A recent article in the UK’s Christian Institute quoted pop star Will Young, a member of the new Gaystapo, as he referred to clergymen who referenced homosexual unions, which they are trying to get everyone to say they are “gay marriage” (which this writer will not do), as “abhorrent”. Mr. Young didn’t stop there though. He continued expressing the desire to have those who see the new Gaystapo and their unions as abhorrent as those who should be prosecuted for hate crimes. He certainly wouldn’t like what I call it: sodomy, homosexualality, debauchery, unnatural, depraved, perverse, evil, disgusting, wretched and a host of other terms to describe the Gaystapo perverts.

Somehow Mr. Young thinks it’s ok to call people with convictions other than his own criminals and hatemongers that should be in jail, but when they disagree with his position he cries “foul” like a little child kicking and screaming that they are intolerant. See the utter intolerance of the tolerance movement?

These statements appeared live on BBC1′s Question Time.

I like to identify people like Mr. Young as the new Gaystapo, or among the militant sodomites who are showing themselves for who they truly are. They are those who claim to love and be tolerant, yet they are the very epitome of hate and intolerance. They want to silence anyone who would call their perverse behavior….well, perverse!

They would just a soon see Bible believing Christians in prison and if they had their way executed. They only speak of love in terms of sex. While there probably are some homosexuals who do care for their partners, it is then betrayed by the fact that they engage them romantically and sexually, thus showing a hatred of them.

Read More at frontporchpolitics.com By Tim Brown, FrontPorchPolitics.com

European politicians are on the hunt for new sources of revenue as the continent’s fiscal situation worsens. The level of desperation is clear in the latest move from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition government to tap into the cash reserves of Internet search engine giant Google to bolster that country’s ailing publishing industry.

The second item on the coalition’s list of priorities released last week was a proposal to slap online news aggregators with a tax. “Online commercial vendors, such as search engines and news aggregators, should in the future pay a fee to publishers for the distribution of press products (such as news articles) on the Internet,” the document explains. Any business that links to a news article with a brief excerpt is subject to the scheme.

This action has far more to do with protectionism than protecting intellectual property rights. Websites such as the indispensable Drudge Report, Times 24/7, Real Clear Politics, Digg, Fark and Reddit collect news from sources spread across the Web. These sites are wildly popular because they draw the important stories together in one convenient place, fulfilling a very specific need among a news-hungry public.

Far from leeching off newspapers and print journalists, aggregators are essential to spreading the word about important stories. They drive significant traffic, which in turn generates revenue for content providers. It’s a win for both sides. For publishers that disagree, Google already includes a simple mechanism for websites to exclude themselves from search results. If the purported theft of content were truly the issue, that would end the discussion.

That it doesn’t shows this tax is not a matter of principle, but of old-fashioned crony capitalism. The new economy will be used to bail out the old economy simply because the new economy’s lobbyists aren’t as well-connected.

Read More at The Washington Times By Joel B. Pollak, breitbart.com

Congress is doing it again: they’re proposing overbroad regulations that could have dire consequences for our Internet ecology. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523), introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, allows companies or the government1 free rein to bypass existing laws in order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for “cybersecurity purposes.” Companies are encouraged to share data with the government and with one another, and the government can share data in return. The idea is to facilitate detection of and defense against a serious cyber threat, but the definitions in the bill go well beyond that. The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack websites like The Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks. Join EFF in calling on Congress to stop the Rogers’ cybersecurity bill.

Under the proposed legislation, a company that protects itself or other companies against “cybersecurity threats” can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company under threat. But because “us[ing] cybersecurity systems” is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites. A company acting on a “cybersecurity threat” would be able to bypass all existing laws, including laws prohibiting telcos from routinely monitoring communications, so long as it acted in “good faith.”

The broad language around what constitutes a cybersecurity threat leaves the door wide open for abuse. For example, the bill defines “cyber threat intelligence” and “cybersecurity purpose” to include “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”

Yes, intellectual property. It’s a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property. An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.

The language of “theft or misappropriation of private or government information” is equally concerning. Regardless of the intent of this language, the end result is that the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information. Online publishers like WikiLeaks are currently afforded protection under the First Amendment; receiving and publishing classified documents from a whistleblower is a common journalistic practice. While there’s uncertainty about whether the Espionage Act could be brought to bear against WikiLeaks, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the Espionage Act would apply to WikiLeaks without equally applying to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in fact everyone who reads about the cablegate releases. But under Rogers’ cybersecurity proposal, the government would have new, powerful tools to go after WikiLeaks. By claiming that WikiLeaks constituted “cyber threat intelligence” (aka “theft or misappropriation of private or government information”), the government may be empowering itself and other companies to monitor and block the site. This means that the previous tactics used to silence WikiLeaks—including a financial blockade and shutting down their accounts with online service providers—could be supplemented by very direct means. The government could proclaim that WikiLeaks constitutes a cybersecurity threat and have new, broad powers to filter and block communication with the journalistic website.

Read More at The Electronic Frontier Foundation By Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Have you noticed that during Republican administrations homelessness was always in the news? I know you have. There were daily reports and weekly specials. Are we to assume that we no longer have a homeless problem in America? Did you notice that during George H. W. Bush’s administration that the press harped on unemployment numbers everyday and how bad the economy was? It was constant.

English scientist Charles Babbage (1791–1871) understood that scientists were often guilty of manipulating evidence to add credibility to a theory. He described three types of misconduct: forging (the outright invention of data), trimming (the cosmetic ‘massaging’ of data, so as to display them to best advantage), and cooking (discreetly losing the data that were out of line or did not help the hypothesis).[1]

What’s true of scientists is doubly true of politicians and their support staff. In order to boost President Obama’s election prospects in November, the unemployment numbers are being forged, trimmed, and cooked.

For example, the Labor Department reported that 227,000 new jobs were added in February. The claim is being made that this is the third consecutive month of job creation. All the reports from the mainstream media are telling us that this means the economy has finally dug itself out of the recession hole. President Obama’s policies are working. He deserves another four years.

Another set of numbers reports that our trade deficit has skyrocketed by $4.3 billion in January to $52.6 billion. This number is an indicator that we are not creating the type of jobs that indicate long-term growth. Many of the new jobs are in the service industry.

Read More at Godfather Politics

(Reuters) – Banks are foreclosing on America’s churches in record numbers as lenders increasingly lose patience with religious facilities that have defaulted on their mortgages, according to new data.

The surge in church foreclosures represents a new wave of distressed property seizures triggered by the 2008 financial crash, analysts say, with many banks no longer willing to grant struggling religious organizations forbearance.

Since 2010, 270 churches have been sold after defaulting on their loans, with 90 percent of those sales coming after a lender-triggered foreclosure, according to the real estate information company CoStar Group.

In 2011, 138 churches were sold by banks, an annual record, with no sign that these religious foreclosures are abating, according to CoStar. That compares to just 24 sales in 2008 and only a handful in the decade before.

The church foreclosures have hit all denominations across America, black and white, but with small to medium size houses of worship the worst. Most of these institutions have ended up being purchased by other churches.

Read More at Reuters By Tim Reid, Reuters