A recent study has found that Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide may be responsible for causing infertility. After reviewing the many already well-documented negative impacts Roundup has on the environment and living creatures, it is no surprise to add yet another item to the list.

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility 

Researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. According to the study, even at a concentration of 1 ppm, the Roundup was able to affect the test subjects by decreasing their testosterone concentrations by as much as 35%.

How can such small levels of exposure have such a profound effect on the reproductive system?

Roundup, being a glyphosate-based herbicide is also known to have endocrine disrupting properties.

Much like BPA, glyphosate-based herbicides have the ability to interfere with the natural hormonal balance in the human body, thereby introducing a number of health risks along with even the smallest levels of exposure. These chemicals are strong enough to affect your metabolism, behavior and mood, reproductive organs, and even provoke cancer.

As a result, any plants that are sprayed with Roundup carry with them a chemical effect similar to that of other endocrine disruptors, offsetting the hormonal balance and causing adverse effects, despite even the smallest levels of exposure. This in part contributes to the number of males with increased fertility issues in more recent times.

It is no surprise that Monsanto, a company already infamous for a whole slew of dangerous concoctions, would also be responsible for affecting another major aspect of human health on a large scale.

Ultimately it is highly important to avoid any products sprayed with pesticides or herbicides for the many associated health risks – now fertility included. In addition to avoiding food which has been tarnished by this pesticide, you may also want to consider investing in a water filter. Glyphosate, the carcinogenic chemical Roundup contains, has been found to be contaminating the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.

Being aware of the hormonal disruptors you face in your daily life such as BPA and now Roundup is a must. Even the smallest levels of exposure can have large negative effects.

Explore More:

1. Monsanto’s Carcinogenic Roundup Herbicide Contaminating Water Supply
2. World’s Top Commercial Weed Killer Linked to Infertility: Scientist
3. USDA: Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide Damages Soil
4. Exposure to this Chemical is Linked to Birth Defects
5. Monsanto’s Roundup Spawns Superweeds Consuming Over 120 Million Hectares
6. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

Please visit Natural Society for more great health news and vaccine information.

Here are the facts as I see them:

• Iran has had a nuclear energy program for nearly 40 years. They use nuclear reactors to produce electricity.
• Iran is being accused by Western nations of enriching radioactive materials with the intent of producing nuclear weapons.
• The International Atomic Energy Commission has not been able to produce any evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons.
• 20% of the world’s oil production is shipped down the Persian Gulf and through the narrows of the Straits of Hormuz.
• The West, led by Washington, who is being led by a nose ring by Israel, are escalating economic sanctions against Iran.
• Recently, the US and Israel performed war games just outside the Persian Gulf as a threat to Iran.
• Iran has done its own war games in the Persian Gulf and recommended that American carrier task forces not return to the Gulf.
• Washington is threatening to destroy the Iranian Central Bank.
• Washington pulled this same shyt in Iraq. Remember?
• Things are fixin’ to get real ugly in the Persian Gulf.

Think about Iran’s situation some more. Iran is one of the major oil producers of the Middle East. Dozens of nations buy their oil from Iran. Iran would be punishing themselves if they blocked the Strait of Hormuz. But the West has shown themselves willing to commit a false-flag operation and hang it around an enemy’s neck. Saddam Hussein’s name might come to mind. The nation of Afghanistan might come to mind. Yet, Washington is moving steadily toward war against Iran. The false-flag operation would give Washington and Israel the cover they need to start a shooting war. More on that below.

The reality of the situation is that Iran has a commodity that the world cannot live without. So, which should be in control here…the buyer or the seller? Should the Central Bank of Iran be held hostage by the banks of other nations, or the banking families that control most of the world banking system? I submit to you that the seller…Iran…should exert its sovereignty and its ultimate control.

What should the Iranian response be?

Iran should announce that beginning immediately, all payment for crude oil will be made in gold: no currency, no credit. No gold, no oil.

That single act will solve most of Iran’s problems. Requiring payment in gold would begin to strengthen the Iranian rial (their currency), thereby setting the world’s bankers back on their heels. If you are not using the banker’s credit, you are not subject to their rules or control. In recent months, the rial has lost almost 50% of its value against the US Dollar. Selling oil for gold would quickly make inflation in Iran disappear. The economy would rebound for everybody living in Iran. Another benefit would be a spike in world gold prices as companies and nations make massive purchases of gold so they can buy oil.

