‘Penguins are birds, which means they have feathers. Penguins hop in and out of the freezing Antarctic Ocean in an environment where winds can reach 90 m.p.h. (144 km/hr.) One would think ice would cake up all over their feathers. Yet penguins are able to handle extremely cold temperatures AND remain ice-free!
Using a scanning electron microscope, researchers were able to study the fine details of the penguin’s feathers. The feathers contained the typical network of barbs, barbules, and miniature interlocking hooks, but also had “many elaborate wrinkles.” Not only were there “elaborate wrinkles,” but the feather structure had microscopic grooves causing air entrapment on a microscale. The Journal of Physical Chemistry reported that this miniature structure, along with the penguin’s special preening oil, kept super-cooled water from sticking. Researchers then built a replica of the Humboldt penguin’s feathers and no ice formed even when the model was sprayed for hours with super-cooled water. Scientists have copied the feather’s unique structural design in an effort to develop an ice-free fiber membrane. Penguin feathers have a wonderful architectural design which means there had to be an architect. There is and He is God.’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
‘This week, the global elites descended on Davos, Switzerland for their annual pow-wow and, as always, they used the occasion to promote their agenda for centralisation and control.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) event was once again a who’s who of the global elite, with business leaders, political figures, and celebrities all rubbing shoulders.
The WEF founder Klaus Schwabopened the event by declaring that the future will be “built” by those in attendance at Davos — a clear sign that these elites see themselves as the architects of the future, with the rest of us just going along for the ride.
Australia’s taxpayer-funded e-Safety Commissioner then suggested that human rights online should be “recalibrated”, particularly when it came to free speech.
You’d expect the Davos crowd to want to “recalibrate” our right to free speech. They only want free speech to suit the needs of the elite and censor any dissenting opinions that don’t fit their narrative.
“We’re developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their whole carbon footprint. What does that mean? Where they are traveling. How they are traveling. What are they eating. What they are consuming on the platform. We don’t have it operational yet, but this is something that we’re working on.”
Can you imagine such a device in the hands of extreme green zealots that are now ensconced in government?
A panel of elite bankers then told the forum that a centralised digital currency was but five years away. Last year, the British Government and the Bank of England were mulling over the idea of making such centralised digital currencies programmable, meaning the issuer of the funds could determine what you spend your money on, where you spend it and how much you spend.
A CNN anchor, the chairman of Credit Suisse, and France's top central banker giddily discuss the arrival of central bank digital currencies within five years at the World Economic Forum in Davos. pic.twitter.com/nKPN2qRUI3
And, of course, there was a lot of finger-wagging about climate change at Davos, with the irony somehow lost on the many attendees who flew in on their private jets to attend the Swiss talkfest about lecturing us mere mortals about the need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
The spoof Twitter account World Ecommunist Forum perfectly summed up the hypocrisy with this tweet:
Many alternative media journalists and commentators who turned up in Davos were accosted by police who — both frighteningly and bizarrely — wore a badge declaring themselves the “World Economic Forum Police”. Fact checkers tried to cover it up by claiming the badge was merely commemorative but you can be the judge looking at this photo of the badge on a police officer who detained independent reporterJack Posobiec.
“He who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:3-4)
‘Perhaps the single greatest category of evidence for supernatural creation is in the nature of the creation itself, which everywhere shows such intricate design that it could not have come about by random chance. Consider the earth: Its size, mass, distance from the sun and moon, rotational wobble, chemical makeup, etc., are critical within very narrow limits. Any significant deviation in any of these or other characteristics would make life impossible.
But inorganic molecules, planets, and galaxies are simpler by several orders of magnitude than even the tiniest living organism. The marvelous genetic code that regulates life, growth, and reproduction is so unthinkably complex, so obviously designed, that it would take a “willingly…ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5) mind to conclude a naturalistic origin for it. Life at every stage and at every level of investigation shows symmetry in its order, purpose in its function, and interdependence between its parts; all of these are clear marks of design by an intelligent designer.
The evidence speaks so eloquently that even “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20) if they choose not to believe and therefore to merit and face His wrath (v. 18).
