100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Victimless Crimes Crime where there is no apparent victim and no apparent pain or injury. This class of crime usually involves only consenting adults in activities such as Prostitution, Sodomy, and Gaming where the acts are not public, no one is harmed, and no one complains of the activities. Some groups advocate legalizing victimless crimes by removing these acts from the law books. Other critics complain that there is no such thing as a victimless crime; whenever one of these crimes is committed but goes unpunished, individual mores, societal values, and the Rule of Law are undermined or compromised, rendering society itself the victim. And just who would be the "Other critics"? You guessed it, the lawyers, judges, police and politicians that have skin in the game. The "green" skin, the folding kind, that which goes in the wallet. But when it comes to drugs, it is much deeper than that, good ole big pharma is now involved. Can't have that unpatentable stuff from nature cutting into their profits now can we? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in a country where we don't have a second amendment but it seems archaic to me that some countries sanction such medieval writings. The amendments were written many years ago and should be rewritten to reflect the current world climate regarding violence and unwarranted attacks on innocent people. The only people who should have the right to bear arms are the military, police and prison officers. The rest of us should be happy bearing the arms we are born with. It is not the rifles, weapons that kill, it's the idiots who believe they are the only solution to a situation that carry them who do the senseless killing. Bring back the death penalty and everyone bearing arms should be judged and sentenced accordingly. Idiots with weapons, makes no sense. It is the idiots without weapons that make no sense. A world of slaves waiting to determine if they are allowed to survive. This is normally the mark of a person that has become ruled by their own emotions and sustain personality based in submissiveness and naivete. Thankfully, the founders of this once great nation had no such schism and gave us the ability to live our lives as free people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Two Officers Assisinated
Edited by
alnewman
on
Fri 12/26/14 09:00 AM
|
|
I actually believe the mention of Sharpton would be spin,, in a story about a criminal killing two officers,,,,before taking his own life  perhaps in mingle world LACK of spin has been redefined as spin,,,  Not when he incited this killing during his million man march. Not to mention this isn't the first time a death has been linked to him, look back to 1991. what are you talking about? the million man march was not Sharpton,,, and it was over a decade ago lol and this death is not LINKED to him in any way except the mind of the obsessed who thrive on scapegoating others and labeling others beneath them in some way no where did Sharpton call for violence or death of anyone,,,, why not give him credit for cops who are doing right if you are going that route? maybe him organizing to say the violence needs to stop is the reason that cop saved the choking boy?,,, no,, that's not possible,, that cop was just a 'hero', not possibly inspired by whats happening and what peoples concerns are, right? but this man was obviously 'incited' by Sharpton,,,  Al Sharpton and Mayor Bill de Blasio are being blamed for the execution of two police officers by Ismaaiyl Brinsley due to their support for the protests related to Michael Brown and Eric Garner, where the crowds began chanting, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" Regardless of the motives written by the actual killer, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik believes that both Al Sharpton and Bill de Blasio share some blame for the actions of the killer. "[Mayor] de Blasio, Sharpton and all those who encouraged this anti-cop, racist mentality all have blood on their hands,"ÂÂ he said. "They have blood on their hands." It was Not-so-Shapton who organized and led the march he has led no march supporting the killing of cops, he doesn't control every march that happens everywhere in the country,,,,, Guess again! ONE WEEK AGO: Protesters Chant "What Do We Want? Dead Cops" At Sharpton's NYC March http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/12/one-week-ago-protesters-chant-what-do-we-want-dead-cops-at-sharptons-nyc-march/ Sorry, but I think you may have been hoodwinked on that one, seems Fox news tied two different clips together and got caught. Fox News Deceptively Edits ‘Dead Cops’ Chant Together With Al Sharpton Speech There are a number of other sources that have the same claim. But while that isn't directly attributed to him, the constant stirring and agitation deems him not so innocent. I see where they're saying it was a "splinter" group and not Sharpies "actual" march, so I stand corrected on that point, but Sharpies hands are definitely not clean in the causes leading to the deaths of the 2 officers. This corrupt, race-baiting tax cheat has only one agenda..... promoting Al Not-so-Sharton! Yeah, imagine that, Fox cheating to try and create discourse against the left, who would have thought? But you give "Not so Fat Al" way too much credit, he is just another little puppet waiting for someone to pull his chain and direct his actions. After all his puppet master is the FBI which is why he is immune. And what an asset, they seem to lend him out to most any agenda, wonder what the price is? But if you have some time (about 1-1/2 hours), I would highly recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU G. Edward Griffin - The Collectivist Conspiracy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Two Officers Assisinated
