Rense.com

Even "love" was hijjacked by the dark forces...This is in keeping with in the lower vibrational expression of “forgiveness”, “compassion”, and “gratitude”.  It binds everyone together  on the same sinking Titanic and no one feels empowered to let go of it and get off. This has been the case from ancient times to present.  (Peter Kingsley's book "Reality" touches on this, although I am not sure it was his intention.)

High vibrational "Love" cannot be found if there is no sense of a greater spiritual beingness to existence.  Likewise, higher levels of spiritual beingness cannot function properly without the high vibrational form of love that allows and facilitates the formation and evolution of creation.  Both are important and at any given instant one can be seen to be primary over the other, depending on circumstances.


-Alex Kochkin

My earliest encounter with 2012 information was in the early '90s, in issues of the Revelations of Awareness newlsletter from Olympia, WA.



========================

It will go nowhere to establish its own space, for it will be in its own space already and needs not go anywhere.What is needed is the revision of the thought process around the .."going somewhere.."...It simply needs to vibrate at a different level. It will then be somewhere else. As a parallel example, there is a room that appears to be empty. There is no one else in the room, and yet at the very instant an individual is in the room, there are other beings in that room also, beings that are vibrating at a different rate, who may or may not be aware of the individual already occupying the room. Simply because one is not aware of others in the room because they are at a different vibrational rate does not mean that they are not occupying the same space at the same time. They have not had to go anywhere, they are simply in that space, just as other vibrations are in the space, as X-rays, gamma rays, television rays and radio waves or vibrations and frequencies all are in the room at the same time the individual is in that room. Therefore, the space that the individual occupies is hardly an empty space, even if he or she does not perceive the other individuals, the other frequencies that are also in that space at the same time. Thus it will be with both planets. Planet A and Planet B's frequencies will change. They will occupy, in a manner of speaking, the same space, but it will not be at the physical level. Planet A will lift itself beyond the physical, creating a new form of physicality at a different vibration or frequency. They will no longer intersect to any degree; their frequencies and vibrations being so different that they no longer have an interface together as they currently do, but in a manner of speaking, they still will be in the same space.

Oh, Yeah!

http://911-harley-shirt-guy.blogspot.com/

May 20, 2009

The Supreme Court keeps finding ways to deny women equal pay and benefits.

In 2007, it denied a woman’s claim for equal pay because it thought she waited too long to file it. On Monday, the court sided against female retirees who get smaller pensions than their male colleagues because they got pregnant and took maternity leaves before Congress got around to outlawing discrimination on that basis.

The case involved four retired employees of AT&T who took maternity leaves between 1968 and 1976 — before the law required employers to offer pregnancy leaves on equal terms with other disability conditions. The women were denied full credit for those leaves.

Both sides of the 7-to-2 ruling, including the exasperated dissent signed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, agreed that the sort of pay discrimination at issue is now illegal.

Nevertheless, a seven-member majority — including two generally reliable votes for equality, Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter — found AT&T’s continued shortchanging of the four women to be permissible. It reasoned mainly that the pregnancy leaves predated the 1978 law, and since the law was not retroactive, the discrepancy in benefits was the product of “past, completed events that were entirely lawful at the time they occurred.”

That may sound logical, but it is not just. Writing in dissent, Justice Ginsburg agreed that the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require redress for past discrimination. But, quite correctly, she saw AT&T’s ongoing denial of equal benefits not as past discriminatory behavior that started and ended decades ago, but as a current violation of the act. (In much the same way, Goodyear discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter by maintaining her unequal pay for years, not merely the first time the company underpaid her.)

“I am persuaded by the act’s text and legislative history,” wrote Justice Ginsburg, “that Congress intended no continuing reduction of women’s compensation, pension benefits included, attributable to their placement on pregnancy leave.”

Congress will have to write corrective legislation.

http://arxivblog.com/?p=71

October 9th, 2007 | by KFC |

It don’t get much weirder than this. The universe is about to lose its dimension of time says a group of theoretical astrobods at the University of Salamanca in Spain. And they got the evidence to prove it.

The idea comes from the study of braneworlds: the thinking that the universe we see around us is a 4-dimensional cosmos called a braneworld embedded in a multidimensional universe. The “signature” of our universe is the number of space and time-like dimensions it has: in our case we got 3 space-like dimensions and one time-like dimension. It’s what astrobods call a Lorentzian universe. So far so good: lots of astronutters think the same thing.

