hillary Clinton's emails in January 2016







The State Department is proposing a deadline of January 2016 to complete its review and public release of 55,000 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged on a private server and turned over to her former agency last December.

The proposal came Monday night in a document related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Vice News filed in January seeking all of Clinton’s emails.

“The Department’s plan … would result in its review being completed by the end of the year. To factor in the holidays, however, the Department would ask the Court to adopt a proposed completion date of January 15, 2016,” State’s acting director of Information Programs and Services John Hackett said in a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

“The Department understands the considerable public’s [sic] interest in these records and is endeavoring to complete the review and production of them as expeditiously as possible. The collection is, however, voluminous and, due to the breadth of topics, the nature of the communications, and the interests of several agencies, presents several challenges,” Hackett added.

The controversy over Clinton’s private email account led to a turbulent start for her presidential campaign, which she announced last month. She has said she wants the emails public and is eager for State to release them as quickly as possible. Clinton said she turned over all work-related emails to State, but acknowledged that she had erased a roughly equal number of emails her lawyers deemed private.

“I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible,” Clinton tweeted on March 4.

The State Department’s proposal, however, could mean a delay of almost 13 months between the time Clinton turned over some of her records and the bulk of those emails being made public.

Soon after the New York Times revealed in March that Clinton had exclusively used a private email account as secretary of state, State Department spokespeople repeatedly said that they expected the review of the Clinton records to take “several months.” They did not immediately respond to messages Monday night seeking an explanation of why that estimate was so off base.

Hackett said 12 State staffers have been assigned full-time to reviewing the Clinton emails and that it took until sometime this month to scan in the records, which were provided on paper by Clinton in 12 “banker’s boxes” in December. He said the scanning process took five weeks and was “complicated” by some of the printouts of Clinton emails being double-sided.

Hackett also disclosed that personnel from the National Archives have been helping State determine which of the emails Clinton delivered to her former agency are official and which are actually personal. State officials have said at least some of the emails she provided are clearly personal.

“In consultation with the National Archives and Records Administration, the Department also conducted a page-by-page review of the documents to identify, designate, mark, and inventory entirely personal correspondence, i.e., those documents that are not federal records, included within the 55,000 pages,” he wrote.

State Department officials have reaffirmed in recent weeks that they plan an earlier disclosure of a batch of the emails provided to a House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. However, the department’s spokespeople have said only that the initial release will come “soon,” declining to be more specific about the timing of that first release.

Asked by POLITICO Friday when that Libya-related batch of records should emerge, State spokesman Jeff Rathke was vague. “I don’t have an update to share. But yes, we’re aware that there’s interest out there, certainly,” he said at a daily briefing for reporters.

State Department lawyers have complained in court of a “crushing burden” of FOIA requests as well as at least 79 FOIA lawsuits pending against the department. They have also cited the need to prioritize the Clinton email project as a reason for delays in other FOIA cases.

The Iowa caucuses are due to be held Feb. 1, 2016 — just two weeks after the proposed release of Clinton’s emails.

A Clinton campaign spokesman had no immediate comment Monday night on State’s proposal.

Whether to accept State’s proposal will be up to Judge Rudolph Contreras, who is overseeing the Vice News suit, as well as other judges overseeing several other cases seeking narrower slices of Clinton’s emails as secretary of state.



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/state-department-wont-release-hillary-clintons-emails-until-january-2016-118078.html

Is islam the ultimate religion then?

In a speech today in South Korea, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Internet “needs rules to be able to flourish and work properly.” This, according to Kerry, is necessary even for “a technology founded on freedom.”

Speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, Kerry said that Internet policy is “a key component of our foreign policy.”

Kerry made his remarks in the context of talking about how international law is applicable to the Internet. “As I’ve mentioned, the basic rules of international law apply in cyberspace. Acts of aggression are not permissible. And countries that are hurt by an attack have a right to respond in ways that are appropriate, proportional, and that minimize harm to innocent parties. We also support a set of additional principles that, if observed, can contribute substantially to conflict prevention and stability in time of peace. We view these as universal concepts that should be appealing to all responsible states, and they are already gaining traction,” said Kerry.