|
|
I actually believe the mention of Sharpton would be spin,, in a story about a criminal killing two officers,,,,before taking his own life perhaps in mingle world LACK of spin has been redefined as spin,,, Not when he incited this killing during his million man march. Not to mention this isn't the first time a death has been linked to him, look back to 1991. what are you talking about? the million man march was not Sharpton,,, and it was over a decade ago lol and this death is not LINKED to him in any way except the mind of the obsessed who thrive on scapegoating others and labeling others beneath them in some way no where did Sharpton call for violence or death of anyone,,,, why not give him credit for cops who are doing right if you are going that route? maybe him organizing to say the violence needs to stop is the reason that cop saved the choking boy?,,, no,, that's not possible,, that cop was just a 'hero', not possibly inspired by whats happening and what peoples concerns are, right? but this man was obviously 'incited' by Sharpton,,, Al Sharpton and Mayor Bill de Blasio are being blamed for the execution of two police officers by Ismaaiyl Brinsley due to their support for the protests related to Michael Brown and Eric Garner, where the crowds began chanting, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" Regardless of the motives written by the actual killer, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik believes that both Al Sharpton and Bill de Blasio share some blame for the actions of the killer. "[Mayor] de Blasio, Sharpton and all those who encouraged this anti-cop, racist mentality all have blood on their hands,"ÂÂ he said. "They have blood on their hands." It was Not-so-Shapton who organized and led the march he has led no march supporting the killing of cops, he doesn't control every march that happens everywhere in the country,,,,, Guess again! ONE WEEK AGO: Protesters Chant "What Do We Want? Dead Cops" At Sharpton's NYC March http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/12/one-week-ago-protesters-chant-what-do-we-want-dead-cops-at-sharptons-nyc-march/ Sorry, but I think you may have been hoodwinked on that one, seems Fox news tied two different clips together and got caught. Fox News Deceptively Edits ‘Dead Cops’ Chant Together With Al Sharpton Speech There are a number of other sources that have the same claim. But while that isn't directly attributed to him, the constant stirring and agitation deems him not so innocent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Two Officers Assisinated
|
|
I actually believe the mention of Sharpton would be spin,, in a story about a criminal killing two officers,,,,before taking his own life perhaps in mingle world LACK of spin has been redefined as spin,,, Not when he incited this killing during his million man march. Not to mention this isn't the first time a death has been linked to him, look back to 1991. what are you talking about? the million man march was not Sharpton,,, and it was over a decade ago lol and this death is not LINKED to him in any way except the mind of the obsessed who thrive on scapegoating others and labeling others beneath them in some way no where did Sharpton call for violence or death of anyone,,,, why not give him credit for cops who are doing right if you are going that route? maybe him organizing to say the violence needs to stop is the reason that cop saved the choking boy?,,, no,, that's not possible,, that cop was just a 'hero', not possibly inspired by whats happening and what peoples concerns are, right? but this man was obviously 'incited' by Sharpton,,, Spin as usual, first off, 1991 was more than a decade ago and Sharpton was there, not as fat as he was going to get but looking like the pig he is:  Million Man March Rev. Al Sharpton speaks to the crowd while a member of the Nation of Islam stands guard at the Million Man March October 16, 1995, in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the march was to galvanize men to respect themselves and others spiritually, morally, mentally, socially, politically and economically. (Photo: Porter Gifford/Liaison) But here is "fat" Al at his best:  And I guess it was out of convenience that you forget: 'Justice For All,' 'Millions March' draw tens of thousands of protesters, date line 12/23/14 "Million" would be an over optimistic appraisal considering the diminishing following of this race baiter. And of course he stands for violence by his very actions. If he couldn't incite violence, Odumbo would dump him in a second. And his constant race baiting, only you would not feel that it was not a premonition of violence to follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
North Korea, No Internet?
