Prison Planet.com » Artificial hamburger meat successfully grown in vat of bovine fetal cells; You want some fries with that?
I’m not sure which is the more offensive way to create meat. There’s the current “factory farm” method where masses of hormone-jacked, antibiotics-injected cows are kept confined in what can only be called bovine concentration camps while they’re fed genetically modified corn, then slaughtered without compassion and subjected to diabolical meat-harvesting machinery that turns a cow carcass into corporate profits.
On the other hand, there’s the new method being touted across the media: Test tube hamburgers made from thin strips of meat grown in a nutrient vat laced with bovine fetus stem cells. Yumm!
Fuel Fix ^ | January 18, 2012 | Simone Sebastian
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:38:15 AM by thackney
The nation has made a stunning about-face in its role in the global ethanol market. Just two years ago, the United States was a net importer of the fuel, which is blended into gasoline by federal mandate.
Through November, the United States exported 1.02 billion gallons of ethanol in 2011, in denatured and undenatured forms. That’s more than double the volume exported in all of 2010, about 400 million gallons, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry’s trade group.
…In fact, Section 706 calls for the expansion of broadband via deregulation, not further regulations. The Court of Appeals for D.C. even ruled that Net Neutrality cannot be justified under this particular section of the Telecommunications Act.
As has been seen in The Netherlands, Net Neutrality is extremely detrimental to the telecommunications industry. The largest Dutch wireless company, KPN, has been forced to increase their prices by a significant percentage in order to recoup their financial losses as a result of the new, onerous regulations. In the current economic status, furthering the financial and regulatory burden on companies, and, consequently, consumers is absolutely unjustifiable.
The House of Representatives has already taken steps to repeal Net Neutrality in its entirety. H.R. 2434, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2012, moves to both decrease the budget of the FCC and scrap the Net Neutrality rules. Another effort, H.J. Res. 37, was passed by the House in a 240-179 vote, and acts as a joint resolution of disapproval for the Net Neutrality rules. Under the Congressional Review Act, should the measure pass the Senate and be signed by the President, this resolution would nullify the rules. These pieces of legislation clearly did not sit well with the Obama Administration, forcing the President to say that he would veto any attempts to repeal the regulations.
Net Neutrality greatly restricts investment and job creation, and infringes upon an industry that has grown because of the fact that it is relatively unregulated. The Internet has grown because the free market governs best, not federal regulators. In order to keep the telecommunications market both thriving and affordable, it is important that these rules are challenged and repealed immediately………………..
(Excerpt) Read more at digitalliberty.net …
Much has happened since my last visit. In the Netherlands we were able to achieve many amazing things. We have successfully started to roll back the process of Islamization in the Netherlands. We have done so in a peaceful way and through the democratic process. Recently, a deranged narcissistic psychopath from Norway committed a horrible crime. In cold blood he murdered nearly eighty innocent fellow citizens. The assassin pretended to be a concerned European. He said that he had committed his atrocity because “It is meaningless to participate in the democratic process.” But he is wrong! The mass murderer from Oslo murdered and maimed, and he justified his heinous crime by denying – I quote – “that it is remotely possible to change the system democratically.” – end of quote. But he is wrong! The Oslo murderer falsely claims to be one of us. But he is not one of us. We abhor violence. We are democrats. We believe in peaceful solutions.
Andrew Bostom has published an excellent piece on the recent comments made by Geert Corstens, The President of the Netherlands Supreme Court. Corstens photo above alleges that accused Parliamentarian Geert Wilders is “undermining Dutch jurisprudence”. From Bostom’s article:“Geert Corstens, President of the Netherlands Supreme Court, maintains in Orwellian fashion that Dutch Parliamentarian leader Geert Wilders is “undermining” Dutch jurisprudence.
[Hat tip Fjordman]As reported here,Critical statements on jurisprudence such as Wilders has made during the proceedings against him have an “undermining” effect on jurisprudence, particularly as the leader of the PVV [Wilders’ Party for Freedom] is also still a parliamentarian, according to Corstens. MPs should contribute to the stability of the constitutional state, said the president on television programme Buitenhof. This past Friday 10/22/10, because the three sitting judges evidenced unacceptable bias, a special chamber of the Amsterdam district court ruled that the ongoing case against Wilders must be restarted with a different panel of judges.
During a dinner in May 2010, Tom Schalken, one of the judges who gave the order to the Public Prosecutor’s Office OM to prosecute Wilders, attempted to persuade Islamologist Professor Hans Jansen, an expert witness for Wilders’ defense, that the Dutch MP was guilty. Specifically, Jansen insists,…over and over [Schalken] steered the conversation towards the Wilders trial… to convince me of the correctness of his [Schalken’s] decision to drag Wilders to court.And now another “objective” jurist—the President of the Netherlands Supreme Court himself—has made plain his own hideous bias proclaiming that Wilders defense of freedom of speech, let alone fair legal proceedings, somehow undermines Dutch “jurisprudence.”…”Yes, indeedy. The hooks of Islam are sunken deeply into the highest levels of the Dutch legal system.The best analogy that comes to my mind is this:
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, an outspoken opponent of the ongoing Islamization of The Netherlands, is currently on trial for publicly voicing his political opinions about the totalitarian nature of Sharia Muslim law – and for producing a fifteen minutes long movie entitled Fitna.
The graphic documentary draws bellicose verses from the Koran and depicts corresponding acts of violent jihad, including some footage of the 9/11 attacks. You can click here to watch the movie.For speaking out against the incremental capitulation by Europe’s multi-culturally delusional governments to the ever-increasing demands of the fifty-four million Muslims who now live on the continent, he is charged with the crime of inciting hatred and faces one year in prison.
Think about that one for a moment. A few days ago scholar and author Andrew Bostom published an excellent analysis of the situation, in which he called on the mid-Twentieth Century work of Bernard Lewis -commentary on the totalitarian nature of both Communism and Islam. Lewis basically wrote the same ideas in 1954 that Geert Wilders speaks today.
The furor over the Islamic center, variously called the Ground Zero Mosque, Cordoba House, and Park51, has large implications for the future of Islam in the United States and perhaps beyond.An artist’s rendering of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero.
The debate is as unexpected as it is extraordinary. One would have thought that the event to touch a nerve within the American body politic, making Islam a national issue, would be an act of terrorism. Or discovery that Islamists had penetrated U.S. security services. Or the dismaying results of survey research. Or an apologetic presidential speech.But no, something more symbolic roiled the body politic – the prospect of a mosque in close proximity to the World Trade Center‘s former location. What began as a local zoning matter morphed over the months into a national debate with potential foreign policy repercussions. Its symbolic quality fit a pattern established in other Western countries. Islamic coverings on females spurred repeated national debates in France from 1989 forward. The Swiss banned the building of minarets. The murder of Theo van Gogh profoundly affected the Netherlands, as did the publication of Muhammad cartoons in Denmark,.
Oddly, only after the Islamic center’s location had generated weeks of controversy did the issue of individuals, organizations, and funding behind the project finally come to the fore – although these obviously have more significance than does location.
Personally, I do not object to a truly moderate Muslim institution in proximity to Ground Zero; conversely, I object to an Islamist institution being constructed anywhere. Ironically, building the center in such close proximity to Ground Zero, given the intense emotions it aroused, will likely redound against the long-term interests of Muslims in the United States