Now, what about a shooting war? Look at a map of the Persian Gulf. The entire eastern shore of the Gulf is Iran. The Persian Gulf is not a big body of water and has a choke point at the southeastern end. The incredible hubris of the American Navy, commanded by whichever President is in office (save Ron Paul), would place one or two carrier task forces in the Gulf. Iran possesses the Russian-built Sunburn anti-ship missile. The American navy has no defense for the Sunburn. The missile travels at nearly 1,600 miles per hour (Mach 2.1) at an altitude of about 50 feet above the waves. Iran has mobile launchers all along the mountainous shoreline of the Gulf. In a retaliatory strike, Sunburn missiles launched from the shore would reach the ships of the carrier task forces in a matter of seconds. The ship-board weapons systems like Phalanx will not have enough time to calculate a firing solution. And the Phalanx system has never been tested against the Sunburn. Multiple Sunburn missiles will send the task forces to the bottom of the Gulf, with massive loss of American sailors and airmen. Yet another defeat for the American military.

In my opinion, Iran could take control of their crisis situation and avoid a war simply by going with gold.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Vote? Why? What candidate in the quadiennial resurrection of the Mickey Mouse club wants to do anthing that I want done?

I want to roll back the onrushing police state and return to constitutional government. The plunge into totalitarianism is a far worse danger than World War Two, in which the US was never in danger of being invaded, and in which the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Who do I vote for? No candidate (except Ron Paul: ERP) is against sovietization.

I want to end our stupid wars, now. Yesterday. Who do I vote for? There is no anti’war candidate (ERP). Obama sends the troops anywhere he can think of, and all the Republicans want to attack Iran.

I want to reduce the military by half and end the militarization of the country that is bankrupting us. Who do I vote for? (ERP)

I want to reduce the size of government, get rid of the departments of Educationh, Housing and Urban Development, and Commerce, toss the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and so on. What candidate wants to do these things? Republicans talk a good show, but which of them actually wants to cut?

I want to end affirmative action, which means governmental favor for some citizens over others, and rely on merit. No candidate speaks of this. Who do I vote for?

I want to end the empire, quit meddling in the business of other countries, get out of South Korea, Japan, and NATO. I don’t want to be the world’s mommy. Who do I vote for?

I want to reform America’s dysfunctional system of taxation, go to a sales tax or flat tax or value-added tax, anything to get IRS off our backs. It isn’t the amount of taxation that I dislike, but the intrusiveness, mystery, complexity, and lack of recourse. Who do I vote for?

I want to reform the public schools, outlaw teachers unions, requires decent GRE scores from teachers, cut the propaganda and outlaw drugging of students. Who do I vote for?

Why vote at all? Nothing of substance is on the table, other than the desire of Republicans to attack Iran. Yes, we must get America back on track, get it going again in the right direction, turn the country around, get back to the American values that made the nation great, promote the American Dream—none of which means anything. We must creatr jobs (how?), get America back to work (how?), and favor all the vague platitudes intended to mulct fools. All right, I hereby declare myself mulcted. So why vote?

The elections are supposed to indicate the presence of democracy, but they do not. Elections do not determine policy but only the division of spoils. An election in which candidates take no positions becomes a high-school popularity contest. The way to have elections without having a democracy is to let the people vote, but not on anything.

And oh god, the boredom. Night after night, day after day, we will have this version of Dancing with the Stars, the judges in the media solemnly that Santorum displayed Confidence, but Gingrich committed some trivial gaffe or other. Nuance, gesture, composure, but no substance.

Where is this going? The country is in grave difficulties and needs desperately to make hard decisions. Those in power seem to have decided to keep picking the nation’s bones while the corpse slides towards the precipice. Cosset the morons, assure everyone of everything, avoid the issues and do nothing that might upset anyone. Greece, Spain, Ireland all take unpopular measures to try to bring things under control. The US? It spends on, wars on, as if the gravy days of 1960 had never ended.

Having a one’party system called by two names is a technically slick way of disenfranchising the public without their noticing. In a parliamentary system all manner of politics would gain expression in proportion to their prevalence in the population. With two identical parties, no dissenting view can ever gain office. A masterly dodge, this.

