https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwREO4rO3EY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
National Association for Gun Rights
THAT's LIFE...
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/rep-jason ... g-message/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has withdrawn legislation that would have upheld his oath of office and the Constitution by returning land back to the people from the usurpation of the central governmentand the Bureau of Land Management, apparently under pressure from “groups” he “supports” believing that it “sends the wrong message.”
Chaffetz’s legislation was introduced in January and called on the Department of Interior to either dispose of or sell 3.3 million acres of “public lands.”
However, it appears that he is facing pressure from conservationist groups who claim the legislation “sends the wrong message.”
“I’m a proud gun owner, hunter and love our public lands,” Chaffetz posted. “The bill would have disposed of small parcels of lands Pres. Clinton identified as serving no public purpose but groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message.”According to The Washington Post, “The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act, which would have shifted federal holdings to state governments in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wyoming, prompted an outcry among hunters and anglers’ groups. Introduced three weeks after House Republicans enacted a rule change to make it easier to sell off federal land, the measure prompted two separate rallies in Santa Fe, N.M., and Helena, Mont., this week that drew hundreds of people opposed to the measure.”
The Salt Lake Tribune reports:
The legislation details swaths of Bureau of Land Management acreage over 10 Western states cited in a 1997 Clinton administration report as not otherwise set aside for oil, gas or mineral extraction, listed for wilderness protection or designated for Native American groups. That includes 132,931 acres in Utah.
The findings, though, note that some of the lands identified may have other conflicts, including disposal costs, the existence of cultural resources or hazardous conditions. The study was requested by Congress at the time as part of an exchange plan to restore the Florida Everglades.
Chaffetz has introduced the bill every year since 2010, but it has never passed or gone forward to a committee hearing. The legislation accords with other Republican efforts in Utah to take control public lands, which account for about two-thirds of the state’s area.
“While there are national treasures worthy of federal protection, there are lands that should be returned to private ownership,” Chaffetz said in 2011.
The move to drop the legislation, though, was lauded by public lands conservation groups.
Chris Saeger, director of Western Values Project, said Chaffetz deserves thanks for withdrawing the “irresponsible bill.”
“If he values public lands enough to abandon this plan,” Saeger said in a prepared statement, “he should refrain from interfering with the land protected by President Obama’s Bears Ears monument.”
That step is not likely. Chaffetz has been a staunch opponent of the December monument designation in San Juan County, calling it “a slap in the face to the people of Utah.”
Of course, it’s a slap in the face of the people of Utah Congressman! However, it’s a bigger slap in the face that the central government “owns” a ton of land it never acquired per the Constitution, through state legislatures! Yet, you claim your legislation “sends the wrong message.” However, you never tell us what that message is. Is it that the DC government should not own or manage that land? That is the right message, Sir! Is it that some people who support you want the Constitution violated concerning “public land,” something that the Constitution clearly limits?
From what I can see, so-called “conservatives” are ok with this kind of lawlessness when it benefits them. Alex Robinson of Outdoor Life elaborated on conservationists and hunting groups having concerns that selling off small portions of land to private interests could cut off public access to national forests for hunter or campers.
Well, again, where is that in the Constitution, friends? If you want land to hunt on, get a friend that has the land and ask to hunt, or buy property!
I know what some are saying, “Tim, it’s not that simple.” Oh yes, it is. It’s as simple as the central government coming in and in one quick swoop usurping constitutional authority, growing government to enforce that usurpation and even threatening and imprisoning those who would seek to correct the injustice.
Thanks for nothing on this one Congressman Chaffetz.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has withdrawn legislation that would have upheld his oath of office and the Constitution by returning land back to the people from the usurpation of the central governmentand the Bureau of Land Management, apparently under pressure from “groups” he “supports” believing that it “sends the wrong message.”
Chaffetz’s legislation was introduced in January and called on the Department of Interior to either dispose of or sell 3.3 million acres of “public lands.”
However, it appears that he is facing pressure from conservationist groups who claim the legislation “sends the wrong message.”
“I’m a proud gun owner, hunter and love our public lands,” Chaffetz posted. “The bill would have disposed of small parcels of lands Pres. Clinton identified as serving no public purpose but groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message.”According to The Washington Post, “The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act, which would have shifted federal holdings to state governments in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wyoming, prompted an outcry among hunters and anglers’ groups. Introduced three weeks after House Republicans enacted a rule change to make it easier to sell off federal land, the measure prompted two separate rallies in Santa Fe, N.M., and Helena, Mont., this week that drew hundreds of people opposed to the measure.”
The Salt Lake Tribune reports:
The legislation details swaths of Bureau of Land Management acreage over 10 Western states cited in a 1997 Clinton administration report as not otherwise set aside for oil, gas or mineral extraction, listed for wilderness protection or designated for Native American groups. That includes 132,931 acres in Utah.
The findings, though, note that some of the lands identified may have other conflicts, including disposal costs, the existence of cultural resources or hazardous conditions. The study was requested by Congress at the time as part of an exchange plan to restore the Florida Everglades.
Chaffetz has introduced the bill every year since 2010, but it has never passed or gone forward to a committee hearing. The legislation accords with other Republican efforts in Utah to take control public lands, which account for about two-thirds of the state’s area.
“While there are national treasures worthy of federal protection, there are lands that should be returned to private ownership,” Chaffetz said in 2011.
The move to drop the legislation, though, was lauded by public lands conservation groups.
Chris Saeger, director of Western Values Project, said Chaffetz deserves thanks for withdrawing the “irresponsible bill.”
“If he values public lands enough to abandon this plan,” Saeger said in a prepared statement, “he should refrain from interfering with the land protected by President Obama’s Bears Ears monument.”
That step is not likely. Chaffetz has been a staunch opponent of the December monument designation in San Juan County, calling it “a slap in the face to the people of Utah.”
Of course, it’s a slap in the face of the people of Utah Congressman! However, it’s a bigger slap in the face that the central government “owns” a ton of land it never acquired per the Constitution, through state legislatures! Yet, you claim your legislation “sends the wrong message.” However, you never tell us what that message is. Is it that the DC government should not own or manage that land? That is the right message, Sir! Is it that some people who support you want the Constitution violated concerning “public land,” something that the Constitution clearly limits?
From what I can see, so-called “conservatives” are ok with this kind of lawlessness when it benefits them. Alex Robinson of Outdoor Life elaborated on conservationists and hunting groups having concerns that selling off small portions of land to private interests could cut off public access to national forests for hunter or campers.
Well, again, where is that in the Constitution, friends? If you want land to hunt on, get a friend that has the land and ask to hunt, or buy property!
I know what some are saying, “Tim, it’s not that simple.” Oh yes, it is. It’s as simple as the central government coming in and in one quick swoop usurping constitutional authority, growing government to enforce that usurpation and even threatening and imprisoning those who would seek to correct the injustice.
Thanks for nothing on this one Congressman Chaffetz.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://minutemennews.com/iraqs-archbish ... hristians/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://constitution.com/iraqs-christian ... ered-isis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"A good question from one of Iraq’s most important Christian leaders, Catholic Archbishop Basar Warda. The archbishop was speaking the Catholic website, Crux, when he voiced support for President Donald Trump’s immigration posture towards the nations of the Middle East and said that Iraq’s Christians “celebrated when Trump won” because they hoped it meant that the USA would finally offer support for their suffering.
The entire interview is a treasure trove of information about the plight of Christians in the Middle East (Iraq in particular) and is well worth your time to read.
On whether or not he (and other Iraqi Christians) agree with President Trump’s new immigration policies:
I don’t know what the president knows about security risks as they relate to the “countries of concern” and refugees from them…
It is terrible to live with terrorism. My country lives with terrorism daily. And if the United States wants to have a strong vetting process, I can understand and appreciate that. Some people are quick to forget that Europe has tried to slow down the refugee flow too. The EU has done its best to keep the refugees in Turkey, and has paid Turkey to keep them there. Obviously, in the era of terrorism, people are concerned about who is entering their country and that is understandable…
I fear that all the media discussion on this travel issue will place the focus completely on those who are in the migration process, and forget those who are still attempting to live and survive in their legitimate homeland.
One other thing: Christians and other minorities have been largely ignored by the American government before now, so even if this step had a bumpy start and required clarification, we in Iraq appreciate that an American administration understands that we are here and wants to help the minorities here who have suffered so much.
On the protests happening in America against Trump and his immigration order:
From my perspective in Iraq, I wonder why all of these protesters were not protesting in the streets when ISIS came to kill Christians and Yazidis and other minority groups. They were not protesting when the tens of thousands of displaced Christians my archdiocese has cared for since 2014 received no financial assistance from the U.S. government or the U.N. There were no protests when Syrian Christians were only let in at a rate that was 20 times less than the percentage of their population in Syria.