“First, no country should conduct or knowingly support online activity that intentionally damages or impedes the use of another country’s critical infrastructure. Second, no country should seek either to prevent emergency teams from responding to a cybersecurity incident, or allow its own teams to cause harm. Third, no country should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential business information for commercial gain. Fourth, every country should mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil, and they should do so in a transparent, accountable and cooperative way. And fifth, every country should do what it can to help states that are victimized by a cyberattack.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-internet-needs-rules-be-able-flourish-and-work-properly_949526.html





---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitcoin = freedom of speech = internet = needs to be controlled...

That video was really cool. How big of a machine would one need to recharge a phone I wonder.

Clinton Friend’s Memos on Libya Draw Scrutiny to Politics and Business




When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.

Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview.

Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.

But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.

While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, “message guidance” and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.

The projects — creating floating hospitals to treat Libya’s war wounded and temporary housing for displaced people, and building schools — would have required State Department permits, but foundered before the business partners could seek official approval.

It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton or the State Department knew of Mr. Blumenthal’s interest in pursuing business in Libya; a State Department spokesman declined to say. Many aspects of Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement in the planned Libyan venture remain unclear. He declined repeated requests to discuss it.

But interviews with his associates and a review of previously unreported correspondence suggest that — once again — it may be difficult to determine where one of Mr. Blumenthal’s jobs ended and another began.

Mr. Gowdy’s committee on the attacks in Benghazi hopes to ask Mr. Blumenthal who, if anyone, was paying him to prepare the memos for Mrs. Clinton and whether they were among his responsibilities at the Clinton Foundation. The committee’s investigators are also interested in whether the planned business venture in Libya posed any potential conflicts for Mr. Blumenthal or Mrs. Clinton, whose aides the business partners sought meetings with in early 2012.

The Libya venture came together in 2011 when David L. Grange, a retired Army major general, joined with a newly formed New York firm, Constellations Group, to pursue business leads in Libya. Constellations Group, led by a professional fund-raiser and philanthropist named Bill White, was to provide the leads. Mr. Grange’s company, Osprey Global Solutions, based in North Carolina, would put “boots on the ground to see if there was an opportunity to do business,” Mr. Grange said in an interview.

The men had little experience in Libya. Exactly how Mr. White was to procure leads in Libya is unclear. He spent much of his career as an executive at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum, and had raised money for politicians, businesses and charities. His biography also describes Mr. White as a consultant for Aquahydrate, a bottled-water company whose backers include Ron Burkle, the billionaire investor who had been a close friend of the Clintons.

“We were thinking, ‘O.K., Qaddafi is dead, or about to be, and there’s opportunities,’ ” Mr. White said in a brief telephone interview. He added, “We thought, ‘Let’s try to see who we know there.’ ”

Mr. White declined to answer follow-up questions about what role Mr. Blumenthal was playing in the business venture. But Mr. Grange described Mr. Blumenthal as an adviser to Mr. White’s company, along with two other associates: Tyler Drumheller, a colorful former Central Intelligence Agency official, and Cody Shearer, a longtime Clinton friend.

“I just know that he was working with the team to work on business development,” Mr. Grange said of Mr. Blumenthal.

In the spring of 2011, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Drumheller and Mr. Shearer were helping plan what was to be Mr. Grange’s first trip to Libya, according to emails stolen by a Romanian hacker and published by Gawker and ProPublica in March. Mr. Blumenthal said he had been advised not to comment on the correspondence because the theft remained under investigation by the F.B.I.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html

Newly Released Documents Indicate Key Hillary Clinton Claim on Emails Was Not True









Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender’s office.

Multiple emails show Clinton used account “hrod17@clintonemail.com” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that that particular address had not “existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

Another statement from Clinton’s office said she only used one address during her time as secretary of state.

“Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used),” it said. “In March 2013, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.”

Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the “hrod17@clintonemail.com” were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.

A representative for Clinton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.

Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Monday evening that the news proved Clinton “misled public about the use of only one secret email address.”

