Friday, February 3, 2012

China Tells Murderous GMO To Go To Hell

As awareness of genetically modified food and the dangers associated increase, actions are being taken to eliminate the issue entirely.

With countries destroying their GMO crops, scientists showing the facts, and individuals voicing their discontent on the matter, there is a large and growing contingent across countries that are taking action to preserve the integrity of our food supply.

China is the latest nation to take a stand against GMO crops.

China recently suspended the distribution of genetically modified rice within its commercial food supplies.

Rice, being perhaps the most common and prominently used food within Chinese diet makes its safety and reliability very significant.

Acting as a staple food for over 1.3 billion Chinese people, any compromise to the integrity of their food supply should be accordingly assessed and acted against based upon the interests of the population.

This action helps to preserve the sovereignty and safety of their food supply, something that largely must still be addressed in our own country.

In the United States GMO foods are not only accepted by loose regulation standards, but are not even labeled appropriately.

The dangers of GMO foods are so great that they are still not — and may never be — fully assessable.

With a large number of documented negative effects on its consumers, GMO foods are a highly dangerous threat to individual health alone.

If this weren’t enough, genetically engineered crops actually threaten the integrity of the food supply altogether by devastating the environment with powerful superweeds and mutant bugs.

The nature of genetic engineering is so volatile that unless properly handled, the integrity of the entire world food supply could be ruined.

As such, any form of action that a government takes to prevent or eliminate GMOs from the equation is significant.

Reassessing the nature and scale of the threat in light of new evidence should compel even more action in even more locations around the world.

Arizona Actions Sending Illegal Immigrants Elsewhere

Arizona has effectively reversed the flow of illegal immigration by instituting state policies designed to discourage illegal aliens from settling or remaining in the state.

A new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),
Recent Demographic Change in Arizona: Anatomy of Effective Immigration Reform Legislation, finds that after steep increases in Arizona’s illegal alien population in the 1990s and early 2000s, the number of illegal aliens in the state has declined dramatically since voters approved Proposition 200 in 2004.

Since 2004, the state legislature has adopted additional enforcement measures, including the Arizona Legal Workers Act in 2007 and culminating in passage of SB 1070 in 2010.

Along with the decline in the illegal alien population, Arizona realized significant savings in state costs, a drop in the number of families living in poverty, and a decline in the violent crime rate.

The data analyzed in Recent Demographic Change in Arizona provides strong evidence that illegal immigration is a highly controllable phenomenon.

These conclusions are bolstered by more recent anecdotal evidence that illegal aliens are leaving other states which have followed Arizona’s lead and are implementing their own immigration enforcement policies.

“While some political leaders have derided the concept of attrition through enforcement as ‘fantasy,’ Arizona provides hard evidence that illegal aliens are deterred by meaningful enforcement policies,” stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

Among the key findings of Recent Demographic Change in Arizona include:

- Arizona’s illegal alien population declined by about 100,000 between 2008 and 2009, or about 18 percent. During that same time span, the rest of the country saw an 8 percent decline in the illegal alien population.

- After a sharp increase in households with annual incomes below $35,000 between 2000 and 2005, the number of such households decreased 5.5 percent by 2009, even as the recession set-in.

- 36,700 fewer Limited English Proficient students were enrolled in Arizona schools in 2010, compared with 2005 – a decline of 24.4 percent. As a result, the state saved about $97 million.

- Arizona saw a 14.4 percent decline in violent crime and a 21.4 reduction in property crime between 2005 and 2010 – significantly greater reductions than the nation as a whole.

“It is ironic that the federal government, which has primary responsibility for enforcing U.S. immigration laws, is aggressively fighting to prevent Arizona and other states from protecting the interests of their citizens rather than emulating their successful policies,” Stein noted.

“As the 2012 campaign heats up, candidates for federal and state office should embrace policies, like Arizona’s, which protect American jobs, reduce fiscal costs, and improve public safety.

Voters all across the country support meaningful immigration enforcement policies by both federal and state government for good reason: They work.”

Traitors In Charge Want Only Approved Free Speech

Dina Galassini does not seem to pose a threat to Arizona’s civic integrity. But the government of this desert community believes that you cannot be too careful.

And state law empowers local governments to be vigilant against the lurking danger that political speech might occur before the speakers notify the government and comply with all the speech rules.

Galassini became annoyed — like many Ron Paul supporters, she is easily annoyed by government — about the city’s plan to augment its spending with a $29.6 million bond issue, to be voted on by mail by Nov. 8.

On Oct. 6, she sent e-mails to 23 friends and acquaintances, urging them to write letters to newspapers and join her in two demonstrations against the bond measure.

On Oct. 12, before she could organize the demonstrations, she received a stern letter from the town clerk: “I would strongly encourage you to cease any campaign-related activities until the requirements of the law have been met.”

State law — this is the state of John McCain, apostle of political purification through the regulation of political speech — says that anytime two or more people work together to influence a vote on a ballot measure, they instantly become a “political committee.”

This transformation triggers various requirements — registering with the government, filing forms, establishing a bank account for the “committee” even if it has raised no money and does not intend to.

