Monday, February 1, 2016
Tamar is the violated daughter of David
Ashdod is were the temple of Dagon is (pagan god)
They do not seems to be very spiritual.....The thing is why even gas wells should call as satan and his buddies?
The Leviathan natural gas field is launching its debut into the world of domestic production and foreign export, simultaneously.
The mammoth natural gas field will supply two private companies with its natural resource in a new $1.3 billion contract signed with Edeltech Group (owned by the Edelsburg family) and its Turkish partner, Zorlu Enerji. The partnership purchased six billion cubic meters of gas to be supplied over 18 years.
The field is being developed and is controlled by Texas-based Noble Energy and Israel’s Delek Group. It is believed to contain approximately 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
“We continue to work with all our might to make progress on developing the Leviathan reservoir and to bring the gas to the Israeli economy and its industry,” Delek Drilling CEO Yossi Abu said. “This deal is a harbinger of things to come, and we intend to further promote sales contracts with customers in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey,” Abu was quoted by Globes as saying.
Two new power stations will be built for the purpose in Israel. The Tamar station will be located in the Negev next to the Haifa Chemicals plant at Mishor Rotem. That project will cost an estimated $250 million. The Soldad Energy plant will be located nex to CHS in Ashdod, for approximately $125 million.
Contracts have already been signed between the two partners to build the Ramat Negev Energy station, Dorad Energy plant in Ashkelon and the Ashdod Energy station.
Credit to Jewish Press
Playing to be GOD.....It reminds me lucifer
Scientists increasingly agree that we’re fast approaching a moment in medicine—probably within 30 years—where we won’t just be significantly lengthening human lifespans, but probably conquering death too.
If this is the case, then the 150,000 people+ who die every day on Earth is doubly tragic. We may soon look back and mourn these hundreds of millions—our parents, friends, and loved ones—who just missed the time in history of achieving indefinite lifespans instead of ending up in a grave.
What this all means is science is nearing the final leg of the greatest race it’s ever been in. Medicine’s main goal will no longer be to just improve health, but to attempt to guarantee survival for every person that exists on the planet. Unfortunately, one significant challenge to medicine succeeding in this noble life extension aim comes from the most ironic and unlikely of places: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
On average, a new drug takes at least 10 years from creation to arrival in your cabinet in America. Additionally, Matthew Herper at Forbes reports that about $5 billion is spent on average in developing a new drug. New medical devices—especially life saving ones—take upwards of seven years to hit the market. For patients, some who are dying to get the drugs and devices, this may as well be an eternity. Nearly all of this has to do with the FDA and the bureaucratic labyrinth that exists to make sure medicine is safe in America.
Now don’t get me wrong, I also want safe medicine. And for the most part, the FDA does that. But sometimes there are more important things than safe medicine, especially if you’re suffering from a debilitating and terminal disease. For example, many people believe access to medicine before they die is more important than whether that medicine is safe or not. And with such a long, laborious, and costly medical approval process in the US, many inventors and companies that would like to create new medicine don’t do it because of the prohibitive procedure of bearing a product from conception to sale.
It’s no wonder start-up companies are opening shop in Europe and China, where clinical trials costs less and regulations in some cases are more lax. The obvious question is: How long can this continue before another nation becomes the pharmaceutical and medical device global powerhouse?
Imagine if you’re a company, and you have a new heart disease drug that you want to create. You’d have to have cash on hand for a decade (or know you could get it) before you might—if the FDA approved you through its multiple stages—to make single sale on a drug. Now imagine you do the same process in Eastern Europe or Asia, and you only need half the cash on hand. You’d have a far better chance at actually bringing a life saving drug to market and making sure you company can survive until it does so.
There are a lot of reasons for the FDA’s notorious regulatory hurdles. Rather than blame them specifically, though, it’s easier to blame the true culprits—the vampires of capitalism: lawyers. They have made it so that a few deaths from a new drug (even one that helps tens of thousands of people live far better and longer) are enough to make it so that drug makers won’t develop or carry the drug. Class action lawsuits are a reputation killer and simply too much a financial burden.
