Verizon’s bid to kill network neutrality law goes to court Monday | Ars Technica

Without Internet Neutrality in some form, ISP's could censor information that travels across their networks for any economic or political whim. Consider the following quote from Ars Technica.

The FCC counters Verizon's Constitutional arguments by noting in its brief that "Internet access providers do not engage in speech; they transport the speech of others, as a messenger delivers documents containing speech. Unlike cable systems, newspapers, and other curated media, broadband providers do not exercise editorial discretion. Verizon has defended itself from lawsuits on that very ground. If the First Amendment applies at all, the Open Internet Rules are narrowly tailored to serve important government interests. The rules result in no taking without just compensation because, among other things, broadband access providers are compensated for the use of their networks."

The FCC also said it was justified in making the rules because of "multiple incidents of broadband providers interfering with their customers’ ability to use Internet services, from file sharing services to Internet-based telephony."

Powerful economic incentives coupled with technological progress and limited competition make it easier for ISPs "to discriminate among edge providers and to block customer access to Internet sites of their choosing," the FCC argued.

Verizon is now suing to do away with Internet Neutrality. They have economic motive in degrading Internet-based product of competitors who users may use their network for the transmission of data. There is also a huge issue concerning individuals' freedom of expression on the Internet. Should Verizon win on this issue, ISP's could block religious and political content that they don't like. For example, they could block access to Websites critical of same-sex marriage or block access to Conservative(or liberal) Web sites. via Verizon’s bid to kill network neutrality law goes to court Monday | Ars Technica.

Syria World War Three Prophecies: Does Isaiah 17:1 Armageddon Vision Foresee US Military Strike? - IBTimes UK

A line in the Old Testament Book of Isaiah has led a number of people to believe US military action in Syria will lead to the end of the world.

Isaiah 17:1 reads: "The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap... The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the Lord of hosts."

As President Obama mulls a major air offensive against the Assad regime following the use of chemical weapons, fundamentalists have suggested this prophecy is now coming to pass, with believers interpreting the passage to foretell the Armageddon or the Second Coming of Christ.

via Syria World War Three Prophecies: Does Isaiah 17:1 Armageddon Vision Foresee US Military Strike? - IBTimes UK.

John Locke and a Christian Understanding of Freedom

John Locke is considered by many to be the single most important influence on the American Revolution. He wrote the First Treatise on Government and Second Treatise on Government. I am posting an analysis of Locke's references to God in the Second Treatise to show Locke's view of the relation of God to nature and the topic of the rights of man. It is evident that Locke was not a secularist, a pantheist, a deist, or legal positivist. Locke was a believer in the Natural Law Theory, and held to a distinctively Judeo-Christian and libertarian interpretation of natural law - reflecting specifically the Reformation Christian understanding of freedom,

This analysis can be found here.

Some Thoughts on the Recent US Supreme Court Ruling on So-Called Same Sex Marriage

I have several observations concerning the rulings in particular and so-called same-sex marriage:

First: The idea that it is marriage equality is just slick marketing: There are fundamental differences between males and females that interplay in sexual relationships: Homosexual relationships cannot duplicate these dynamics no matter how much they may want to. This means that same-sex marriage is a colossal fiction.

Second: The fiction of same-sex marriage can only be maintained by denying that there is any divine or natural basis for marriage. Marriage is re-defined as a construct of the state. In United States vs Windsor, pages 16-17, the majority decision asserts that the state defines marriage and has "full authority over marriage." This view, of course, ignores both the fact that for thousands of years of history marriages existed without state sanction and that much of that history it was religious institutions that provided the sanction for marriage.

Third: While I believe that a case can be made that the government has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage, it is better to show that marriage is defined by God and embedded into the nature of the natural order. Marriage is God's domain, not the state.

Fourth: Because same-sex marriage promotes the idea that marriage is a state construct, that it is a statist monstrosity. If the state defines marriage and "definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the'[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities' (United States vs Windsor, pages 16-17)," then the door is opened for the state to undermine parental rights and even displace the parents as the parental authority.

