Friday, September 27, 2013
Friday, September 20, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Rejection of the "Reagan Revolution"
President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan at a victory celebration in Los Angeles, November 16, 1984. When President Barack Obama took office, he wanted to apply past presidential triumphs and failures, like those of Ronald Reagan, to his own projects. (Paul Hosefros/The New York Times).The Left Pushes Back
No More Center Right Politics; The Left Pushes Back
President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan at a victory celebration in Los Angeles, November 16, 1984. When President Barack Obama took office, he wanted to apply past presidential triumphs and failures, like those of Ronald Reagan, to his own projects. (Paul Hosefros/The New York Times).The Left Pushes Back
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Free (Rigged) Markets Not Infallible
ABOUT Paul Buchheit
Paul Buchheit is a college teacher with formal training in language development and cognitive science. He is the founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, RappingHistory.org, PayUpNow.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached
Libertarian Writings that Read Like Comic Books | NationofChange
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Blogdog's EXPOSE': Just Like in the 1960's, the Younger generation Be...
Blogdog's EXPOSE': Just Like in the 1960's, the Younger generation Be...: Occupy Turns 2, Rejecting American Exceptionalism, TPP Protests Escalate | Resistance Report #007 | NationofChange
Blogdog's EXPOSE': Politicians of Both Parties Push Monsanto Protecti...
Blogdog's EXPOSE': Politicians of Both Parties Push Monsanto Protecti...: Monsanto Protection Act 2.0: Politicians Bring Back Biotech Immunity | NationofChange
GMO In the Know- Just Label It
| From: | Gary Hirshberg, Just Label It (info@justlabelit.org) This sender is in your safe list. |
Requiring food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically engineered ingredients will not increase food prices at the supermarket, according to an independent study released this week by Just Label It. The study, conducted by food marketing expert Kai Robertson, found no evidence connecting changes in food labels to supermarket prices. Read Here >> GMO labeling advocates are suffering from a bad case of déjà vu this week. Just like last year's defeat of a California ballot initiative that would have required labeling of food products that contain genetically modified ingredients, money is flowing in to defeat Washington's 522 GMO labeling ballot initiative. Read More >>Big Business Spends Millions to Keep You in the Dark About GMOs Washington State Testing Alfalfa for GMO Contamination Agriculture officials in Washington state are testing samples of alfalfa after a farmer reported his hay was rejected for export because it tested positive for a genetically modified trait that was not supposed to be in his crop. If it is confirmed that the alfalfa in question was genetically modified, it could have broad ramifications, said Hector Castro, spokesman at the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Read More >> The Daily Show's "Monsanto and Seed Patent Laws" In a new satirical report, The Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi discovers that greedy farmers have threatened the livelihood of Monsanto's heroic patent attorneys. Featuring Indiana corn and soy farmer Troy Roush of Food Inc. Watch Here >> |
We're building a movement of concerned citizens – parents, health care workers, small business owners, farmers, and more – who care about what's in the food we eat. In October 2011, the Just Label It campaign was formed when the Center for Food Safety filed a petition with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to require the labeling of all foods produced using genetic engineering. Days later, we asked citizens from around the country to join us and tell the FDA to "Just Label It." More than 1.2 million Americans have contacted to the FDA urging them to label genetically engineered foods. Ask others to sign on at www.JustLabelIt.org/takeaction. Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Learn more at www.JustLabelIt.org |
This message was sent to jnluv50@hotmail.com because you expressed interest in receiving email from us when you took action with us. We respect your privacy and will not make your email address available to other organizations. If you'd like to unsubscribe or update your email settings, click here. |
Friday, September 13, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Senator Alan Grayson Not At All Convinced By "Evidence" of Syria's Use of Chemical Weapons
This op-ed written by Congressman Alan Grayson appeared in The New York Times today. Read it, share it with your friends and family, and join more than 75,000 others who oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria by signing on at DontAttackSyria.com. WASHINGTON - THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion. On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was "no." The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.) Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public. In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles. We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed. Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided. And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven't heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don't expect one. Compare this lack of transparency with the administration's treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to her credit, made every single relevant classified e-mail, cable and intelligence report available to every member of Congress. (I know this, because I read them all.) Secretary Clinton had nothing to hide. Her successor, John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn't trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq. But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: "Trust, but verify." The danger of the administration's approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report." The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, "it was clear that 'the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.'" I don't know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public. We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The "security state" is drowning in its own phlegm. My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. | |
|
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Israel Behind Obama's Intent to Strike Syria, Way to Get at Iran
President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Obama's Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel | The Nation
Friday, September 6, 2013
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Obama Administration Intelligence Twisted in Same Way It Was in Bush Administration's Leadup to Iraq War
In a White House handout photo, President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House, in Washington, Aug. 31, 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House via The New York Times)How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria
The Question, The Answer?!
The Question; Why Were the Nazis So Mad?
I've asked that question of many people and nobody seems to know the answer. I can't believe nobody knows. They just don't want to answer. I'm not sure of the answer, but if the answer is negative, I think nobody will answer for fear of boing called anti-Semitic. To me the answer points the Germans thinking that it was the Jews fault that their country was humiliated in WWI. And while their country was bankrupted and forced to pay reparations, the Jews in that country still lived comfortably while everybody else lived in poverty. I don't know if that's really what happened, but that's the only conclusion I could draw.
I don't mean to be anti-Semitic, but that seems to be what is about to happen in America, because if we bomb Syria, it's likely to start all out war. And it's the powerful Israeli lobby, AIPAC, that is pushing our government into this war.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Monday, September 2, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)