Credit to Motherboard and Zoltan Istvan
In a moment of curious serendipity, a little over 90 minutes after we showed what a dystopian, centrally-planned, cashless society unleashed in a negative interest rate world would look like ("by forcing people and companies to convert their paper money into bank deposits, the hope is that they can be persuaded (coerced?) to spend that money rather than save it because those deposits will carry considerable costs"), and briefly after we laid out the countless recent warnings from "very serious people" that cash is evil and should be banned:
- Norway's Biggest Bank Demands Cash Ban
- Bank Of England Economist Calls For Cash Ban, Urges Negative Rates
- Citigroup's Gold "Expert" Demands A Cash Ban
- Leading German Keynesian Economist Calls For Cash Ban
... while warning to await a full-on coopted media assault about the dangers of cash "which is an anacrhonysm from a bygone era, and that the world will be so much better if only everyone dutifully exchanges the physical currency in their pocket for digital, traceable, and deletable 1s and 0s", none other than Bloomberg issued an editorial Op-Ed in which it had one simple message: "Bring On the Cashless Future."
For those who were amused by our warning that a cashless world may be coming, here is precisely why the warning was issued, in Bloomberg's digital ink:
Credit to Zero HedgeBring On the Cashless FutureCash had a pretty good run for 4,000 years or so. These days, though, notes and coins increasingly seem declasse: They're dirty and dangerous, unwieldy and expensive, antiquated and so very analog.Sensing this dissatisfaction, entrepreneurs have introduced hundreds of digital currencies in the past few years, of which bitcoin is only the most famous. Now governments want in: The People's Bank of China says it intends to issue a digital currency of its own. Central banks in Ecuador, the Philippines, the U.K. and Canada are mulling similar ideas. At least one company has sprung up to help them along.Much depends on the details, of course. But this is a welcome trend. In theory, digital legal tender could combine the inventiveness of private virtual currencies with the stability of a government mint.Most obviously, such a system would make moving money easier. Properly designed, a digital fiat currency could move seamlessly across otherwise incompatible payment networks, making transactions faster and cheaper. It would be of particular use to the poor, who could pay bills or accept payments online without need of a bank account, or make remittances without getting gouged.For governments and their taxpayers, potential advantages abound. Issuing digital currency would be cheaper than printing bills and minting coins. It could improve statistical indicators, such as inflation and gross domestic product. Traceable transactions could help inhibit terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.The most far-reaching effect might be on monetary policy. For much of the past decade, central banks in the rich world have been hampered by what economists call the zero lower bound, or the inability to impose significantly negative interest rates. Persistent low demand and high unemployment may sometimes require interest rates to be pushed below zero -- but why keep money in a deposit whose value keeps shrinking when you can hold cash instead? With rates near zero, that conundrum has led policy makers to novel and unpredictable methods of stimulating the economy, such as large-scale bond-buying.A digital legal tender could resolve this problem. Suppose the central bank charged the banks that deal with it a fee for accepting paper currency. In that way, it could set an exchange rate between electronic and paper money -- and by raising the fee, it would cause paper money to depreciate against the electronic standard. This would eliminate the incentive to hold cash rather than digital money, allowing the central bank to push the interest rate below zero and thereby boost consumption and investment. It would be a big step toward doing without cash altogether.Digital legal tender isn't without risk. A policy that drives down the value of paper money would meet political resistance and -- to put it mildly -- would require some explaining. It could hold back private innovation in digital currencies. Security will be an abiding concern. Non-cash payments also tend to exacerbate the human propensity to overspend. And you don't have to be paranoid to worry about Big Brother tracking your financial life.Governments must be alert to these problems -- because the key to getting people to adopt such a system is trust. A rule that a person's transaction history could be accessed only with a court order, for instance, might alleviate privacy concerns.Harmonizing international regulations could encourage companies to keep experimenting. And an effective campaign to explain the new tender would be indispensable.If policy makers are wise and attend to all that, they just might convince the public of a surprising truth about cash: They're better off without it.