I do not understand why some Americans are now upset that the many minority communities that faced a horrible genocide will finally get a degree of priority in some manner…
Most Americans have no concept of what it was like to live as a Yazidi or Christian or other minority as ISIS invaded. Our people had the option to flee, to convert, or to be killed, and many were killed in the most brutal ways imaginable. But there were none of these protests then of ISIS’s religious test.
Our people lost everything because of their faith – they were targeted for their faith, just like the Yazidis and others too. Now these protesters are saying that religion should not matter at all, even though someone was persecuted for their faith, even though persecution based on religion is one of the grounds for refugee status in the UN treaty on refugees.
From here I have to say, it is really unbelievable.
It is exactly this reasoning, that religion should not be a factor at all in American policy, that has resulted in Christians and other minority communities being overlooked by U.S. and UN aid programs. We are too small to matter, our communities are disappearing from constant persecution, and for years the American government didn’t care. Now when someone tries to help us, we have protesters telling us that there can be no religious basis for refugee status – even though the UN treaty and American law say that religious persecution is a major reason for granting the status, and even though ISIS targeted people primarily on the basis of religion…
But it is very hard for me to understand why comfortable people in the West think those who are struggling to survive against genocide, and whose communities are at extreme risk of disappearing completely, should not get some special consideration. We are an ancient people on the verge of extinction because of our commitment to our faith. Will anybody protest for us? The religious minorities of the Middle East deserve special protection, not because they are more valuable than the Muslim population, but because they’ve faced more danger, hardship, and persecution than their Muslim neighbours."
http://constitution.com/iraqs-christian ... ered-isis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"A good question from one of Iraq’s most important Christian leaders, Catholic Archbishop Basar Warda. The archbishop was speaking the Catholic website, Crux, when he voiced support for President Donald Trump’s immigration posture towards the nations of the Middle East and said that Iraq’s Christians “celebrated when Trump won” because they hoped it meant that the USA would finally offer support for their suffering.
The entire interview is a treasure trove of information about the plight of Christians in the Middle East (Iraq in particular) and is well worth your time to read.
On whether or not he (and other Iraqi Christians) agree with President Trump’s new immigration policies:
I don’t know what the president knows about security risks as they relate to the “countries of concern” and refugees from them…
It is terrible to live with terrorism. My country lives with terrorism daily. And if the United States wants to have a strong vetting process, I can understand and appreciate that. Some people are quick to forget that Europe has tried to slow down the refugee flow too. The EU has done its best to keep the refugees in Turkey, and has paid Turkey to keep them there. Obviously, in the era of terrorism, people are concerned about who is entering their country and that is understandable…
I fear that all the media discussion on this travel issue will place the focus completely on those who are in the migration process, and forget those who are still attempting to live and survive in their legitimate homeland.
One other thing: Christians and other minorities have been largely ignored by the American government before now, so even if this step had a bumpy start and required clarification, we in Iraq appreciate that an American administration understands that we are here and wants to help the minorities here who have suffered so much.
On the protests happening in America against Trump and his immigration order:
From my perspective in Iraq, I wonder why all of these protesters were not protesting in the streets when ISIS came to kill Christians and Yazidis and other minority groups. They were not protesting when the tens of thousands of displaced Christians my archdiocese has cared for since 2014 received no financial assistance from the U.S. government or the U.N. There were no protests when Syrian Christians were only let in at a rate that was 20 times less than the percentage of their population in Syria.
I do not understand why some Americans are now upset that the many minority communities that faced a horrible genocide will finally get a degree of priority in some manner…
Most Americans have no concept of what it was like to live as a Yazidi or Christian or other minority as ISIS invaded. Our people had the option to flee, to convert, or to be killed, and many were killed in the most brutal ways imaginable. But there were none of these protests then of ISIS’s religious test.
Our people lost everything because of their faith – they were targeted for their faith, just like the Yazidis and others too. Now these protesters are saying that religion should not matter at all, even though someone was persecuted for their faith, even though persecution based on religion is one of the grounds for refugee status in the UN treaty on refugees.
From here I have to say, it is really unbelievable.
It is exactly this reasoning, that religion should not be a factor at all in American policy, that has resulted in Christians and other minority communities being overlooked by U.S. and UN aid programs. We are too small to matter, our communities are disappearing from constant persecution, and for years the American government didn’t care. Now when someone tries to help us, we have protesters telling us that there can be no religious basis for refugee status – even though the UN treaty and American law say that religious persecution is a major reason for granting the status, and even though ISIS targeted people primarily on the basis of religion…
But it is very hard for me to understand why comfortable people in the West think those who are struggling to survive against genocide, and whose communities are at extreme risk of disappearing completely, should not get some special consideration. We are an ancient people on the verge of extinction because of our commitment to our faith. Will anybody protest for us? The religious minorities of the Middle East deserve special protection, not because they are more valuable than the Muslim population, but because they’ve faced more danger, hardship, and persecution than their Muslim neighbours."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://constitution.com/gay-man-asks-ch ... -arrested/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both dying painful deaths in the once-Christian West. Over the last couple of years we’ve brought you a handful of stories about Christians being arrested for saying Christians things, and yet it just keeps happening more and more often. The latest example may be one of the most egregious yet.
Gordon Larmour is a 42-year old Christian who has been street preaching for seven years. This past summer he was handing out leaflets and saying, “Don’t forget Jesus loves you and He died for your sins.” One of the men passing him asked, “What does your God say about homosexuals?” Mr, Larmour responded by quoting Scripture and telling the questioner that God created Adam and Eve to produce children, which sent the young homosexual man into a rage and he began chasing the preacher.
When the police arrived they arrested Larmour (who was the one being threatened) and accused him of threatening or abusive behavior, which was ‘aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation,’ even though the preacher had not used any foul language or made any offensive remarks. Larmour was forced to spend a night in jail and the six months of court cases and legal trouble before finally being cleared of any crime by the local sheriff.
Mr. Larmour still can’t believe what happened to him, telling the Scottish Mail, “I can’t see why I was arrested in the first place – it was a massive overreaction and a waste of everyone’s time. The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights. “I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the Gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions – I was quoting from the Bible.”
Larmour believes that the police acted wrongly and points to the court case where the young man’s friend testified that Larmour had really done nothing wrong. “I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that. “In court the boy’s friend told the truth – that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”
The local courts found Larmour innocent of all charges and cleared him of all wrong doing, but it doesn’t change the injustice of this situation happening at all. Cases like this are becoming all too common in the UK and across Europe and Canada where saying the “wrong” thing can lead to arrest and fines. The world is a dangerous place for Christians (Christianity is the world’s most persecuted religion), but it’s even becoming dangerous for Christians living in the supposedly “Christian” West."
"Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both dying painful deaths in the once-Christian West. Over the last couple of years we’ve brought you a handful of stories about Christians being arrested for saying Christians things, and yet it just keeps happening more and more often. The latest example may be one of the most egregious yet.
Gordon Larmour is a 42-year old Christian who has been street preaching for seven years. This past summer he was handing out leaflets and saying, “Don’t forget Jesus loves you and He died for your sins.” One of the men passing him asked, “What does your God say about homosexuals?” Mr, Larmour responded by quoting Scripture and telling the questioner that God created Adam and Eve to produce children, which sent the young homosexual man into a rage and he began chasing the preacher.
When the police arrived they arrested Larmour (who was the one being threatened) and accused him of threatening or abusive behavior, which was ‘aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation,’ even though the preacher had not used any foul language or made any offensive remarks. Larmour was forced to spend a night in jail and the six months of court cases and legal trouble before finally being cleared of any crime by the local sheriff.
Mr. Larmour still can’t believe what happened to him, telling the Scottish Mail, “I can’t see why I was arrested in the first place – it was a massive overreaction and a waste of everyone’s time. The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights. “I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the Gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions – I was quoting from the Bible.”
Larmour believes that the police acted wrongly and points to the court case where the young man’s friend testified that Larmour had really done nothing wrong. “I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that. “In court the boy’s friend told the truth – that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”
The local courts found Larmour innocent of all charges and cleared him of all wrong doing, but it doesn’t change the injustice of this situation happening at all. Cases like this are becoming all too common in the UK and across Europe and Canada where saying the “wrong” thing can lead to arrest and fines. The world is a dangerous place for Christians (Christianity is the world’s most persecuted religion), but it’s even becoming dangerous for Christians living in the supposedly “Christian” West."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://constitution.com/gay-man-asks-ch ... -arrested/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both dying painful deaths in the once-Christian West. Over the last couple of years we’ve brought you a handful of stories about Christians being arrested for saying Christians things, and yet it just keeps happening more and more often. The latest example may be one of the most egregious yet.