Earlier this year, it was reported Clinton may have violated federal rules by exclusively using a personal email address to conduct all official government business while serving as secretary of state.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/18/newly-released-documents-indicate-key-hillary-clinton-claim-on-emails-was-not-true/


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/19/us/politics/libya-related-messages-hillary-clinton-email-account.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0

Hillary Clinton Supporters Actually Don't Support Hillary





Funny & sad...

Yes he was.

In your case you don't care what happens to you next. That is fine.

In post #1647 there is the tale of sulaiman vali. He was a muslim. He rather not say where he lives because "they" may burn his home down. Maybe he lives alone in his home. Maybe he has a whole family. Maybe "they" will not care about his family burning down where he lives. Maybe he cannot NOT care what happen to him next.

You do not need to chose between expressing yourself or expressing yourself and be scared. It is a relief, an amazing fortune sulaiman vali cannot take for granted.

Re read what you said earlier about balancing the bad and the good of a solar panel solution versus something else. Now google how a solar panel is made. Any waste created? And if yes how easy it is to recylce that waste made from creating solar panels? Once a better solar panel is created what becomes of the old solar panels? Any land disturbed?Any animal displaced? The same for those batteries people love in their Tesla cars... Any rare earth material used to create those batteries? Use google. For at least 2 hrs. Read. Learn. And please come back and tell us what you've learn YOURSELF about the balanced act of the good and the bad regarding the solar panel solutions we have right now. From A to Z: how are those panels made and who makes them and at what cost for their employees, nature, etc, etc.

Of course graphene is on the horizon so as soon as we will be able to make km and km of graphene for pennies then the concept of a massive fossil fuel need will vanish. The nuclear solution will still be a valid one though, as the cheapest green energy available.

Come back with a new thread and call it "Green Energy. DIY and other stuff. THE SEQUEL" or something so I remember clicking on it.


P.S.:  try to use https://www.google.com/ and not the one automatically assigned to your country, language, etc.

 

You forgot one group of people



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKvWiToj8Y

Is telling the truth to spread love hate, or is telling lies to spread looove hate?

Most of us have a built in moral compass. You do not need to be a believer to see toward were the needle of your compass points to... Depending on your core religion dogma that needle will be boosted to a particular direction. If someone's direction is opposite to your needle then that particular system is incompatible to your core belief system, religious or not.


It is not that complicated. When was the last time you've got an urge to burn down the home of someone who left christianity behind to become an atheist or simply stop talking to that person?

"LOL! I am myself unhappy being a Christian as I don't believe in Christianity and those have blind faith in the Church"

When you say and think that, are you feeling threaten for your life or totally relaxed saying it? Just by simply reading my question and formulating an answer in your head you feel that great relief of how lucky you are to be a Christian, no matter the bad ones around you...

You're welcome.


 

Thanks to Judicial Watch obtaining new memos, Fox News is now reporting that the Obama administration knew that Benghazi was being used as a hub for the transfer of lethal weapons to Syria back in 2012. Former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell suggested to Bret Baier that the CIA wasn’t doing the transferring, but was watching someone else do it.

According to another memo dated September 16, 2012, just FIVE DAYS after the attack on the ‘consulate’ in Benghazi, the Obama administration via the DNI concluded that the terrorist attack had been planned at least 10 days before the attack occurred and that it wasn’t a coincidence that it happened on the anniversary of 9/11. If you recall, the Obama administration was lying about it, saying it was a demonstration against a film about the Prophet Muhammad that got out of control. They were saying this on the very same day this DNI memo went out to different agencies including the National Security Council and the State Department.

They not only concluded that it was planned ten days in advance, they also wrote why the attack was planned in this same Sept. 16 memo:


“The intention was to attack the consulate and kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the U.S. kill of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”



One last thing this report reveals is another memo that shows the Obama administration not only knew ISIS was a threat, but predicted the formation of a caliphate 17 months before Obama compared ISIS to a junior varsity team.


http://therightscoop.com/new-judicial-watch-memos-reveal-obama-lies-about-benghazi/

At the mercy of the climate jihadists


Years ago, I heard the Jewish comedian Jackie Mason performing in Beverly Hills, riffing on the primary motivation of wealthy liberals. They do things, he suggested, not because they actually accomplished anything, but because “I have to look at myself in the mirror.”