“All things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:16). Mankind can take no pride in it nor rebellious solace in the idea of naturalistic origin, for “thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Revelation 4:11).’ https://www.icr.org/article/13428/
“I did my job, and that’s all that really mattered. I didn’t do it to get a medal.” ~
“Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.” —John Adams (1808)
Yes, Quentin Tarantino intentionally misspelled “Inglourious Basterds,” the title of his 2009 fictional film about the recruitment of Jews for a U.S. Army commando platoon led by Lt. Aldo “The Apache” Raine, whose mission was to kill Nazis. Raine is a Smoky Mountain bootlegger — which is to say, a kindred spirit. He tells his recruits: “Once we’re in enemy territory, as a bushwhackin’ guerrilla army, we’re going to be doing one thing, and one thing only, killin’ Nazis! … They’re the foot soldiers of a Jew-hatin’, mass murderin’ maniac and they need to be destroyed.”
Among his recruits are Sgt. Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz, Cpl. Wilhelm Wicki, and…
CNBC twisted exclusive comments it received from Tesla CEO Elon Musk to make it seem like he’s a gun control activist but buried his overall support for the Second Amendment.
Musk reportedly emailed a number of comments about guns to CNBC following the mass murder of children and teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. CNBC’s May 25 headline on its exclusive story read as follows: “Elon Musk backs ‘tight’ background checks for all gun sales in wake of mass shooting in Texas.”
However, readers wouldn’t know until the 10th paragraph that Musk actually voiced support for gun rights writ large. “’I strongly believe that the right to bear arms is an important safeguard against potential tyranny of government,’” CNBC quoted Musk as saying. “’Historically, maintaining their power over the people is why those in power did not allow public ownership of guns.’”
‘It is hard to overstate just how sinister the Online Safety Bill is. The gravest threat to freedom of speech since section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalised “insulting words and behaviour”? That scarcely does it justice. Let’s settle on the most serious threat since the proposal to force state regulation on the press in the aftermath of Levison.
The Online Safety Bill, which has already had its second reading in the House of Commons, is intended to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online. If you think “safest” is code for “most heavily regulated” you’re not far wrong.
The Bill will empower Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, to fine social media companies up to 10 per cent of their global turnover if they fail to remove harmful content — and not just harmful to children, which is hard to argue with, but to adults as well.
What does the Government mean by “harmful”? The only definition the Bill offers is in clause 150, where it sets out the details of a new Harmful Communications Offence, punishable by up to two years in jail: “‘harm’ means psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress.”
But, confusingly, it won’t just be harmful content that meets this definition that the bill will force social media companies to remove. After all, this relates to a new criminal offence — and content that meets the threshold for prosecution under this new law will, by definition, be illegal. Notoriously, the Bill will also force social media companies to remove “legal but harmful” content — and exactly what that is, is anyone’s guess. I’m sure political activists and lobby groups claiming to speak on behalf of various victim groups will have a lot to say about it.
The bottom line is that stuff it is perfectly legal to say and write offline will be prohibited online. And not just mildly prohibited — YouTube or Twitter or Facebook could be fined of up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover for a transgression — so in Facebook’s case $11.7 billion, based on its 2021 revenue.
That’s a powerful incentive for social media companies to remove anything remotely contentious — and they hardly need much encouragement. Facebook deleted 26.9 million pieces of content for violating its Community Standards on “hate speech” in the first quarter of 2020, 17 times as many as the 1.6 million instances of deleted “hate speech” in the last quarter of 2017.
More than 97 per cent of Facebook’s purged “hate speech” in the last three months of 2020 was identified by an algorithm and removed automatically. It’s a safe bet that the sensitivity dials on the algorithms social media companies use to censor questionable content will be turned up to 11 if this Bill ever becomes law.’ More of this article at https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/june-2022/why-i-fear-this-censors-charter/
If you are a Bible believing Christian and looking for a you can bypass the Church of Scotland.
‘An historic vote has taken place which will allow Church of Scotland ministers and deacons to marry same-sex couples.
The General Assembly voted to change a standing church law to allow the right to apply to become an authorised celebrant to conduct same-sex ceremonies by 274 votes to 136.