Gordon Larmour is a 42-year old Christian who has been street preaching for seven years. This past summer he was handing out leaflets and saying, “Don’t forget Jesus loves you and He died for your sins.” One of the men passing him asked, “What does your God say about homosexuals?” Mr, Larmour responded by quoting Scripture and telling the questioner that God created Adam and Eve to produce children, which sent the young homosexual man into a rage and he began chasing the preacher.
When the police arrived they arrested Larmour (who was the one being threatened) and accused him of threatening or abusive behavior, which was ‘aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation,’ even though the preacher had not used any foul language or made any offensive remarks. Larmour was forced to spend a night in jail and the six months of court cases and legal trouble before finally being cleared of any crime by the local sheriff.
Mr. Larmour still can’t believe what happened to him, telling the Scottish Mail, “I can’t see why I was arrested in the first place – it was a massive overreaction and a waste of everyone’s time. The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights. “I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the Gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions – I was quoting from the Bible.”
Larmour believes that the police acted wrongly and points to the court case where the young man’s friend testified that Larmour had really done nothing wrong. “I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that. “In court the boy’s friend told the truth – that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”
The local courts found Larmour innocent of all charges and cleared him of all wrong doing, but it doesn’t change the injustice of this situation happening at all. Cases like this are becoming all too common in the UK and across Europe and Canada where saying the “wrong” thing can lead to arrest and fines. The world is a dangerous place for Christians (Christianity is the world’s most persecuted religion), but it’s even becoming dangerous for Christians living in the supposedly “Christian” West."
"Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both dying painful deaths in the once-Christian West. Over the last couple of years we’ve brought you a handful of stories about Christians being arrested for saying Christians things, and yet it just keeps happening more and more often. The latest example may be one of the most egregious yet.
Gordon Larmour is a 42-year old Christian who has been street preaching for seven years. This past summer he was handing out leaflets and saying, “Don’t forget Jesus loves you and He died for your sins.” One of the men passing him asked, “What does your God say about homosexuals?” Mr, Larmour responded by quoting Scripture and telling the questioner that God created Adam and Eve to produce children, which sent the young homosexual man into a rage and he began chasing the preacher.
When the police arrived they arrested Larmour (who was the one being threatened) and accused him of threatening or abusive behavior, which was ‘aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation,’ even though the preacher had not used any foul language or made any offensive remarks. Larmour was forced to spend a night in jail and the six months of court cases and legal trouble before finally being cleared of any crime by the local sheriff.
Mr. Larmour still can’t believe what happened to him, telling the Scottish Mail, “I can’t see why I was arrested in the first place – it was a massive overreaction and a waste of everyone’s time. The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights. “I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the Gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions – I was quoting from the Bible.”
Larmour believes that the police acted wrongly and points to the court case where the young man’s friend testified that Larmour had really done nothing wrong. “I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that. “In court the boy’s friend told the truth – that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”
The local courts found Larmour innocent of all charges and cleared him of all wrong doing, but it doesn’t change the injustice of this situation happening at all. Cases like this are becoming all too common in the UK and across Europe and Canada where saying the “wrong” thing can lead to arrest and fines. The world is a dangerous place for Christians (Christianity is the world’s most persecuted religion), but it’s even becoming dangerous for Christians living in the supposedly “Christian” West."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
In March, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), reclassified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" (Class 2A).1,2
The decision was based on "limited evidence" showing the weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with "convincing evidence" linking it to cancer in animals.
The IARC is considered the global gold standard for carcinogenicity studies, so its determination was of considerable importance. It's also one of the five research agencies from which the OEHHA — the California agency of environmental hazards — gets its reports to declare carcinogens under Prop 65.
Monsanto has vigorously pursued a retraction of the IARC's damning report,3 to prevent California from pursuing a cancer warning on Roundup and other, newer weed killers in the pipeline, designed for use on the company's latest genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Monsanto Forced to Put Cancer Warning on Roundup
Their efforts have so far failed, and Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan recently struck another nail in the company's coffin, striking down Monsanto's attempt to overturn California's 2015 ruling to require Prop 65 warnings on glyphosate.4,5,6
While Kapetan has yet to issue a formal decision on the matter, Monsanto says it will challenge the ruling, if upheld. As reported by LA Progressive:7
"California would be the first state to order this level of labeling if this decision by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee is sustained by further court action.
Monsanto previously sued the nation's foremost agricultural producing state by filing court motions to the effect that California's carcinogen committee … had illegally based their decision for mandatorily requiring the warnings on "erroneous" findings by an international health organization …
Trenton Norris, Monsanto's lawyer, argued in court Friday that the labels would result in irreparable and immediate negative fiscal effect for Monsanto, because millions of consumers [would] stop buying Roundup because of the labels."
Roundup isn't the only weed killer that would have to bear the Prop 65 warning label. Glyphosate is also found in OrthoGroundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp ,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II and others.
Cancer Warning Likely Boon to Cancer Patients Suing Monsanto
A Prop 65 cancer warning on Roundup would likely benefit those suing Monsanto claiming the weed killer caused or contributed to their or a loved one's cancer. There are currently at least three dozen such cases pending. As noted by LA Progressive:8
"Jack McCall was an avocado and apple farmer with only 20 acres and he carried around a backpack with Roundup for 30 years, and then died of cancer in 2015.
His widow, Terri, strongly believes that any kind of warning about carcinogenicity would have prevented his entirely avoidable death. 'I just don't think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known,' she stated."
Following the court hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, gave a press conference, saying:9
"This [Prop 65] listing is not going to put [Monsanto] out of business. It's just going to warn people before they use their product that this product might cause cancer, and you better limit your use to protect yourself and to protect your families.
It's called a precautionary principle. Who wouldn't want to know that? Why does this company not want these farm workers to know that this chemical may endanger them and may endanger their families?
Why did [Monsanto] hire these great lawyers to come here to shut California up and to stop California from protecting these people?"
Advisory Panel Questions EPA's Decision on Glyphosate
Part of Monsanto's defense of glyphosate hinges on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision that the chemical is "not likely to be carcinogenic" to humans, issued on September 12, 2016.10
However, following strong criticism, the agency convened a scientific advisory panel to re-analyze the scientific evidence and evaluate the strength of the EPA's decision.
Subsequently, a four-day-long panel meeting was held in December, 2016. As reported by Carey Gillam, a journalist and research director for the non-profit consumer rights group, U.S. Right to Know (US RTK):11
"[W]hile the EPA may have hoped for resounding support from the scientific advisory panel (SAP) it assembled, from the outset of the meetings … concerns were raised by some of the experts about the quality of the EPA's analysis.
Some scientists were concerned that the EPA was violating its own guidelines in discounting data from various studies that show positive associations between glyphosate and cancer.
Several of the SAP members questioned why the EPA excluded some data that showed statistical significance, and wrote off some of the positive findings to mere chance …
The EPA looked at both published studies as well as unpublished studies conducted by industry players like Monsanto … The IARC review focused on published, peer-reviewed research."
Industry Group Meddled With Scientific Panel Picks
In addition to the scientific review, pointed questions were also raised about the chemical industry's influence over regulators. As a general rule, peer-reviewed, published research, especially by independent scientists, tend to carry more merit than unpublished industry research.
In this case, CropLife America, which represents Monsanto and other agribusinesses, actually demanded the EPA remove nationally recognized epidemiologist Peter Infante, Ph.D., from the scientific advisory panel, claiming he was incapable of impartiality because he would give more weight to independent research than industry studies.
The EPA complied, booting Infante off the panel. He still made an appearance at the meeting though, and in his testimony, Infante urged the advisory panel not to ignore "impressive evidence" linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Beware of the Latest Front Group Promoting Chemical Industry's Agenda
CropLife America certainly isn't the only industry group fighting for Monsanto's right to poison the unaware.
In January, a group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research12 (CAPHR) was formed, but contrary to its stated mission, this industry front group is pushing an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with promoting "credible, unbiased and transparent science as the basis of public policy decisions."
The group was formed by the American Chemistry Council, whose members include Monsanto, and as noted by Gillam with US RTK, CAPHR's "express purpose is to discredit the IARC,"13 which notably consists of independent scientists from around the world.
More to the point, CAPHR clearly states it "will seek reform" of the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemicals.
"Monsanto and friends have been harassing IARC … through a series of demands, threats and legal maneuvers, including lobbying the U.S. House of Representatives to cut funding for IARC," Gillam writes. "The new campaign takes the assault further.
On the group's new twitter account … CAPHR has posted a string of insults against IARC scientists, accusing the experts from prestigious institutions around the world of "making sensational claims," drawing conclusions "that can't be trusted" and using "questionable methodologies."