|
|
AL! ur so busy lookin at your own damn smart feet you can't sea the sky.  go figure... after the maze you carry other's thru with quotes from all across the board... smiles you would do a cheap "off topic"... cheap cheap cheap... only when it ain't what you wanna hear. Let's define cheap, the constant attempt of taking all topics and rendering them to a topic of your desire. You are correct, I do not want to hear it unless it has to do with the topic of the thread. I offer you an opportunity under another thread to post to your hearts desire. Now if you don't want to discuss the North Korean internet topic, then start something else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
North Korea, No Internet?
|
|
Statism - the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. - Mark Passio Hey you got a definition right, congratulations. And the one that I use also, so much more to the point in a language much clearer than others. But then you are but trying to use the emotional to instill that which isn't there. You really should study the teachings of Mark, they would help to clear up so many shortcomings. However, why we are on the subject, something you seem to subscribe to, let's put a little more definition behind this: A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government-the state-has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time. I do like this one but it is not so direct and to the point as mine. Yes mine, words framed by Mark but bought by me, hook line and sinker. In the infamous words of Mark, "There is nothing new here, I have heard this before somewhere else. This person covers this. I have read this in this book. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing new here, I am not going to present anything new." But as to the other definition, I have no agreement, therefore I use quotes. As to source, well there is always google. But that is not the end, other sources go into much more detail: A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or "welfare" type-is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims. If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism—the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies—which has characterized most of human history. In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. And from another: The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. 't was actually in your Post,you just forgot to credit the Guy! Didn't forget at all, a little problem with comprehension? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An 18-year-old black teenager has been fatally shot by police at a gas station in Berkeley, a suburb of St Louis, Missouri. The incident took place near where unarmed teenager Michael Brown was killed by a white officer in August. St Louis County Police Department said a police officer shot and killed by a man who drew a handgun. A gun was recovered at the scene. An angry crowd has gathered at the scene - a Mobile petrol station. The victim has not been identified by the police, but was name locally as Antonio Martin. Hundreds of protesters are reported to have gathered at the Mobile gas station in Berkeley, Missouri where the teenage victim was killed. The station is being protected by police dressed in riot gear. Antonio Martin shooting: surveillance footage shows victim raising a gun Looking at the surveillance video the victim does indeed seem to be pointing a weapon at the officers and the weapon was found at scene. Link repaired. Here is better video: St Louis police release video of final moments before shooting of Antonio Martin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
haplogene I1
|
|
Here is a source that provide three videos on the subject of ancient remains:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw3AsroE_OEJURUlDwg55rJq89vRhCXp5 This has nothing to do with "angels" or "religion". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if one stop thinking they are psychopath's, one will sea they ain't no different than one self offred the same inducements. oh but how the self righteous will cry they are of more honor. the sad, sadder, most saddest of all, whom sea not all are what they are determined by where they were born. so planned to play the role they were born into... to create the intellect of humans... as only the dumb sea not it takes hot and cold to create human knowing. and so you think you eat either the red pill or the blue pill... Morpheus did betray you. for there is no pill except to those follyish scribes and pharisees whom deem them self as better. when they ain't never been there, in that same body, with those same feelings. as writ it was said, wisdom ain't wisdom until it can travel a many a mile in all other mens shoes. Then one would stop thinking, period. Like those that accept and those unable even to understand. But the good news is such a small percentage of righteous beings can bring about change. And when this abortion of the elite fails, and it will fail in very short order, it will be the new beginning, but not the one you envision. Thomas Jefferson and "The Blood of Tyrants" New Hampshire resident William Kostric caused a national stir on August 11 when he appeared outside President Obama's town hall meeting in Portsmouth with a loaded semiautomatic handgun strapped to his leg. Kostric held a sign that read, "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!" This was a reference to the following quote by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats what ya wee told about Reagen. what propaganda stoogie data. he was a "Professional Actor"... no wonder he was so good at foolin the easily fooled. . At least he wasn't an habitual liar about his policies and their effects on the nation as a whole. It was a different nation then...... there was still an "American Dream" and what we used to call "savings" towards retirement you mean that is what you "thought" it was back then... it was and has been each playing there proper planned implementation role to get to now. only the naive think we ended here due to some stray god or bad management. But it is a stray god and god only knows the bad management that keeps the elite grabbing their heels. url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFfEwgCW2to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFK, tho a Demoncrap, I believe could have turned this country around given a chance to do so...... but we'll never know for sure, will we? And he was about to do just that and had to go. First he signed Executive Order 11110 that effectively shot the Fed. Then he and Robert were about to stop the Vietnam war. They were to proceed right after Dallas. And then one of the first things Johnson did, retract Executive Order 11110 and the Fed tried to remove all the Silver Certificates in circulation as fast as they could get their hands on them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
North Korea, No Internet?