Fifth: the Supreme Court used inflammatory language in the decision. It argues DOMA "necesarily demeans" homosexuals (page 29). As such, it affirms the homofascist narrative that says there can be no reasoned disagreement with same-sex marriage. You either affirm it or you are a hater. Scalia, who was in the chambers when this case was debated, argued in his dissent that the majority decision decribed opponents of same-sex marriage as "enemies of human race(page 55)."

If languages demonizing opponents of same-sex marriage and opponents of homo-dascism is promoted by the highest court, then it is only a matter of time before official persecution, discrimination, and restrictions on free speech become government policy. This is already the case in Canada, Australia, and Europe; and the United Nation supports criminalization of all criticism of homosexuality.

Time to prepare to some hard and bizarre times ahead. It's going to be a doosey.

Crushing Academic Dissent

The perfect scheme to ensure academic uniformity and enthrone propaganda involves a scheme to quash dissent as "uncollegial" and replace them with people who are sexually and racially diverse but who march lockstep with the official party line, creating the illusion of "diversity."

How to Purge Faculties of Real DiversityThe "fourth criterion" for tenure should be "collegiality", according to a current stream of university thinking. (The first three are said to be "research, teaching and service.")

We are supposed to want "productive dissent," and the key word that must be interpreted, of course, is "productive." Who decides? A scientific critic of Darwin's theory in the biology department is, by definition, an unproductive dissenter. An advocate of free market economics in most universities does not add the stimulus of intellectual diversity, you see, but instead threatens "unproductive" dissent

Read the rest of the article here

Will the Government Exploit the Boston Bombings?

The recent Boston bombing weighs heavily in the minds of many people right now. Currently, investigators have detained a Saudi national as a person of interest, raising the specter that this is another instance of Islamist terrorism.   There is emerging pattern in recent years: the government lies in wait for opportunities to exploit tragedies in their gambit to either increase their own power or marginalize political enemies.   When the Oklahoma City Bombing occurred in 1995, it provided an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to promote her vast right wing conspiracy theory. An all out witch-hunt was done on conservatives to attempt to tie the entire Conservative movement to terrorism.   In September 2001, terrorists brought down the World Trade Center. The government response was the Patriot Act, which would have done nothing to stop 911 but has successfully gutted the fourth amendment.   Earlier this year a tragic shooting in Newtown, CT occurred. The result is an all out blitz to increase gun control.   Should this turn out to be Islamist terrorism, this will provide the government an opportunity to wage war against religious freedom. A new narrative has been emerging on Islamist terrorism over the past five years: terrorism is the result of religious extremism. Religious extremism is defined as exclusivism. What this means is that if you believe your religion is truer than others, you are an extremist.  

Globalists like Obama, the UN alliance of Civilizations, the Doha Debates and Karen Armstrong want the government to control all religion. Armstrong, in particular wants to set up an organization that will serve as an arbiter of religious belief.

The Real Reason Corporations Support "Same-sex Marriage"

Corporations are uniting to support so-called same-sex marriage. As of this writing, there are two cases being hears by the Supreme Court. One case involves a dispute concerning whether the Defense of Marriage of Act (DOMA) is constitutional and the other is challenging California’s Propositional 8.

Over 200 major companies have filed Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) briefs. The corporate world, it seems, is speaking as one. They claim that legalizing “same-sex marriage” is good for business that it allows for greater market efficiency. This claim is rather dubious. Proposition 8 was passed by majority vote of the citizens of California. Corporate support for “same-sex marriage” risks alienating a large segment of the market. This could in losing business to suppliers who are not as hostile to traditional marriage.

Another reason to doubt that corporate support is just about business is that the libertarian view on marriage would actually be better for business. Libertarians argue that the government should stay out of marriage and that marriage be treated like a private contract. People would enter into the marriage contracts of their choosing and others would be free to recognize or refuse recognition. The libertarian view would allow homosexuals the freedom they claim they want without destroying the freedom of others. Corporations would then pursue whatever policies would be suitable for their companies, most of which would have gay-friendly policies based on their public support for “same-sex marriage.” People like me who object to the “gay lifestyle” would be free to refuse recognition of “same-sex marriages.”

The real reason that corporations are pursuing support for “same-sex marriage” is the same reason that the homosexual community supports it: the use of state power and government guns to forcibly change the cultural norms. The homosexual community wants to use the police power of the state to enforce the perception that homosexual activity is moral. Corporations also want to use the police power of the state to forcibly change social norms. Corporations see the issue of “same-sex marriage” as an opportunity to gain allies from groups that would normally oppose them. Many Leftists would normally oppose displays of corporate power are now supporting such power grab because they see it beneficial to one of their favorite causes.