If CAPHR is to be believed, the public, lawmakers and regulators should not trust the epidemiology experts, toxicologists and other scientists who made up the IARC working group, which was led by an award-winning cancer expert from the National Cancer Institute. No, they should look for unbiased information about the safety of the industry's billion-dollar baby from the industry itself.
The chemical industry campaigners insist that the people making money off chemical sales are more trustworthy than scientists who have made a career studying causes of cancer. The rationale for the campaign is clear: It's not about protecting public health, it's about protecting corporate profits."
Why Monsanto Fights to Avoid Skull and Crossbones Label
Needless to say, Monsanto and other chemical technology companies stand to lose a whole lot more than commercial weed killer sales should Kapetan uphold her ruling to allow California to proceed with a cancer warning on glyphosate products, and that's why the corporate spin machine is in overdrive. A range of new genetically engineered (GE) plants have been made to withstand a combination of glyphosate and other chemicals such as 2,4-D or dicamba.
If glyphosate products must carry a cancer warning, all that food becomes suspect as well, since the chemical cannot be washed off. Hypothetically, California could even require food made with GE ingredients to carry a Prop 65 warning.
It's unlikely it would go that far, but even if it didn't, people might put two-and-two together in their own minds. The problem is they would have to establish a safe level for an endocrine disruptor, which cannot be done, since there is no safe level. So, if and how this situation ends up being addressed will be interesting to see.
It might also scare off farmers, making them reconsider the benefits of growing GE crops if they have to use a carcinogenic weed killer. Worse, it would provide added ammunition for nations already considering more stringent measures against glyphosate-based products. European Commission leaders met in March, 2016, to vote on whether to renew a 15-year license for glyphosate, which was set to expire in June that year.
The decision was tabled amid mounting opposition, as more than 180,000 Europeans signed a petition calling for glyphosate to be banned outright. Ultimately, more than 2 million signatures were collected against relicensing the chemical. In June, however, the European Commission granted an 18-month extension to glyphosate while they continue the review. A ruling is expected by the end of 2017.
In the meantime, new restrictions were announced, including a ban on a co-formulant (tallowamine), increased scrutiny of pre-harvest uses of glyphosate and efforts to minimize its use in public parks and playgrounds. Unlike in the U.S., where glyphosate use is largely unrestricted, "seven EU states have extensive glyphosate prohibitions in place, two have restrictions and four countries have impending or potential bans," The Guardian reported.14
Monsanto Front Group Takes Flight on Twitter With Alternative Facts
CAPHR wasted no time when it came to launching its "alternative facts" campaign. The day it was launched, the organization took to Twitter with a #glyphosateisvital campaign, proclaiming the weed killer is essential to "maintain the production of safe, affordable food." Anyone even remotely familiar with regenerative farming knows that simply isn't true. Ample amounts of food can be grown without glyphosate or any other chemicals for that matter, and that's no idle talk or theory.
Regenerative farmers around the world have repeatedly proven they can meet and in many cases outperform conventional methods. Still, that doesn't sway proponents of chemical agriculture. On the contrary, the chemical ag industry seems hell-bent on destroying the field of science altogether by insisting the only science worth paying attention to is that which companies produce for their own products.
"Embedded in the industry's truth-twisting tactics is the characterization of anyone who gives credence to scientific research showing problems with glyphosate, or the GMOs that go with it, as "anti-science." It's an effort to reverse reality and detract from the fact that it is industry backers, not industry critics, who deplore the findings of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research," Gillam writes.15
'The pesticide industry recognizes it's on the defensive,' said environmental lawyer Charlie Tebbutt. 'It's doing everything it can to transform reality.' As the post-truth Trump team looks set to dismantle environmental regulations and the protections they bring to the public, it's likely the chemical industry will only continue to elevate alternative facts. We all will need to work harder than ever to see through the spin."
The decision was based on "limited evidence" showing the weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with "convincing evidence" linking it to cancer in animals.
The IARC is considered the global gold standard for carcinogenicity studies, so its determination was of considerable importance. It's also one of the five research agencies from which the OEHHA — the California agency of environmental hazards — gets its reports to declare carcinogens under Prop 65.
Monsanto has vigorously pursued a retraction of the IARC's damning report,3 to prevent California from pursuing a cancer warning on Roundup and other, newer weed killers in the pipeline, designed for use on the company's latest genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Monsanto Forced to Put Cancer Warning on Roundup
Their efforts have so far failed, and Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan recently struck another nail in the company's coffin, striking down Monsanto's attempt to overturn California's 2015 ruling to require Prop 65 warnings on glyphosate.4,5,6
While Kapetan has yet to issue a formal decision on the matter, Monsanto says it will challenge the ruling, if upheld. As reported by LA Progressive:7
"California would be the first state to order this level of labeling if this decision by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee is sustained by further court action.
Monsanto previously sued the nation's foremost agricultural producing state by filing court motions to the effect that California's carcinogen committee … had illegally based their decision for mandatorily requiring the warnings on "erroneous" findings by an international health organization …
Trenton Norris, Monsanto's lawyer, argued in court Friday that the labels would result in irreparable and immediate negative fiscal effect for Monsanto, because millions of consumers [would] stop buying Roundup because of the labels."
Roundup isn't the only weed killer that would have to bear the Prop 65 warning label. Glyphosate is also found in OrthoGroundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp ,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II and others.
Cancer Warning Likely Boon to Cancer Patients Suing Monsanto
A Prop 65 cancer warning on Roundup would likely benefit those suing Monsanto claiming the weed killer caused or contributed to their or a loved one's cancer. There are currently at least three dozen such cases pending. As noted by LA Progressive:8
"Jack McCall was an avocado and apple farmer with only 20 acres and he carried around a backpack with Roundup for 30 years, and then died of cancer in 2015.
His widow, Terri, strongly believes that any kind of warning about carcinogenicity would have prevented his entirely avoidable death. 'I just don't think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known,' she stated."
Following the court hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, gave a press conference, saying:9
"This [Prop 65] listing is not going to put [Monsanto] out of business. It's just going to warn people before they use their product that this product might cause cancer, and you better limit your use to protect yourself and to protect your families.
It's called a precautionary principle. Who wouldn't want to know that? Why does this company not want these farm workers to know that this chemical may endanger them and may endanger their families?
Why did [Monsanto] hire these great lawyers to come here to shut California up and to stop California from protecting these people?"
Advisory Panel Questions EPA's Decision on Glyphosate
Part of Monsanto's defense of glyphosate hinges on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision that the chemical is "not likely to be carcinogenic" to humans, issued on September 12, 2016.10
However, following strong criticism, the agency convened a scientific advisory panel to re-analyze the scientific evidence and evaluate the strength of the EPA's decision.
Subsequently, a four-day-long panel meeting was held in December, 2016. As reported by Carey Gillam, a journalist and research director for the non-profit consumer rights group, U.S. Right to Know (US RTK):11
"[W]hile the EPA may have hoped for resounding support from the scientific advisory panel (SAP) it assembled, from the outset of the meetings … concerns were raised by some of the experts about the quality of the EPA's analysis.
Some scientists were concerned that the EPA was violating its own guidelines in discounting data from various studies that show positive associations between glyphosate and cancer.
Several of the SAP members questioned why the EPA excluded some data that showed statistical significance, and wrote off some of the positive findings to mere chance …
The EPA looked at both published studies as well as unpublished studies conducted by industry players like Monsanto … The IARC review focused on published, peer-reviewed research."
Industry Group Meddled With Scientific Panel Picks
In addition to the scientific review, pointed questions were also raised about the chemical industry's influence over regulators. As a general rule, peer-reviewed, published research, especially by independent scientists, tend to carry more merit than unpublished industry research.
In this case, CropLife America, which represents Monsanto and other agribusinesses, actually demanded the EPA remove nationally recognized epidemiologist Peter Infante, Ph.D., from the scientific advisory panel, claiming he was incapable of impartiality because he would give more weight to independent research than industry studies.
The EPA complied, booting Infante off the panel. He still made an appearance at the meeting though, and in his testimony, Infante urged the advisory panel not to ignore "impressive evidence" linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Beware of the Latest Front Group Promoting Chemical Industry's Agenda
CropLife America certainly isn't the only industry group fighting for Monsanto's right to poison the unaware.
In January, a group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research12 (CAPHR) was formed, but contrary to its stated mission, this industry front group is pushing an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with promoting "credible, unbiased and transparent science as the basis of public policy decisions."
The group was formed by the American Chemistry Council, whose members include Monsanto, and as noted by Gillam with US RTK, CAPHR's "express purpose is to discredit the IARC,"13 which notably consists of independent scientists from around the world.
More to the point, CAPHR clearly states it "will seek reform" of the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemicals.