|
|
Statism - the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. - Mark Passio Hey you got a definition right, congratulations. And the one that I use also, so much more to the point in a language much clearer than others. But then you are but trying to use the emotional to instill that which isn't there. You really should study the teachings of Mark, they would help to clear up so many shortcomings. However, why we are on the subject, something you seem to subscribe to, let's put a little more definition behind this: A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government-the state-has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time. I do like this one but it is not so direct and to the point as mine. Yes mine, words framed by Mark but bought by me, hook line and sinker. In the infamous words of Mark, "There is nothing new here, I have heard this before somewhere else. This person covers this. I have read this in this book. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing new here, I am not going to present anything new." But as to the other definition, I have no agreement, therefore I use quotes. As to source, well there is always google. But that is not the end, other sources go into much more detail: A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or "welfare" type-is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims. If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism—the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies—which has characterized most of human history. In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. And from another: The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What President would you put on Mount Rushmore next... How about President Obama ... being the first black President in the USA ... do you believe since it is history ... he should be ... if not who then ... Ronald Reagan. That would be as bad as putting Odumbo there. You might want to try lithium. I hear it helps with paranoid personality disorders. So you do agree that Reagan and Odumbo are about the same, glad to see you are making progress. Now if one could forsake those drugs then perhaps the solipsism can be cured. No, Ronald Reagan made our country safer and stronger, he admitted to his F'ups unlike Odumbo who blames everyone else and he was the main man behind ending the cold war. Not to mention we had an awesome economy and we were the worlds last superpower at that time. Really, at the time Reagan was a real treat and he spoke about freedom and diminishing the role of government, but that wasn't what he actually did. 13 Reasons People Claim Reagan Was a Terrible President But you do have to admit the guy had one heck of a presence, provided one heck of a smoke screen. After Jimmy Carter, he was a breath of fresh air. But that little changes the fact he was no different than any of the other psychopaths that seek that office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the plot thickens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCD6GQ7dCw UN's One World Government Agenda-Wake Up Australia Australia is at the forefront of pushing for the UN's Agenda 21, and Global Government. It's time to wake up, and get the message out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
North Korea, No Internet?
|
|
AL! ur so busy lookin at your own damn smart feet you can't sea the sky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
North Korea, No Internet?