It goes without saying that the sudden convergence of so many companies supporting “same-sex marriage” smells of collusion. The root of big business is banking. In Mystery Babylon Rising, I write about how modern banking was rooted in the occult mysteries of Mystery Babylon. Both the Medicis and the Fuggers were deep into the occult. Freudo-Marxism, out of which comes the militant homosexual political activism, is also ultimately rooted in the occult. These two streams are converging together.

Charisma: Christians Dominate American Idol This Season.

"Season 12 of American Idol has its share of Christian contestants: Eight of the top 10 are Christians.Contestants Candice Glover, Lazaro Arbos, Janelle Arthur, Curtis Finch Jr., Amber Holcolm, Angie Miller, Devin Velez, and Burnell Taylor are all in it to win it.   "They're also not ashamed to share their faith with the world while they're at it. Angie Miller, who many expect to be crowned winner this year, often tweets about her faith."  

Read the rest of the story here.

The Coming Internet Lockdown

The wild, wild world of the Internet is becoming less free. Current trends are underway to lock down the various layers of the Information Architecture known as the Internet. This paper will explore a possible paradigm for centralized control of information.   There are a number of possibilities for locking down the Internet. There are a number of proprietary methods, but I believe these will have limited impact. Proprietary standards would result in splitting the internet into competing fiefdoms. End users would pick the walled garden that they liked best; centralized control would be hindered.   This paper will show how the Internet can be locked down using open standards. There are four layers to this approach: Hardware, platforms, networks, and government regulation. The analysis will include methods currently used and extrapolate where these methods may lead.   Read the rest of this article here.  

American Citizens now subject to Droning according to Holder

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.   “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”   Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.    

Read the rest of the article here.

School Overreaction:Idiocy, or Psychological Manipulation for the New World Order

A second grader was recently suspended for eating a pop-tart into the shape of a gun. His teacher felt "threatened" because she though she heard him say "bang bang!!!" while eating the pop-tart.     As asinine as this sounds, this is not the first time that a public school has taken an idiotic stand. One child was sent home and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation for merely drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross. The First Amendment Center has documented numerous cases of school overreaction.   When I first heard of these types of cases, I thought "How stupid!" But my research for my recently published book, Mystery Babylon Rising - a Five Thousand Year History of the New World Order, has informed my perspective. I believe that these cases are not educators gone stupid, but that it is clever psychological manipulation designed to create fear. Controlling people through fear is part of the "wine of her fornication."  

Will Hive-Mind Technology be used to create the Mark of the Beast

I found this interesting article from End Times Headlines.

"Creating a “superbrain” of connected minds, scientists on Thursday said they had enabled a rat to help a fellow rodent while the animals were a continent apart but connected through brain electrodes. With electrodes imbedded in its cortex, a rat in a research institute in Natal, Brazil sent signals via the Internet to a counterpart at a university lab in Durham, North Carolina, helping the second animal to get a reward. The exploit opens up the prospect of linking brains among animals to create an “organic computer,” said Brazilian neurobiologist Miguel Nicolelis. It also helps the quest to empower patients stricken with paralysis or locked-in syndrome, he said. More"

Something struck me with this article. If brains can be connected to a network, then it may possible for the brain to submit irreversibly to remote control through means of the network architecture. Today computers can be completely controlled through client-server network architectures like Active Directory. Directory services like Active Directory allow a computers to be joined to a domain. Computers joined to the domain, called clients, have their security information managed by a database distributed among one or more domain controllers; and installed programs, apps, and services are managed remotely by servers in the domain. Clients can be completely remote-controlled.   The information architecture of human brains is complex enough that I doubt any such system could work in a functional manner without the initial co-operation of the subject. Once a person was initially conveted to loyalty to the Antichrist system and willingly received as the mark technology that could join their brain to the beast hive-mind, that technology would allow the hive-mind to irreversibly take complete control of their brain, pushing the subject past the point of being able to repent.   This post orignally appeared in Dallas Carter's Commentary