"Monsanto and friends have been harassing IARC … through a series of demands, threats and legal maneuvers, including lobbying the U.S. House of Representatives to cut funding for IARC," Gillam writes. "The new campaign takes the assault further.
On the group's new twitter account … CAPHR has posted a string of insults against IARC scientists, accusing the experts from prestigious institutions around the world of "making sensational claims," drawing conclusions "that can't be trusted" and using "questionable methodologies."
If CAPHR is to be believed, the public, lawmakers and regulators should not trust the epidemiology experts, toxicologists and other scientists who made up the IARC working group, which was led by an award-winning cancer expert from the National Cancer Institute. No, they should look for unbiased information about the safety of the industry's billion-dollar baby from the industry itself.
The chemical industry campaigners insist that the people making money off chemical sales are more trustworthy than scientists who have made a career studying causes of cancer. The rationale for the campaign is clear: It's not about protecting public health, it's about protecting corporate profits."
Why Monsanto Fights to Avoid Skull and Crossbones Label
Needless to say, Monsanto and other chemical technology companies stand to lose a whole lot more than commercial weed killer sales should Kapetan uphold her ruling to allow California to proceed with a cancer warning on glyphosate products, and that's why the corporate spin machine is in overdrive. A range of new genetically engineered (GE) plants have been made to withstand a combination of glyphosate and other chemicals such as 2,4-D or dicamba.
If glyphosate products must carry a cancer warning, all that food becomes suspect as well, since the chemical cannot be washed off. Hypothetically, California could even require food made with GE ingredients to carry a Prop 65 warning.
It's unlikely it would go that far, but even if it didn't, people might put two-and-two together in their own minds. The problem is they would have to establish a safe level for an endocrine disruptor, which cannot be done, since there is no safe level. So, if and how this situation ends up being addressed will be interesting to see.
It might also scare off farmers, making them reconsider the benefits of growing GE crops if they have to use a carcinogenic weed killer. Worse, it would provide added ammunition for nations already considering more stringent measures against glyphosate-based products. European Commission leaders met in March, 2016, to vote on whether to renew a 15-year license for glyphosate, which was set to expire in June that year.
The decision was tabled amid mounting opposition, as more than 180,000 Europeans signed a petition calling for glyphosate to be banned outright. Ultimately, more than 2 million signatures were collected against relicensing the chemical. In June, however, the European Commission granted an 18-month extension to glyphosate while they continue the review. A ruling is expected by the end of 2017.
In the meantime, new restrictions were announced, including a ban on a co-formulant (tallowamine), increased scrutiny of pre-harvest uses of glyphosate and efforts to minimize its use in public parks and playgrounds. Unlike in the U.S., where glyphosate use is largely unrestricted, "seven EU states have extensive glyphosate prohibitions in place, two have restrictions and four countries have impending or potential bans," The Guardian reported.14
Monsanto Front Group Takes Flight on Twitter With Alternative Facts
CAPHR wasted no time when it came to launching its "alternative facts" campaign. The day it was launched, the organization took to Twitter with a #glyphosateisvital campaign, proclaiming the weed killer is essential to "maintain the production of safe, affordable food." Anyone even remotely familiar with regenerative farming knows that simply isn't true. Ample amounts of food can be grown without glyphosate or any other chemicals for that matter, and that's no idle talk or theory.
Regenerative farmers around the world have repeatedly proven they can meet and in many cases outperform conventional methods. Still, that doesn't sway proponents of chemical agriculture. On the contrary, the chemical ag industry seems hell-bent on destroying the field of science altogether by insisting the only science worth paying attention to is that which companies produce for their own products.
"Embedded in the industry's truth-twisting tactics is the characterization of anyone who gives credence to scientific research showing problems with glyphosate, or the GMOs that go with it, as "anti-science." It's an effort to reverse reality and detract from the fact that it is industry backers, not industry critics, who deplore the findings of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research," Gillam writes.15
'The pesticide industry recognizes it's on the defensive,' said environmental lawyer Charlie Tebbutt. 'It's doing everything it can to transform reality.' As the post-truth Trump team looks set to dismantle environmental regulations and the protections they bring to the public, it's likely the chemical industry will only continue to elevate alternative facts. We all will need to work harder than ever to see through the spin."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38971655" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-nam, has been killed in an attack in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysian police official Fadzil Ahmat confirmed for Malaysian news agency Bernama that the victim was indeed Kim Jong-nam. "While waiting for the flight, a woman came from behind and covered his face with a cloth laced with a liquid," he said. "Following this, the man was seen struggling for help and managed to obtain the assistance of a KLIA [Kuala Lumpur International Airport] receptionist as his eyes suffered burns as a result of the liquid. "Moments later, he was sent to the Putrajaya Hospital where he was confirmed dead."According to the dead man's travel document, he was "Kim Chol", born 10 June 1970, but police confirmed he was actually Kim Jong-nam, born 10 May 1971.
The police official said he had informed the North Korean embassy about Mr Kim's death. Earlier reports about his death had spoken of a poisoned needle or a spray being used to attack him. The results of an autopsy on his body have not yet been released. In 2001, Mr Kim was caught trying to enter Japan using a false passport. He told officials that he was planning to visit Tokyo Disneyland.Once seen as a likely successor to Kim Jong-il, he was thought to have fallen out of favour with his father over the incident. Bypassed in favour of his youngest half-brother for succession when their father died in 2011, Kim Jong-nam kept a low profile, spending most of his time overseas in Macau, Singapore and China. He was quoted by Japanese media in 2011 as saying he opposed "dynastic succession”. He was also quoted in a 2012 book as saying he believed his younger half-brother lacked leadership qualities, the succession would not work and that North Korea was unstable and needed Chinese-style economic reform.Mr Kim was reportedly targeted for assassination in the past. A North Korean spy jailed by South Korea in 2012 was reported to have admitted trying to organise a hit-and-run accident targeting him."
"The half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-nam, has been killed in an attack in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysian police official Fadzil Ahmat confirmed for Malaysian news agency Bernama that the victim was indeed Kim Jong-nam. "While waiting for the flight, a woman came from behind and covered his face with a cloth laced with a liquid," he said. "Following this, the man was seen struggling for help and managed to obtain the assistance of a KLIA [Kuala Lumpur International Airport] receptionist as his eyes suffered burns as a result of the liquid. "Moments later, he was sent to the Putrajaya Hospital where he was confirmed dead."According to the dead man's travel document, he was "Kim Chol", born 10 June 1970, but police confirmed he was actually Kim Jong-nam, born 10 May 1971.
The police official said he had informed the North Korean embassy about Mr Kim's death. Earlier reports about his death had spoken of a poisoned needle or a spray being used to attack him. The results of an autopsy on his body have not yet been released. In 2001, Mr Kim was caught trying to enter Japan using a false passport. He told officials that he was planning to visit Tokyo Disneyland.Once seen as a likely successor to Kim Jong-il, he was thought to have fallen out of favour with his father over the incident. Bypassed in favour of his youngest half-brother for succession when their father died in 2011, Kim Jong-nam kept a low profile, spending most of his time overseas in Macau, Singapore and China. He was quoted by Japanese media in 2011 as saying he opposed "dynastic succession”. He was also quoted in a 2012 book as saying he believed his younger half-brother lacked leadership qualities, the succession would not work and that North Korea was unstable and needed Chinese-style economic reform.Mr Kim was reportedly targeted for assassination in the past. A North Korean spy jailed by South Korea in 2012 was reported to have admitted trying to organise a hit-and-run accident targeting him."
-
freedomforall
- Gnolaum ∞
- Posts: 16479
- Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... 5-45942745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"North Korean diplomats attempted to recover the body of Kim Jong Nam this week and demanded an immediate cremation, in an apparent bid to prevent Malaysian authorities from identifying the cause of death. The Malaysians rejected the request.
The assassination came as a recently published book by this writer, iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age, called for waging an information warfare campaign that would use the estranged brother of Kim Jong Un as a replacement leader.
Since taking power in 2011 following the death of his father, Kim Jong Un has ruled with an iron grip while carrying out ruthless purges of perceived opponents. As many as 300 officials have been killed in the purges, including Kim's pro-China uncle, Jang Sang Taek.
Kim Jong Nam, 45, at one time was considered the heir to the late Kim Jong Il, but he ran afoul of the Pyongyang communist family dynasty after his 2001 arrest in Japan for entering the country using a false passport to visit Tokyo Disneyland.
As the Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, Kim Jong Nam was viewed as a threat to the Kim Jong Un regime because of past comments criticizing the North Korean system. "North Korea should pay attention to reform and openness. If it continues like this, it cannot become an economic power," Jong Nam was quoted as telling a Japanese newspaper in 2011.