But our universe may not always have been like this. Some theorists think it may once have had a Euclidean signature meaning that all the dimensions were space-like. Now Marc “Bars” Mars and a few pals in Spain say that the Universe’s signature might be about to flip from Lorentzian to Euclidean. In other words, our dimension of time is about turn space-like. Gulp!

This ain’t entirely bonkers and here’s why. Bars Mars has calculated what it’s like to be an observer in a universe that is about to flip and get this: it would look as if it were expanding and accelerating away from us. Sound familiar?

Yep, it’s exactly what astrobods have been observin over the last few years, a phenomenon they attribute to dark energy. If Bars Mars is right, dark energy ain’t got nothing to do with it and we’re all starin’ down the barrel of a cosmic catastrophe.

Still, maybe four space-like dimensions will be better than three. Who needs time anyway?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0710.0820: Is the Accelerated Expansion Evidence of a Forthcoming signature<..?

by Michelle Thaller | csmonitor.com

Posted January 24, 2003

In the last few years, astronomers have had problems with a seemingly obvious definition: what, exactly, is a planet, as opposed to a star? Most people, thinking in an Earth-chauvinistic way, might point out that planets are hard, solid, rocky things, while stars are made of hydrogen and helium. But in fact, half of the planets in our solar system have no solid surface at all, and are composed of pretty much the same kinds of gas that makes up our Sun.

Well, then, what about the blazingly obvious observation that stars shine? Stars give off heat, light, and many other kinds of radiation. Planets have no energy sources of their own, do they? We all know that the Earth is totally dependent on the Sun's energy for heat and light.

Things are actually quite a bit different in the outer parts of our solar system. While it's true that none of the planets shine in visible light, all of the four gas giants in our solar system (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) actually give off more radiation than they get from the Sun. The extra energy, in the form of heat, comes from gravity compressing the planet's gases more and more over time. You could say that these planets really haven't finished forming yet. Gravity is still crushing together the gases that form these planets, and they will someday be denser and cooler. If you had eyes sensitive to infrared radiation, these planets would actually "shine" on their own.

Admittedly, this kind of heating through compression is much different from the hydrogen fusion that fuels the stars, and that, in the end, is what differentiates a star from a planet. Stars are able to sustain thermonuclear fusion reaction in their cores, planets are not. But, interestingly, even nuclear fusion is a little bit of a gray area. For planets about ten times the mass of Jupiter, research suggests that early in their formation, there may be a stage where deuterium (heavy hydrogen) fusion occurs deep inside their cores. For slightly more massive planets, even normal hydrogen fusion may happen for a limited time. So, in a real way, these massive "planets" may have been "stars" in the past, depending on your definition.

See the problem?

The confusion over this gray area has led to the classification of a new kind of celestial object, the brown dwarf. A brown dwarf is something that is a bit too massive to be a planet, but not quite massive enough to be a star (and the plural is indeed "dwarfs" not "dwarves"). Most scientists are getting comfortable defining brown dwarfs as objects with masses ranging from a few times the mass of Jupiter, to about a tenth of the mass of the Sun.

The word "dwarf" in astronomy usually denotes a small star. A red dwarf, for example, is a small, dim star that burns its hydrogen so slowly that all it can manage is a faint red glow in the sky. So, the "dwarf" part of a brown dwarf seems to suggest that it is some kind of star. But the "brown" part calls to mind the brownish clouds of giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn.

In fact, some of the smaller brown dwarfs may look very much like Jupiter indeed. One of Jupiter's most famous attributes is its great red spot, which is actually a giant hurricane about 15,000 miles across. Recently, astronomers may have detected weather on a brown dwarf that would make Jupiter's storm look more like a tempest in a teapot. Like the giant planets in our own solar system, brown dwarfs are steadily being compressed by gravity, and cool off over time. Most objects in space become fainter as their temperature drops, but for some reason, brown dwarfs bucked this trend. There seemed to be a transition temperature where, although a brown dwarf was indeed getting cooler, it also got brighter. Astronomers couldn't explain this until they tried to model how giant storms would influence the appearance of brown dwarfs.

To begin with, brown dwarf atmospheres are very hot, about 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and the farther down into the brown dwarf you go, the hotter it gets. At extreme temperatures like that, lots of chemicals would be vaporized and swirling, even stuff like iron and silicon. Over time, as the brown dwarf cools off, there has to be a transition period when the vapors in the atmosphere condense, much like steam condensing back into water droplets as it cools.

