... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

Pink slime is perfectly safe. If these people were in it then the pink slime would have had a sauteed-hipster-with-alfalfa-sprouts after taste...


http://agricultureproud.com/2012/03/12/what-is-pink-slime-and-is-it-safe/

With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word “crusade” in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?

Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.

Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a “teaching moment,” an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.



http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4461

Taqiyya and Kitman


 

U.N. Climate Chief: We're 'Intentionally' Transforming The World Economy






The United Nation’s top climate change official Christiana Figueres announced this week that the group is actively working to “intentionally transform” the world’s economic development model, a task she called the “most difficult” one the group has ever undertaken.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels Tuesday.

The “intentional” reordering of the global economy, she told reporters, “will not happen overnight” due to the “depth of the transformation”:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/un-climate-chief-were-intentionally-transforming-world-economy


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. I knew your job had nothing to do with climate anything. The only way for you to reduce energy consumption globally with such a long term impact is by forced massive population reduction. But not for you. But not for your family and friends. But not for your co workers at the UN.

Who voted for that bozo anyway? Ah yes. Not the people who will be "reduced" by the bozo's master plan...

 

You should re watch the video in the first post while reading out loud what you've just wrote... You'll then get the full experience of this thread.

 

“I got the ultimatum right then,” [Samuel Forrest] said. “She told me if I kept him then we would get a divorce.”

Attempts to reach the hospital for comment weren’t immediately successful. The baby’s mother, Ruzan Badalyan, told ABC News that she did have a child with Down syndrome and she has left her husband, who has the child, but she declined to elaborate.

Forrest, who’s from Auckland, New Zealand, said he was completely unaware of the hospital practices in Armenia when it came to children.

“What happens when a baby like this is born here, they will tell you that you don’t have to keep them,” he said. “My wife had already decided, so all of this was done behind my back.”


http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/dad-refuses-give-newborn-son-syndrome/story?id=28756025&cid=fb_abcn

http://www.gofundme.com/bringleohome

Report: Islamic State Has Near-Impregnable Base Of Support In Syria And Iraq…




The Islamic State group has learned from the mistakes of past jihadist movements and established a near-impregnable base of support within Iraq and Syria with spectacular appeal to many of the world’s Sunni Muslims, a new book has warned.

The authors of “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror”, published this month in the US, spoke to dozens of fighters and members of the group to understand its allure and how it justifies its brutal tactics.

In a telephone interview with AFP, one of the authors, Syrian-born journalist Hassan Hassan, said it was vital to understand that some of the group’s core religious beliefs were widely shared.

“It presents itself as an apocalyptic movement, talking about the end of days, the return of the caliphate and its eventual domination of the world,” said Hassan, who lives in Abu Dhabi where he works as a researcher for a think tank.

“These beliefs are not on the margins — they are absolutely mainstream. They are preached by mosques across the world, particularly in the Middle East. […]

The authors also depict IS as the revenge of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime more than a decade after the late Iraqi dictator was thrown out of power.

Most of the top IS decision-makers served either in Saddam’s military or security services, the book says.

Although the Baathists were originally a secular movement, Saddam introduced a “Faith campaign” in the 1990s that sought to Islamise society.

“Very few people have focused on the impact of that campaign,” said Hassan.

“It radicalised many Baathists and they combined the violence of the regime with that of jihadism, making them even worse than Al-Qaeda.”


http://news.yahoo.com/built-near-impregnable-mass-appeal-book-155052600.html

Former White House Faith Leader Praises Obama For Linking Christianity To Isis...







Dubois: “A conservative audience. I thought it was a really important statement. You know, the president did a great job, I think, of drawing a distinction between those who misuse religion in the name of evil, and the religion, the faith itself. And he said, ‘Listen, all faiths have experience with those who twist and manipulate the words of the prophet for their own evil ends.’ Whether in the Crusades or folks who participated in slavery or Jim Crow. Now we have ISIS doing the same thing. The president was basically saying, ‘this is not Islam. ISIS represents American Muslims, no more than the crusaders or slaveholders represent Christianity.’ Particularly because a lot of Americans don’t know their Muslim neighbors, who haven’t spent a lot of time with the Muslim-American folks in the community. And the president, I think, wanted to make clear that what we’re seeing with ISIS does not at all reflect on Muslims around the the world.”


https://grabien.com/file.php?id=35439&searchorder=date

Yep. But he is not "conflicting". I have to give 0bama credits for being a master in doublespeak. This is very good for me as it sharpens my BS decoder.

That was true, until it became not true anymore regarding islam.

He is saying EXACTLY what pope francis said regarding the limit of free speech and religion, but in doublespeak. Some kind of a clause the whole world has signed a long time ago I was not aware of. American atheists, since most of them voted for that dude, twice, are stuck with agreeing with whatever he is saying 100% of the time. I find this very amusing.

 



I guess broadway shows in NYC will have to close down now...

Based on that conclusion, the restaurant owner will have a case for being wrongfully targeted by anti roach-eating deniers and get millions...
... To immediately be sued by P.I.T.A. and lose all those millions...

 

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility.  They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both.

But part of humility is also recognizing in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment.  And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults — (applause) — and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks.  Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech.  Because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they, too, are full and equal members of our countries.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/obama-people-faith-must-confront-insults-religion/

... That, could be why I am blindfolded? Hum...

 

As long as it is gluten free...

 

Why do women have short feet?
To be closer to the stove...

 

Playing mind games while we are both comfortable behind our keyboard wherever we are is a privilege, especially on a bitcoin forum. I will never wish any ill to anyone here, unless you deserve it, and even that would be between you and your creator (or whoever is monitoring this forum)

 

Yes. The jordanians cannot let this pass. The sad part is they may end up alone as neither 0bama nor the other 'allies' are willing for a full front attack, the shadow of the iraq war still too fresh in people's memory. Zero political will. Syria was supposed to be the target, but ended up being a recruitment medium for isis..

My door is always open for independent minded people. You'll always be welcome.

 

People used to fight all the time, and oil was never an issue. Land was the main issue.  Many wars stopped because the resource to commit to them for years cost more and more and made them unsustainable.

Now imagine a world were it would have been pointless to cut the nazi's oil supply to keep their fighter planes on the ground... Infinite energy would have kept them flying forever.

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of free energy. We need to find a solution for bitcoin, etc. One just need to always think about the worse that could happen in a "what if" scenario, which is the case you've presented.