Jong Nam also opposed the dynastic communist system, which he said "does not fit with socialism and my father was against it."
He also was close to his uncle Jang, who was executed in 2013, allegedly for corruption but more likely for his close ties to the Chinese. Jong Nam's support for Jang is an indication he favored the reform communism of China over the Stalinist North Korean model.
North Korea's regime is engaged in what the United Nations Commission on Human Rights several years ago called crimes against humanity. The regime uses systematic torture, mass extermination camps, and other ruthless means against the North Korean people in a bid to maintain its grip on power.
The book iWar called for the United States to adopt a policy of regime change in North Korea. "North Korea is an enemy because it has armed itself with nuclear weapons and missiles while repeatedly threatening to use those weapons against the United States and its allies," the book stated. "The center of gravity for North Korea is the Kim dynasty."
The policy calls for providing North Korea with large numbers of information systems, such as computers and smart phones. The wiring of the police state initially will be limited by regime controls, but eventually North Korean citizens will find ways to circumvent the electronic controls. Once that takes place, information operations will be able to penetrate the totalitarian system, expose the horrors and crimes of the regime, and lead to reform and ultimately the ouster of the Kim regime.
"The program will include coopting Kim Jong Nam, the out-of-power brother of North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un, and conducting information operations that will seek to install the brother as a replacement for the current leader," the book states.
Any link between the book's publication Jan. 3 and the assassination of Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia six weeks later is speculative.
The connection should not be discounted, however, considering Kim Jong Un's ruthlessness and paranoia. Since taking power, Kim has sought to eliminate challenges to his rule. Kim Jong Nam, as a family member of the ruling Kim dynasty, represented a threat to the dictator's quest for unrivaled power in Pyongyang.
Bruce Bechtol, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist on North Korea, said the regime targeted Kim Jong Nam because he criticized his brother's rule. The regime issued a "warrant" to kill Jong Nam in 2012, he said.
"I think this was a window of opportunity; he was outside of Chinese territory and thus the Chinese could not protect him; he was without any of his own personal bodyguards, which is curious; and he was in a very confused setting," Bechtol said. "Thus, this was the perfect window of time for the North Korean agents to take him out."
Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, said the killing appears linked to North Korean hereditary leadership.
"The assassination of Kim Jong Nam ensured that another hereditary transmission of power would not happen in the foreseeable future," he said.
The assassination also appears intended as an intimidation tactic for other North Korean leaders.
"It also sent a stark message to senior North Korean officials inside as well as outside North Korea: Now that even Paektu blood has been spilled, no one, absolutely no one is safe," Scarlatoiu said.
Mount Paektu is considered the spiritual home of North Koreans. The ruling Kim family, beginning with communist North Korean founder Kim Il Sung, then Kim Jong Il, and currently Kim Jong Un regard the "Paektu blood line" as the dynasty's legend.
South Korea's intelligence chief told lawmakers in Seoul this week that Kim Jong Nam had been under threat for years, and that an earlier assassination attempt in 2012 was thwarted by Chinese police."
"North Korean diplomats attempted to recover the body of Kim Jong Nam this week and demanded an immediate cremation, in an apparent bid to prevent Malaysian authorities from identifying the cause of death. The Malaysians rejected the request.
The assassination came as a recently published book by this writer, iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age, called for waging an information warfare campaign that would use the estranged brother of Kim Jong Un as a replacement leader.
Since taking power in 2011 following the death of his father, Kim Jong Un has ruled with an iron grip while carrying out ruthless purges of perceived opponents. As many as 300 officials have been killed in the purges, including Kim's pro-China uncle, Jang Sang Taek.
Kim Jong Nam, 45, at one time was considered the heir to the late Kim Jong Il, but he ran afoul of the Pyongyang communist family dynasty after his 2001 arrest in Japan for entering the country using a false passport to visit Tokyo Disneyland.
As the Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, Kim Jong Nam was viewed as a threat to the Kim Jong Un regime because of past comments criticizing the North Korean system. "North Korea should pay attention to reform and openness. If it continues like this, it cannot become an economic power," Jong Nam was quoted as telling a Japanese newspaper in 2011.
Jong Nam also opposed the dynastic communist system, which he said "does not fit with socialism and my father was against it."
He also was close to his uncle Jang, who was executed in 2013, allegedly for corruption but more likely for his close ties to the Chinese. Jong Nam's support for Jang is an indication he favored the reform communism of China over the Stalinist North Korean model.
North Korea's regime is engaged in what the United Nations Commission on Human Rights several years ago called crimes against humanity. The regime uses systematic torture, mass extermination camps, and other ruthless means against the North Korean people in a bid to maintain its grip on power.
The book iWar called for the United States to adopt a policy of regime change in North Korea. "North Korea is an enemy because it has armed itself with nuclear weapons and missiles while repeatedly threatening to use those weapons against the United States and its allies," the book stated. "The center of gravity for North Korea is the Kim dynasty."
The policy calls for providing North Korea with large numbers of information systems, such as computers and smart phones. The wiring of the police state initially will be limited by regime controls, but eventually North Korean citizens will find ways to circumvent the electronic controls. Once that takes place, information operations will be able to penetrate the totalitarian system, expose the horrors and crimes of the regime, and lead to reform and ultimately the ouster of the Kim regime.
"The program will include coopting Kim Jong Nam, the out-of-power brother of North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un, and conducting information operations that will seek to install the brother as a replacement for the current leader," the book states.
Any link between the book's publication Jan. 3 and the assassination of Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia six weeks later is speculative.
The connection should not be discounted, however, considering Kim Jong Un's ruthlessness and paranoia. Since taking power, Kim has sought to eliminate challenges to his rule. Kim Jong Nam, as a family member of the ruling Kim dynasty, represented a threat to the dictator's quest for unrivaled power in Pyongyang.
Bruce Bechtol, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist on North Korea, said the regime targeted Kim Jong Nam because he criticized his brother's rule. The regime issued a "warrant" to kill Jong Nam in 2012, he said.
"I think this was a window of opportunity; he was outside of Chinese territory and thus the Chinese could not protect him; he was without any of his own personal bodyguards, which is curious; and he was in a very confused setting," Bechtol said. "Thus, this was the perfect window of time for the North Korean agents to take him out."
Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, said the killing appears linked to North Korean hereditary leadership.
"The assassination of Kim Jong Nam ensured that another hereditary transmission of power would not happen in the foreseeable future," he said.
The assassination also appears intended as an intimidation tactic for other North Korean leaders.
"It also sent a stark message to senior North Korean officials inside as well as outside North Korea: Now that even Paektu blood has been spilled, no one, absolutely no one is safe," Scarlatoiu said.
Mount Paektu is considered the spiritual home of North Koreans. The ruling Kim family, beginning with communist North Korean founder Kim Il Sung, then Kim Jong Il, and currently Kim Jong Un regard the "Paektu blood line" as the dynasty's legend.
South Korea's intelligence chief told lawmakers in Seoul this week that Kim Jong Nam had been under threat for years, and that an earlier assassination attempt in 2012 was thwarted by Chinese police."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-n ... 1f858cd08c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Norma McCorvey, whose legal challenge under the pseudonym "Jane Roe" led to the US Supreme Court's landmark decision that legalised abortion but who later became an outspoken opponent of the procedure, has died. She was 69.
McCorvey died at an assisted living centre in Katy, Texas, said journalist Joshua Prager, who is working on a book about McCorvey and was with her and her family when she died. He said she died of heart failure and had been ill for some time.
McCorvey was 22, unmarried, unemployed and pregnant for the third time in 1969 when she sought to have an abortion in Texas, where the procedure was illegal except to save a woman's life.
The subsequent lawsuit, known as Roe v Wade, led to the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that established abortion rights, though by that time, McCorvey had given birth and given her daughter up for adoption.
Decades later, McCorvey became an evangelical Christian and joined the anti-abortion movement. A short time later, she underwent another religious conversion and became a Catholic.
"I don't believe in abortion even in an extreme situation. If the woman is impregnated by a rapist, it's still a child. You're not to act as your own God," she told The Associated Press in 1998.
After the court's ruling, McCorvey lived quietly for several years before revealing herself as Jane Roe in the 1980s. She also confessed to lying when she said the pregnancy was the result of rape.
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, she remained an ardent supporter of abortion rights and worked for a time at a Dallas women's clinic where abortions were performed.
Her 1994 autobiography, I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice, included abortion-rights sentiments along with details about dysfunctional parents, reform school, petty crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, an abusive husband, an attempted suicide and lesbianism.
But a year later, she was baptised before network TV cameras by a most improbable mentor: The Reverend Philip "Flip" Benham, leader of Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America. McCorvey joined the cause and staff of Benham, who had befriended her when the anti-abortion group moved next door to the clinic where she was working.