This must be done before members of this fictitious “committee” may speak.

Galassini wrote to ask the clerk if it would be permissible for her to e-mail the 23 persons telling them the demonstrations were canceled — she got no response — and told the clerk, “This is all so confusing to me.”

Confusion and inconvenience — Galassini could have made an appointment for tutoring by the clerk’s office concerning permissible speech — are probably intended consequences of laws designed to burden political speech that is potentially inconvenient for government.

Galassini gave up trying to influence the vote.

New Hampshire Politicians Finally Do Something Right

Students at New Hampshire’s public colleges who are illegal immigrants would have to pay higher out-of-state tuition rates under a bill passed by the House.

The House voted 250-88 in favor of legislation to require in-state students to prove they are also legal residents of the United States.

The state would also have to establish a system to prove students are in the country legally to receive in-state tuition. The bill now goes to the Senate.

In a legislative analysis written for the Republican majority on the House Education Committee, supporters of the bill said the burden would be upon the applicant to prove his or her citizenship.

The rules would require the same signed affidavit and documentation process applicants use to prove state residency.

Opponents, led by Democratic Rep. Mary Stuart Gile of Concord, said no one had testified during the committee’s hearing on the bill to indicate this was a problem in the University System of New Hampshire.

Republican Rep. Ralph Bohem, of Litchfield, disputed their logic as “faulty.”
“If no one checks, how would they know if there’s a problem?” Bohem asked.

In the case a student was found to be an illegal immigrant, Gile, a native of Canada and a naturalized American, said she hopes the university would work with the student in the naturalization process and continue providing them in-state tuition rates.

Bohem said illegal immigrants cannot be considered New Hampshire residents and should not receive in-state tuition.

Opponents argued any child who grew up in New Hampshire and graduated from its schools should be afforded in-state tuition. It was not the state’s responsibility to enforce immigration laws, they said, which are the federal government’s responsibility.

In the case a student was found to be an illegal immigrant, Gile, a native of Canada and a naturalized American, said she hopes the university would work with the student in the naturalization process and continue providing them in-state tuition rates.

“The ultimate goal should be to recognize these students were working to create a better life for themselves,” said Gile.

The university system comprises four schools: the University of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University, Keene State College and Granite State College.

The system enrolls more than 29,000 undergraduate and graduate students, but it is unclear how many would be affected if the tuition legislation becomes law.

In-state tuition rates at the system’s four schools range from $275 per credit hour at Granite State College to $12,060 a year at the University of New Hampshire, while out-of-state rates range from $285 per credit hour at Granite State to $25,380 annually at UNH.

To qualify for in-state tuition rates under current policy, students only need to prove they have lived in New Hampshire for at least 12 months prior to registering.

Traitors In Charge Guiding USA To Utter Destruction

Warmongers who want war with Iran are very persistent.

The flow of pro-war “news” items (really expressions of pro-war sentiments and arguments) in recent weeks, here and in Israel, is similar to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice-Powell lying propaganda campaign leading up to the unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq.

This flow is heavy and is designed to create public support for a war of aggression on Iran.

These “policy” groups form and spring up to promote their views. Their official sounding names, designed to cull respect, are ruses.

They are front organizations that are really meaningless in terms of objectivity or having in mind the interests of the general public or Americans at large. They are creatures of Washington and power and special interests.

I view Washington’s interests generally as being opposed to the properly-understood interests, and certainly the rights, of most Americans.

The members of this center’s task force are listed in the title to this blog. I do not hesitate to name them warmongers, for they recommend war with Iran unless Iran abandons its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement:
“The United States needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have its program destroyed militarily by the United States or Israel.”

They recommend other steps that also lead to war.

These you can read for yourself.

In terms of persuading others, Chuck Robb, speaking for the group, expressed a contradictory position.

He said that the group is not recommending “bombs away” and wants to be seen as “reasonable” (moderate), but yet he wants a military first strike to be a viable and credible threat.

In other words, he’s saying (in my words) “We’re not bombing you but unless you do what we say, we’ll bomb you.”

I fail to see that this position is materially different from bombs away, especially with all the other steps being recommended, one of which is to prevent Iran from shipping any oil anywhere! That’s an act of war.

So I construe such persuasion talk as a deceptive ruse. It’s designed to salve consciences. Its aim is to make the bombing of Iran palatable.

It is designed to place the onus of war on the Iranians for failing to accede to the U.S. demands and its military threats. It is designed to shift attention away from another war of aggression begun by the U.S. and relieve Americans from the knowledge that they are invading yet another land.

Robb et al want to be seen as reluctant to do what they will label as the “right” thing to do. They are poseurs.

They assume a pose of sincerity that covers up a rigid and wrong doctrine that is really what they want and what they are advocating.

Dark Moon Rise Hell Hound Kill Nick Fury Tale By Jim Steranko

Man Eating Lizards Horror Tale By Joe Kubert


Thing From Sea Horror Tale By Wally Wood


Lighthouse Horror Tale By Al Williamson