A Spanish scientist working at the Salk Institute in California told Scientific American that Pope Francis personally blessed his cutting-edge research to mix human cells into animal bodies.
Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a prominent stem-cell biologist, is engaged in efforts to grow human tissue inside of farm animals such as pigs, sheep, and cows. This type of research is sensitive because scientists have to inject human stem cells into early-stage animal embryos, then try to grow the mixtures inside surrogate animals.
Much of Belmonte’s work occurs in collaboration with a team in the province of Murcia in his native Spain, a sausage- and ham-loving country which is about 77 percent Catholic.
“Spain is a very Catholic country, so we had to go through the Pope. He very nicely said yes.” Belmonte told Scientific American. “Yes. The current Pope. So the Vatican is behind this research and has no problem based on the idea is to help humankind [sic]. And in theory all that we will be doing is killing pigs.”
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican’s scientific body, did not respond to an e-mail seeking to confirm Pope Francis’s position.
After placing human cells into animal embryos, researchers are watching to see what they do. The likely result is that a small percentage of human cells spread throughout the animal’s body. Belmonte’s eventual hope is to channel the human contribution so that it forms a complete human heart or other organ inside a pig or cow. Such an organ could be used to transplant into a needy patient.
While the Catholic Church has opposed research on human embryos, it endorses evolution and generally takes a liberal view on scientific matters. In fact, the Vatican’s position on “human-animal chimeras,” as the mixtures are known, may be more liberal than that of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which in September instituted a ban on funding chimera research until it can weigh ethical questions associated with it.
Attempts to make this sort of human-animal chimera began only recently. Previously, any added human cells would simply die or the embryo would not live. That changed when Belmonte’s lab and that of Israeli scientist Jacob Hanna each developed new ways of cultivating human stem cells to take on a more “naïve,” primitive state that is able to contribute to the animal embryo.
In 2013, Hanna’s lab at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot showed these naïve cells could contribute to the bodies of fetal mice, resulting in animals with as much as 15 percent human tissue. Scientists predict many other reports discussing human-animal chimeras soon.
In an interview in December, I asked Hanna what Jewish law had to say about human-animal mixtures.
“I’m not sure. I am a Palestinian Christian,” he said.
Credit to MIT technology Review
Why are small towns in conservative states being specifically targeted for refugee resettlement? Of course the Obama administration will never publicly admit that this is happening, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what is going on. Just look at the uproar that refugee resettlement is now causing in small communities in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Kansas. The Obama administration has deemed large cities such as Washington D.C. to be “too expensive” for the refugees, and so large numbers of them are being dispersed throughout smaller communities all over the nation. If you drop a few hundred refugees into a major city of several million people, it isn’t going to make much of a difference. But if you drop a few hundred refugees into a small town that has only a few thousand people living there, you can start to fundamentally alter the character of the whole area. Could it be possible that this is yet another way that Barack Obama is attempting to “fundamentally transform” America?
You would think that there would be more employment opportunities, cultural attractions and government services available for refugees in major metropolitan areas. So it would seem natural to resettle them in those areas. But instead, there seems to be a major push to resettle large numbers of them in small towns.
Needless to say, this is creating a huge uproar in many areas. In fact, on Monday there is a major protest planned in Missoula, Montana. The following comes from Leo Hohmann of WND…
Another big battle is brewing over Syrian “refugees” sweeping into small-town America.Rural folks in Montana are pushing back against plans by urban elites to plant hundreds of Muslims from the Third World into Helena and Missoula. They plan a protest rally at 10 a.m. Monday in front of the county courthouse in Missoula. And if the pattern holds of similar rallies in Twin Falls, Idaho, and Fargo, North Dakota, a contingent of pro-refugee people will show up to counter protest.