McCorvey also said her religious conversion led her to give up her lover, Connie Gonzales. She said the relationship turned platonic in the early 1990s and that once she became a Christian she believed homosexuality was wrong.
She recounted her evangelical conversion and stand against abortion in the January 1998 book Won by Love, which ends with McCorvey happily involved with Operation Rescue.
But by August of that year, she had changed faiths to Catholicism and had left Operation Rescue. Though she was still against abortion, she said she had reservations about the group's confrontational style.
McCorvey formed her own group, Roe No More Ministry, in 1997 and travelled around the US speaking out against abortion. In 2005, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge by McCorvey to the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling.
In May 2009, she was arrested on trespassing charges after joining more than 300 anti-abortion demonstrators when President Barack Obama spoke at the University of Notre Dame. In July 2009, she was among demonstrators arrested for disrupting Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearing.… when she got pregnant a third time she decided to have an abortion. She said she couldn't afford to travel to one of the handful of states where it would have been legal.
In I Am Roe, she said her adoption lawyer put her in touch with Texas lawyers Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who were seeking a woman to represent in a legal case to challenge the state's anti-abortion statute. She gave birth to the "Roe" baby in June 1970."
"Norma McCorvey, whose legal challenge under the pseudonym "Jane Roe" led to the US Supreme Court's landmark decision that legalised abortion but who later became an outspoken opponent of the procedure, has died. She was 69.
McCorvey died at an assisted living centre in Katy, Texas, said journalist Joshua Prager, who is working on a book about McCorvey and was with her and her family when she died. He said she died of heart failure and had been ill for some time.
McCorvey was 22, unmarried, unemployed and pregnant for the third time in 1969 when she sought to have an abortion in Texas, where the procedure was illegal except to save a woman's life.
The subsequent lawsuit, known as Roe v Wade, led to the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that established abortion rights, though by that time, McCorvey had given birth and given her daughter up for adoption.
Decades later, McCorvey became an evangelical Christian and joined the anti-abortion movement. A short time later, she underwent another religious conversion and became a Catholic.
"I don't believe in abortion even in an extreme situation. If the woman is impregnated by a rapist, it's still a child. You're not to act as your own God," she told The Associated Press in 1998.
After the court's ruling, McCorvey lived quietly for several years before revealing herself as Jane Roe in the 1980s. She also confessed to lying when she said the pregnancy was the result of rape.
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, she remained an ardent supporter of abortion rights and worked for a time at a Dallas women's clinic where abortions were performed.
Her 1994 autobiography, I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice, included abortion-rights sentiments along with details about dysfunctional parents, reform school, petty crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, an abusive husband, an attempted suicide and lesbianism.
But a year later, she was baptised before network TV cameras by a most improbable mentor: The Reverend Philip "Flip" Benham, leader of Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America. McCorvey joined the cause and staff of Benham, who had befriended her when the anti-abortion group moved next door to the clinic where she was working.
McCorvey also said her religious conversion led her to give up her lover, Connie Gonzales. She said the relationship turned platonic in the early 1990s and that once she became a Christian she believed homosexuality was wrong.
She recounted her evangelical conversion and stand against abortion in the January 1998 book Won by Love, which ends with McCorvey happily involved with Operation Rescue.
But by August of that year, she had changed faiths to Catholicism and had left Operation Rescue. Though she was still against abortion, she said she had reservations about the group's confrontational style.
McCorvey formed her own group, Roe No More Ministry, in 1997 and travelled around the US speaking out against abortion. In 2005, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge by McCorvey to the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling.
In May 2009, she was arrested on trespassing charges after joining more than 300 anti-abortion demonstrators when President Barack Obama spoke at the University of Notre Dame. In July 2009, she was among demonstrators arrested for disrupting Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearing.… when she got pregnant a third time she decided to have an abortion. She said she couldn't afford to travel to one of the handful of states where it would have been legal.
In I Am Roe, she said her adoption lawyer put her in touch with Texas lawyers Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who were seeking a woman to represent in a legal case to challenge the state's anti-abortion statute. She gave birth to the "Roe" baby in June 1970."
-
freedomforall
- Gnolaum ∞
- Posts: 16479
- Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://constitution.com/first-lady-mela ... als-freak/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"the philosophy of “separation of church and state,” a phrase that comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church in Maine that was worried the government might infringe on Christians’ right to worship freely. The only commentary on the subject in the Constitution and Bill of Rights comes from the “Establishment Clause” in the First Amendment, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” These folks must also be unaware that our Congress opens every session and most days with group prayer, usually Christian but sometimes Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or other faiths. The Constitution is comfortable with government expression of religious faith – it just demands that Congress not pass a law that gives preference to one faith over another and that Congress do NOTHING to prohibit the free exercise of faith."
"the philosophy of “separation of church and state,” a phrase that comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church in Maine that was worried the government might infringe on Christians’ right to worship freely. The only commentary on the subject in the Constitution and Bill of Rights comes from the “Establishment Clause” in the First Amendment, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” These folks must also be unaware that our Congress opens every session and most days with group prayer, usually Christian but sometimes Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or other faiths. The Constitution is comfortable with government expression of religious faith – it just demands that Congress not pass a law that gives preference to one faith over another and that Congress do NOTHING to prohibit the free exercise of faith."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... 1894911008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Even seemingly innocuous garments like jeans are often produced using a laundry list of toxic chemicals, including perfluorochemicals, phthalates and azo dyes. It's not only man-made materials that are the problem, however. Even conventionally grown genetically engineered (GE) cotton is problematic due to the cotton industry's heavy use of hazardous herbicides and insecticides, including some of the most hazardous insecticides on the market.
Choose organic cotton, organic hemp and/or wool items, ideally colored with non-toxic, natural dyes whenever possible. Organic fabrics will not be genetically engineered and subject to this onslaught of toxic exposures. And, while this will not solve all of the environmental problems related to the garment industry, it's a step in the right direction. If you really want to make a dent in the problem, give more thought to what you buy in the first place and curb your consumption."
"Even seemingly innocuous garments like jeans are often produced using a laundry list of toxic chemicals, including perfluorochemicals, phthalates and azo dyes. It's not only man-made materials that are the problem, however. Even conventionally grown genetically engineered (GE) cotton is problematic due to the cotton industry's heavy use of hazardous herbicides and insecticides, including some of the most hazardous insecticides on the market.
Choose organic cotton, organic hemp and/or wool items, ideally colored with non-toxic, natural dyes whenever possible. Organic fabrics will not be genetically engineered and subject to this onslaught of toxic exposures. And, while this will not solve all of the environmental problems related to the garment industry, it's a step in the right direction. If you really want to make a dent in the problem, give more thought to what you buy in the first place and curb your consumption."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE... Susan Cox Powell
Elizabeth wrote:Susan Cox Powell has been missing since December,2009... still no news of her whereabouts. If she is alive, she could be being held somewhere against her will.A reward of eleven thousand dollars is officially offered, and I am prepared to offer a further five thousand American dollars for information which leads to her safe recovery... alive and well.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-24/v ... ys/8300370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"A preliminary report shows the murder of Kim Jong-nam was carried out with a highly toxic chemical known as VX nerve agent, Malaysian police say.
The police said swabs were taken from the eye and the face of a North Korean national by the chemistry department of Malaysia.
VX nerve agent, or S-2 Diisoprophylaminoethyl methylphosphonothiolate, is a chemical classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations.
Kim, the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, died after being assaulted at Kuala Lumpur International Airport last week while preparing to board a flight to Macau."
"A preliminary report shows the murder of Kim Jong-nam was carried out with a highly toxic chemical known as VX nerve agent, Malaysian police say.
The police said swabs were taken from the eye and the face of a North Korean national by the chemistry department of Malaysia.
VX nerve agent, or S-2 Diisoprophylaminoethyl methylphosphonothiolate, is a chemical classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations.
Kim, the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, died after being assaulted at Kuala Lumpur International Airport last week while preparing to board a flight to Macau."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
"VX nerve agent: What to know
A clear, amber-coloured, oily liquid which is tasteless and odourless.
The most toxic of the known chemical warfare agents, a drop of VX on your skin can be fatal. It can kill a person within minutes.
Works by penetrating the skin and disrupting the transmission of nerve impulses.
It can be disseminated in a spray or vapour, or used to contaminate water, food, and agricultural products.
VX can be absorbed into the body by inhalation, ingestion, skin contact, or eye contact.
Clothing can carry VX for about 30 minutes after contact with the vapour, which can expose other people.
Exposure to a low or moderate dose of VX by inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption can cause symptoms like a runny nose, eye pain, blurred vision, drooling and excessive sweating, chest tightness, rapid breathing, increased urination, confusion, drowsiness, weakness, nausea, or vomiting.