Over the years I have read or listened to many men rattling on about this and that arraangement of matters human, socialism, capitalism, republics, direct democracy, fascism, militarism, all the gang. What the theorists all seem to overlook is the irresistable buoyancy of excrement. Communism, theocracy, the divine right of kings, all eventually fall into the hands of the crafty and unscrupulous. If they don’t, it is only because they haven’t gotten around to it.

It has to happen. Once society becomes more complex than a modest tribe or small town, once its affairs extend beyond the immediate visual horizon of the citizens, they become clueless. Most don’t have the brains, and almost none the time or interest, to monitor sprawling bureacracies and distant wars. Villains thrive in the shadows.

Vote? You can choose between Gingrich and Gingrich, between Santorum and Santoru, or between Gingrich and Santorum which is the same choice, or you can choose Romney, who is both Santorum and Gingrich. Such a deal.

Listening to all the pundits, politicians and reporting, before, during and since the Iowa caucus, here at the beginning of the 11th year of the twenty-first century, I’m reminded of the perennial presidential Socialist candidate, Norman Thomas, of the twentieth century, who said the American people would never accept Communism, under that name, but would swallow all its tenets under the name Socialism. And so we have.

The six Republican candidates all have a mantra to “defeat Obama.” Then talk about the social programs they plan on implementing, in one form or another. Like Romney, saying he thinks socialized medicine should come under the jurisdiction of States instead of Federal.

Then they use familiar verbiage like, Conservative, Right-wing, Evangelicals in their speeches. Santorum was quoted as saying he has “Proven he is the only Conservative candidate who can defeat Romney.”

Rick Perry’s pitch is he’s going to send Congress on an extended vacation, as if spending less time in Congress would by some magic bullet change their positions.

The current congresswoman Michelle Bachman dropped out of the race to return to Congress to attempt to make Obama a one-term president.

Then there’s Newt Gingrich, a seasoned politician, and a smart historian, who failed to combat the negative ads in Iowa, now quite angry, and promises to fight back in South Carolina, to restore his reputation, and try to regain his position in the polls, from 4th place to the nomination. He has to his credit made speeches about the Declaration of Independence and spoken about the history of the founding fathers.

Huntsman, who speaks Chinese, talks mostly about his record as governor, I really don’t know why he’s in the race.

Much of the language in all their speech making, debates and interviews, is pretty much the same as the last election of 2008, with a little change in wording, like changing the Religious Right to Evangelicals.

For the most part, all, bar none, promote the idea of more governmental powers, in one form or another, to enhance socialistic programs already law, and no one has come up with promises in speeches to return this country back to the principles upon which it was founded, i.e., the free-enterprise, capitalistic system of voluntary exchange of goods and services, nor any plans of getting rid of the thousands of rules, edicts, regulations and laws which have destroyed ownership of Private Property. Rarely ever mentioning the word “Freedom.”

While they try to gather money for election to the Presidency of the United States, the current president Obama continues shoving more and more socialistic programs down the throats of Americans, by edict and executive order, talking about the “middle-class” and taking from the “rich” to re-distribute.

Everyone is paying more and more taxes, whether buying a loaf of bread, gallon of milk or a tank of gas, undermining the very device by which you earned your money in the first place, via more and more compulsory taxation, which destroyed manufacturing jobs, now trying to convince the people government is going to fix the problem.

All politicians in office, or seeking office, promote the idea in the public mind that voting rights are superior to the Right to Liberty. If those elected are good, honest and moral men and women, how come this nation has been reduced from a Republic of Free people to one that has embraced the tenets of Socialism, increasing every day?

Reminds us Norman Thomas was right in his assumption of predictions that this country would reject Communism, but under the umbrella of Socialism, accept the tenets of that system to replace Freedom and private property ownership. In actuality, Communism is an economic system, placing a centralized governmental power in charge. Which has happened here in the United States.

And no one of the Presidential candidates promote any proposals of reversing this current situation this country is in.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said: “We are students of words, we are shut up in schools, and colleges and recitation rooms, for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a bag of wind, a memory of words, and do not know a thing.”