Mason was prophetic, particularly regarding here in California, where progressive politics – outside of promoting race and gender grievances – has boiled down to a single-minded attachment to slowing climate change.

To satisfy the gentry’s urgent need to feel noble and better than others, we are embarked on an ever-more extreme jihad to battle global warming, with the state, pursuant to an executive order from Gov. Jerry Brown, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 – versus the previous mandate of reaching 1990 levels by 2020. It seems clear that we are about to wage a war of increasing intensity on climate change, surely not at the expense of depriving Google executives and other oligarchs their private jets, but certainly down to the last affordable single-family house or decent factory job.

Symbolic Gestures, Little Impact

Of course, environmental problems need to be addressed, but one has to wonder if current policy will actually impact global climate change. Indeed, as explained in a new report by the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, our current green jihad is likely to do little to nothing toward cutting global emissions – unless nations with far greater emissions adopt similar measures. The report suggests that an extreme goal of an 80 percent reduction could, ultimately, make things worse.

The report, authored by attorneys David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez, carefully analyzes the projected impact of California’s Draconian climate change legislation. Simply put, in the most basic measurement, our greenhouse gas emissions simply don’t matter much. In 2011, California accounted for less than 1 percent of global CO2-equivalent emissions, and less than 0.065 percent of the worldwide annual CO2e emissions increase during 1990-2011. Given that California is already a low-emitting state, in large part due to its mild climate, even if California cut back to zero greenhouse-gas emissions, it would have almost no measurable affect on climate change risks.

The increase in GHG emissions comes mostly from elsewhere, even within the United States. But most emissions growth is linked to increases in developing countries, such as China and India. From 2000-11, global CO2e emissions increased by more than 40 percent. Over the same period, California’s CO2e emissions rose by 2 percent and declined by approximately 10.7 percent from 2007-11. Despite population increases and economic growth, California’s total emissions rose by roughly 8 million metric tons while global emissions increased by almost 13 billion metric tons.

Unintended Consequences

Ever the realist, at least when it comes to politics, Gov. Jerry Brown recognizes that California’s efforts are, almost by definition, largely symbolic. “We can do things in California” to fight climate change, Brown recently observed, “but if others don’t follow, it will be futile.”

The problem is that not many of our competitor states are following California’s lead, except, notably, Oregon, where the governor has been embroiled in a seamy scandal over green energy. Meanwhile, our biggest competitors – Nevada, Texas, Utah, North Carolina – do not seem anxious to join the party. They regard California’s regulatory regime as a perfect spur to lead both companies and residents out of the Golden State.

Since 1990, 3.8 million former California residents, or about equal to the populations of Oregon or Oklahoma, have moved to other parts of the country where per capita GHG levels are 50 percent higher than in California. Each job or resident that moves from California boosts net GHG levels. The cumulative net CO2e emission increases generated by the unprecedented migration of the state’s former residents has already nearly offset the GHG reduction achieved by California’s emission-reduction mandates.

Why continue?

Like any major policy initiative, the state’s climate change offensive will producers winners, although, in the short run, at least, many more losers. For one thing, the fixation on carbon-free energy has led to much higher electricity prices, 43.5 percent above the national average in December 2014 according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. This is bad news for industries that need electricity, and is one reason why many manufacturers go elsewhere.

It’s not too great for commuters, either. As of May 12, California’s average cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $3.73, the highest in the country – including even Hawaii and Alaska – and more than a dollar higher than the national average, $2.66. Gas prices on average are still about 21 percent lower than a year ago in the U.S., but 11 percent lower in California.

The state’s climate policy, particularly in its new, more militant form, also is likely to reduce California’s job creation. Although enjoying a brief resurgence, California employment has consistently underperformed other states over the longer term.


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-661936-climate-emissions.html