Its official chemical name is S-2 Diisoprophylaminoethyl methylphosphonothiolate and it is banned by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention."
A clear, amber-coloured, oily liquid which is tasteless and odourless.
The most toxic of the known chemical warfare agents, a drop of VX on your skin can be fatal. It can kill a person within minutes.
Works by penetrating the skin and disrupting the transmission of nerve impulses.
It can be disseminated in a spray or vapour, or used to contaminate water, food, and agricultural products.
VX can be absorbed into the body by inhalation, ingestion, skin contact, or eye contact.
Clothing can carry VX for about 30 minutes after contact with the vapour, which can expose other people.
Exposure to a low or moderate dose of VX by inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption can cause symptoms like a runny nose, eye pain, blurred vision, drooling and excessive sweating, chest tightness, rapid breathing, increased urination, confusion, drowsiness, weakness, nausea, or vomiting.
Its official chemical name is S-2 Diisoprophylaminoethyl methylphosphonothiolate and it is banned by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.lifenews.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Vice President Mike Pence Calls for Permanently Banning Taxpayer Funding of Abortions.
Vice President Mike Pence Calls for Permanently Banning Taxpayer Funding of Abortions.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-16/k ... fe/8276112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Kim Jong-nam succumbed to a second attack on his life earlier this week, years after pleas for his life to be spared went unheard by his younger sibling.
According to officials briefed by Lee Byung-ho, the director of the South's National Intelligence Service; the North Korean ruler received a letter in 2012 from his half-brother asking him to withdraw a standing order for his assassination.
Mr Lee said an assassination attempt was made against Kim Jong-nam that same year.
"This is not a calculated action to remove Kim Jong-nam because he was a challenge to power per se, but rather reflected Kim Jong-un's paranoia," Mr Lee was quoted as saying.
"We have nowhere to go, nowhere to hide. We are well aware that the only way to escape is suicide," Kim Jong-nam said in the letter to Kim Jong-un, one of the officials said.
Both South Korean and United States officials believe the deadly attack carried out on Kim Jong-nam at Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur airport was the work of North Korean assassins.
The eldest son of Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-nam was hidden from public view for years because his father and actress mother were not legally married.
Although hidden away he was loved by his father, as Kim Jong-nam's aunt and guardian Song Hye Rang wrote in a memoir called The Wisteria House. Kim Jong-nam moved to Russia with his mother when he was eight years old, and spent most of his childhood going back and forth between international schools in Moscow and Geneva.
At 18, he finally returned to North Korea, when he was expected by some to eventually succeed his father.
This scheme was abruptly halted when Kim Jong-nam was caught with his family at a Tokyo airport in 2001 using a false Dominican Republic passport.
He said the family wanted to visit Tokyo Disneyland. All four were deported and went back to North Korea via Beijing.
The incident saw an embarrassed Kim Jong-il cancel a trip to China, and served as a catalyst for his eldest son to be ejected from the family.
Kim Jong-nam spent his remaining days travelling between Beijing, Malaysia, Singapore and spending much of his time in the Chinese territory of Macau.
He reportedly had at least six children, and several different wives.”
"Kim Jong-nam succumbed to a second attack on his life earlier this week, years after pleas for his life to be spared went unheard by his younger sibling.
According to officials briefed by Lee Byung-ho, the director of the South's National Intelligence Service; the North Korean ruler received a letter in 2012 from his half-brother asking him to withdraw a standing order for his assassination.
Mr Lee said an assassination attempt was made against Kim Jong-nam that same year.
"This is not a calculated action to remove Kim Jong-nam because he was a challenge to power per se, but rather reflected Kim Jong-un's paranoia," Mr Lee was quoted as saying.
"We have nowhere to go, nowhere to hide. We are well aware that the only way to escape is suicide," Kim Jong-nam said in the letter to Kim Jong-un, one of the officials said.
Both South Korean and United States officials believe the deadly attack carried out on Kim Jong-nam at Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur airport was the work of North Korean assassins.
The eldest son of Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-nam was hidden from public view for years because his father and actress mother were not legally married.
Although hidden away he was loved by his father, as Kim Jong-nam's aunt and guardian Song Hye Rang wrote in a memoir called The Wisteria House. Kim Jong-nam moved to Russia with his mother when he was eight years old, and spent most of his childhood going back and forth between international schools in Moscow and Geneva.
At 18, he finally returned to North Korea, when he was expected by some to eventually succeed his father.
This scheme was abruptly halted when Kim Jong-nam was caught with his family at a Tokyo airport in 2001 using a false Dominican Republic passport.
He said the family wanted to visit Tokyo Disneyland. All four were deported and went back to North Korea via Beijing.
The incident saw an embarrassed Kim Jong-il cancel a trip to China, and served as a catalyst for his eldest son to be ejected from the family.
Kim Jong-nam spent his remaining days travelling between Beijing, Malaysia, Singapore and spending much of his time in the Chinese territory of Macau.
He reportedly had at least six children, and several different wives.”
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2017 ... GUNDIGEST6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDp5-D8RdM
22 Feb 2017
The last people remaining at a Dakota Access pipeline protest camp prayed and set fire to a handful of wooden structures on Wednesday, hours ahead of a deadline set by the Army Corps of Engineers to close the camp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDp5-D8RdM
22 Feb 2017
The last people remaining at a Dakota Access pipeline protest camp prayed and set fire to a handful of wooden structures on Wednesday, hours ahead of a deadline set by the Army Corps of Engineers to close the camp.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
"17-year-old transgender boy completed an undefeated season Saturday by winning a controversial Texas state girls wrestling title in an event clouded by criticism from those who believe the testosterone he's taking as he transitions from female to male created an unfair advantage.
The family of Mack Beggs has said he would rather be wrestling boys, but state policy calls for students to wrestle against the gender listed on their birth certificates. So the junior from Euless Trinity beat Chelsea Sanchez 12-2 in the 110-pound (50kg) weight class to improve to 56-0 and earn the championship."
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/02/2 ... syJQddX.99
The family of Mack Beggs has said he would rather be wrestling boys, but state policy calls for students to wrestle against the gender listed on their birth certificates. So the junior from Euless Trinity beat Chelsea Sanchez 12-2 in the 110-pound (50kg) weight class to improve to 56-0 and earn the championship."
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/02/2 ... syJQddX.99
-
Sirocco
- Praise Me!
- Posts: 3808
Re: THAT's LIFE...
I was like a million insane feminists cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.Elizabeth wrote: ↑February 25th, 2017, 1:48 am http://www.lifenews.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Vice President Mike Pence Calls for Permanently Banning Taxpayer Funding of Abortions.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
An acquaintance of mine who was there denies these reports. He writes the following:
"At Standing Rock they are trying to bore under the Sioux Indians sacred ground and drinking water when they were supposed to run the pipe around Bismarck. The oil magnates decided to violate centuries old treaty rights of the Sioux and burrow their poison pipe under sacred Sioux burial grounds and rivers and lakes where the oil will eventually leak and poison their water for centuries (the oil has arsenic and benzene in it from fracking). The water protectors and earth defenders are standing their ground and have fought bravely against company security forces (police?) who have assaulted the water protectors (Lakota Sioux) with water canon laced with mace, rubber bullets (shooting people on their knees praying), concussion grenades (that blew a girls arm nearly off) , wild dogs and very terrible and brutal means...I was on the Standing Rock and witnessed all this and brave and courageous prayerful Sioux standing their ground. America is ashamed of itself..trust me.
G"
"At Standing Rock they are trying to bore under the Sioux Indians sacred ground and drinking water when they were supposed to run the pipe around Bismarck. The oil magnates decided to violate centuries old treaty rights of the Sioux and burrow their poison pipe under sacred Sioux burial grounds and rivers and lakes where the oil will eventually leak and poison their water for centuries (the oil has arsenic and benzene in it from fracking). The water protectors and earth defenders are standing their ground and have fought bravely against company security forces (police?) who have assaulted the water protectors (Lakota Sioux) with water canon laced with mace, rubber bullets (shooting people on their knees praying), concussion grenades (that blew a girls arm nearly off) , wild dogs and very terrible and brutal means...I was on the Standing Rock and witnessed all this and brave and courageous prayerful Sioux standing their ground. America is ashamed of itself..trust me.
G"
Elizabeth wrote: ↑February 26th, 2017, 11:27 am http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2017 ... GUNDIGEST6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDp5-D8RdM
22 Feb 2017
The last people remaining at a Dakota Access pipeline protest camp prayed and set fire to a handful of wooden structures on Wednesday, hours ahead of a deadline set by the Army Corps of Engineers to close the camp.