|
|
Star Wars here we come. Welcome to the sci-fi future about to be unveiled. where drones the size of mosquitoes invade offices and double doors and keep tabs on all happenings, and all words. resistance will be futile. Al is right. the noose is tight, very tight. he is just going about it the wrong way. as he forgets all that be planned does not always come to fruition as planned, so never put a bullseye on one's forehead, as that will accomplish nothing but failure. You mean like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WviiQzdCB50 TPP Unraveling? Odumbo comes up empty handed again. Boy am I so glad he is on the side of the globalist, that buffoon could dry up a wet dream. But then the deal is totally raveling as the veil is lifted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnC1mqyAXmw TPP: The Dirtiest Trade Deal You've Never Heard Of. But the big question is just what kind of sick/diseased mind thinks this is some sort of acceptable behavior. Actually more than one disease: Solipsism, the ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known. A perception they are god. Solipsist are mentally ill. Statism, the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as "authority" vested in certain human beings magically giving them the "right to rule" over other people. This "authority" means that certain people who we call "government", have the "moral right" to issue commands to those whom they rule (those under their "jurisdiction"), and that their "subjects" (slaves) have a "moral obligation" to obey the arbitrary dictates set by their masters. Most simply put, a statist is someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery. And it takes but 3% to 7% of a population to effect change and freedom has passed that threshold. At present we are in a peaceful resolution to the problems but at the same time are ready to defend our liberties with our lives, our fortunes and our honors. The first to go will be the bankers as they detonate their own system to discover just like Arab Spring their failure to move forward. The second to perish will be the globalist government as nation after nation destroys anything in blue. And last but not least, the City of London will be reduced to ashes as it should have been in 1215. Many throughout history have tried and all have failed. And in today's world it will not take a number of years, the resistance is ready and will win even if it has to be with sticks and stones. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fracking for the Cure
Well it seems the "pink ribbon woman is now "fracking" for the cure. "In an outrageous move, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the largest breast cancer foundation in the United States, has partnered with a fracking company to promote pink drill bits "for the cure." The page looks like a parody, but it's completely serious. Baker Hughes, one of the dirtiest fracking companies in the world, in an industry that injects carcinogenic chemicals into our groundwater, is literally painting itself pink as a champion of women's health. And Komen is helping the company do it. When pressed about this issue, Komen issued this tepid response: "the evidence to this point does not establish a connection between fracking and breast cancer." We cannot allow such absurd pinkwashing to stand. Baker Hughes isn't fighting breast cancer -- it's contributing to it. Join in telling Susan G. Komen for the Cure to drop Baker Hughes and stop giving dirty companies a cover. Komen has a long history of controversy. In 2012 the foundation set off a firestorm by dropping its funding for Planned Parenthood, leading to the resignation of its then-CEO. Komen has also been hit with heat for trademarking the running pink ribbon and the phrase "for the cure," then using its legal team to go after other charity organizations that use the color pink and the word "cure." Critics accuse it of using such tactics in an attempt to monopolize the breast cancer market -- and this is what it's doing with its trademark. Breast Cancer Awareness has turned into a multi-million dollar business -- Komen rakes in $400 million annually, in part through partnerships with dirty corporations that threaten the health of women -- and all of us. Komen partners with these groups because the money in the short term seems worth it, and the foundation thinks it can keep this story under wraps. But once knowledge of this gets out into the public space, Komen and Baker Hughes lose control of their stories, and we get to tell the world about their dirty partnership. Please join in today in calling out Komen and getting it to drop Baker Hughes as a partner." It's all about the money, not the cure. If there were a cure, there would be no money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNESCO rejects Coalition's bid to delist Tasmanian World Heritage forest
"The Federal Government has lost a bid to delist more than 70,000 hectares of forest from Tasmania's World Heritage Area (WHA). The United Nations' World Heritage Committee, meeting in Doha, took just 10 minutes to reject the Government's application to reverse protection for 74,000 hectares. The area was part of 170,000 hectares added to the WHA last year under Tasmania's forest peace deal enacted by the former state and federal Labor governments. News of the decision was quickly welcomed by conservation groups, including former Greens leader Bob Brown who described the decision as a "global diplomatic humiliation" for the Abbott Government. External Link: Bob Brown forest delisting tweet The Coalition had argued the 74,000 hectares were degraded by previous logging and should be unlocked for the timber industry. But opponents to the move said only 8.6 per cent of the forests had been disturbed, with the rest being pristine old-growth rainforest. Speaking from Doha, delegates from Portugal said "accepting this delisting would set an unacceptable precedent". Wilderness Society campaign manager Vica Bayley said the decision showed the world was behind preserving the forest. "Over here in Doha, environmentalists and Aboriginal Tasmanians are together welcoming this decision because it does protect the integrity of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area and it would protect that in perpetuity," he said." The UN has told a sovereign nation what they can do with their forest. And while I don't really support a governments control of anything, I absolutely detest the UN having any say whatsoever. What happens in Australia is up to the people of Australia but then they have sold their soul. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