Well funded pro-immigrant NGOs have been searching out local politicians that are willing to work with them to invite the Obama administration to resettle large numbers of Islamic refugees in their areas. Unfortunately for residents of Missoula, politicians there seem quite willing to open the door…
Here in “Big Sky Country” local politicians in Missoula, working with pro-immigrant NGOs, are inviting the federal government to begin sending Syrians, comparing them to the Hmong refugees who fled Vietnam’s communists in the late 1970s. They have not been deterred by the fact that 98 percent of Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslims, the vast majority of whom FBI Director James Comey admits are impossible to vet for ties to terrorism.Despite Comey’s warnings, the Missoula Board of County Commissioners sent a letter on Jan. 13 to the U.S. State Department requesting Syrian refuges. “We look forward to seeing approximately 100 refugees per year resettled in Missoula,” the letter states.“Missoula is an ideal city for resettling refugees,” the letter continues. “Our community enjoys good schools, incredible natural beauty, and a low unemployment rate, among other factors.”
We have all seen the chaos that has erupted in Europe as massive waves of Islamic immigrants have been allowed in and resettled in large numbers in small communities. Just a few weeks ago, I wrote about the epidemic of rape that is sweeping across formerly peaceful countries like Norway and Sweden.
And I am sure most of you have already read about the extremely alarming sexual crimes that Germany is dealing with now. But many of us don’t seem to be connecting the dots. What is happening over there could someday happen to our own wives and daughters.
Fortunately, there are some communities that are still willing to step up and take a stand against what the social engineers in Washington D.C. are trying to do. One of those communities is Sandpoint, Idaho…
Sandpoint City Council members voted Wednesday night to withdraw a resolution supporting refugee resettlement, bringing an end to a heated, month-long controversy.Cheers erupted from the audience when newly elected Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad asked the council to withdraw the resolution from consideration. A measure meant to counter statements from Bonner County commissioners and Sheriff Darryl Wheeler opposing the resettlement of refugees, the resolution was intended to restate Sandpoint’s commitments to human rights, according to Rognstad.“This resolution has only served to divide us and this community,” said Rognstad, as he requested the withdrawal. “That saddens me.”Once again, anti-refugee activists turned out in force to oppose the resolution and, once again, the council meeting procedure was punctured by applause and shouts. When Rognstad called for order, the crowd responded with catcalls.
But other small communities in Idaho are not so fortunate.
Just consider what is happening in Twin Falls…
Beginning the next fiscal year (October 1), some 300 Muslim refugees, primarily from Syria, will arrive in Twin Falls, Idaho, the Twin Falls Times reports.But this miniature exodus from the Middle East to the small southern Idaho town of 45,000 people is believed to be just the tip of the iceberg, according to WND, which indicates that many more refugees from Iraq, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and likely Syria, are on their way. The conservative news site received reports that community leaders were told at a recent Boise State University conference held for “stakeholders” — including church groups and social service providers — that a couple thousand refugees are planned to a arrive statewide soon.
Look, I am all for assisting people that need our help.
In particular, I would love for our country to take in Christians from Iraq and Syria. The things that ISIS has been doing to those that believe in Jesus Christ are almost too horrible to put into words, and yet Barack Obama has been almost totally silent on the matter.
Instead of taking in persecuted Christians, it has been estimated that well over 90 percent of the refugees from Syria are Sunni Muslims, and surveys have found that a significant percentage of them actually have a favorable view of ISIS.
In the mainstream media, we are told quite often that the number of refugees being brought in is 10,000 a year. But that simply is not accurate. In a previous article, I documented the fact that the White House has admitted that the number of refugees being resettled in this country has been increased to 100,000 per year. The following is a message that was tweeted by the official White House Twitter account on September 28th…
I don’t see how there could be any confusion. Barack Obama himself says that we are bringing in 100,000 refugees a year for the next two years.
Not all of these refugees are coming from Syria, but the vast majority of them are coming from countries where a radical version of Sunni Islam is practiced as a way of life.
When large numbers of refugees are injected into a small community, the character of that community can be fundamentally altered. And at this point, it appears that there is a concentrated effort to funnel large numbers of these refugees into small towns in some of the most conservative states in the country.
If you are concerned about what is going on in places like Missoula, Sandpoint and Twin Falls, you might want to check on what your own local politicians are doing.
An insidious agenda is at work, and I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Credit to Economic Collapse