This condensation phase would fill vast cloud layers with liquid metals, which would whip up lightening storms the likes of which our solar system has never seen. As the cloud layers break up due to the turbulence, lower and hotter parts of the atmosphere would be exposed to space, and able to radiate away their heat. The extra radiation expected from the lower cloud layers turns out to match very well the extra brightness that brown dwarfs exhibit as they cool off.

It's not the only possible explanation, but for the time being, it seems to be a good one. It also gives us one a dramatic new image: somewhere, right now, titanic thunderstorms are rocking the atmosphere of a brown dwarf, creating a downpour of molten iron rain. And while it may not be linked to storm activity, some brown dwarfs give off periodic flares of X-ray radiation. Something, perhaps deep down in the tangled magnetic field of the brown dwarf, is creating surges of electrical current though the atmosphere, releasing violent X-ray jolts like huge strokes of lightening.

Observing brown dwarfs will surely become a hot topic, pardon the pun, in the coming decade. One important question to be addressed is whether brown dwarfs form more like stars or planets. At the moment, brown dwarfs are thought to form in much the same way as stars, inside the core of a collapsing interstellar dust cloud. The only thing that stopped the brown dwarf from becoming a star was that is was not able to accumulate enough mass to drive its temperature enough to create sustainable nuclear reactions.

In a way, it may be correct to think of brown dwarfs as stillborn stars. On the other hand, brown dwarfs may have begun life more like a planet, forming in a spinning disk of material around a young star. Recent models suggest that in systems where two planets at least the size of Jupiter form, one will eventually migrate in to a closer orbit around its star, while the other will get thrown off into space. Is it possible that some brown dwarfs formed this way, and have kicked their twin out of the nest?

Could life exist around a brown dwarf? It's not as silly as it sounds; just think of the moons of Jupiter, like Europa, that are heated by tidal interaction with their parent planet, instead of sunlight. Europa may have warm saltwater oceans underneath its think layer of ice, and there's no reason to assume that there couldn't be a similar moon around a brown dwarf. Somewhere between stars and planets, there's a whole new kind of world waiting to be explored.

Michelle Thaller is an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. She dedicates most of her time to education and public outreach for the Space Infrared Telescope Facility.

Larisa Alexandrovna's At Largely

April 02, 2009

I told you this was a stage-managed collapse and the money laundered out... my guess? Oh, I have a good working theory on what went down. At some point, I will sit down and jot it all down. But here is the latest news:

A House oversight panel is investigating the role Bush administration officials and regulators played in the collapse of American International Group. The first step of the investigation begins Thursday, House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Towns (D-N.Y.) tells the Huffington Post, when the committee hears testimony from former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg.

In November 2004, the Bush Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed not to prosecute AIG for allegedly helping companies fudge their books. In exchange, AIG agreed to host a government-appointed auditor in company meetings. At the time, Greenberg said it brought "finality to the claims raised by the SEC and the Department of Justice."

Towns said that Greenberg should be able to identify Bush administration officials involved in the decision-making around the settlement. Towns added the committee wants to know what Bush administration regulators knew about AIG's credit default swaps and other highly risky positions that brought the company down.

Oh I think it is not just Bush admin officials. In fact, I think it is more than regulators knowing. I would wager that some of this money was diverted into campaign coffers. In fact, I would wager the direct involvement of Jack Abramoff in this and certain firms at K Street tied to Tom Delay and others.

Ask yourself what is in it for those engaged on the government side of things? Money, big money. And not just money, but insurance of a different sort. The Bush admin - it seems to me - was running a protection racket. No matter what industry we look at, we see regulators not regulating, investigators not investigating, and so forth. In other words, we will pay into your election coffer or what-not, and in exchange you call off the dogs.

It is the flip side of the US Attorney Scandal as well. On one side you have pressure to prosecute political enemies, but I think likely corporate enemies could be added to this list. So, for example, you are big tobacco and you have a problem with massive class action cases. Your problem is taken care of via the DOJ just as AIG is taken care of by having regulators look the other way.

In all of this, money needs to change hands. That money would have had to be laundered. Enter Jack Abramoff and others like him, and there are several like him who are still in play. This is why investigative journalism is so important and why we need more investigative journalists involved. Alas, that is wishful thinking.