Last night on the lobotomy box I encountered yet another candidate for the presidency, a Mr. Santorum, threatening to make war on Iran. I can’t decide whether the idea is more frightening than fascinating, or fascinating than frightening. I do suggest that the combined candidates do not have the military competence of a stuffed bear. Given that the principlal business of the United States is war and preparation for it, do we want a martial analphabetic in charge? One does not let children play with chain saws. (From all of this I exempt Ron Paul, who appears to be sane.)

To save the republic, if any, from another routine military disaster, I offer the following thoughts.

To begin, I will ask the following questions of the candidates, and for that matter of Mr. Obama, and of the Secretary of Defense, a generic bureaucrat.

Can you explain: Convergence zones, base bleed, Kursk, range-gate pull-off, artillery at Dien Bien Phu, IR cross-over, Tet and queen sacrifice, Brahmos 2, CIWIS, supercruise, side-lobe penetration, seven-eighty-twice gear, super-cavitating torpedoes, phased arrays, pulse Doppler, the width of Hormuz versus the range of Iranian cruise missiles, DU, discarding sabot, frequency agility, Chobham armor, and pseudo-random PRF?

These, gentlemen, are the small talk of serious students of the military. Here I mean men like David Isby, author of such books as Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army for Jane’s, which you likely have never heard of, or William S. Lind, probably the best military mind (though, or because, not a soldier), that I have encountered. If you are unfamiliar with them, and with the things listed above, you are unfamiliar with the military. Yet you campaign for possession of the trigger.

Perhaps a little humility, perish the thought, and a little self-examination might be in order.

Peering into your own depths, you will probably find that the humility does not come easily. In my decades of covering the armed services, I noticed among men a belief in their innate jock-strap competency regarding wars. Men who would readily admit ignorance of petroleum geology, ophthalmology, or ancient Sumerian grammar nonetheless believe that they grasp matters military. Usually they do not. In particular, they have an utterly unexamined belief in America’s military invincibility.

Candidates should be wary of this. Instead, most of you propose ultimata to Iran as one would threaten a three-year-old with a spanking. You clearly think that the American flotilla would quickly thrash the impudent Persians with no unexpected consequences. Do as we say, or the fleet will teach you a jolly good lesson.

So thought Philip II in 1588.

A little reading wouldn’t hurt. I would strongly recommend A Legacy of Ashes, by Tim Weiner, on the CIA, and We Meant Well, by Peter van Vuren, a former State Department guy on how Iraq actually works. You will be most surprised. I accept in advance your gratitude for these suggestions.

Once a candidate from the relative bushes gets elected, as may happen, he becomes a captive of Washington in about ten minutes. This too you should bear in mind. You will be briefed by the CIA, which will spin things so that you believe what it wants you to believe. The spooks will radiate lethal charm and speak with the assurance of a higher order of being. This will give you a sense of admission to a special tree house where everyone has a Captain Marvel secret decoder ring (two box tops and a dollar fifty). And, in Washington, you will have access to no other view. Gotcha.

You will be briefed by the Pentagon by generals with firm handshakes, steely gaze, obvious intelligence, and a convincing understanding of the world as consisting chiefly of threats. They are very good at this. You do not become a general without expertise with Power Point and the slick gab of a confidence man. Generals too are politicians. They will carry you along like a wood chip in a spring flood. And you will pay the price.

A powerful skepticism is here well advised. The belief that military men know about war is beguiling. It is their trade, is it not? Surely they must be authorities. Dentists know about dentistry. Soldiers must know about war. But how often when you go to a dentist do you return without teeth?

In fact career officers live in a mental world not well adapted to winning today’s wars. You need to understand this. Theirs is a world of aggression seeking an outlet, of institutionally inculcated confidence unrelated to external reality, of suppression of dissent. Fatal bad judgement is common, and recently almost the rule. If you think this implausible, consider:

When the Japanese attacked Pearl, their military thought it would win, Yamamoto excepted. When the Wehrmacht went into Russia, it thought it would win. So did Napoleon. When the Germans attacked in 1914, they thought they would win, the Schlieffen Plan being infallible. When the Confederates shelled Sukmter, they thought they could win. When the French took on the Viet Minh, they thought they would win. When the Americans went into Viet Nam, they thought they would win. When they went into Iraq, Somalia, Beirut, Afghanistan….

And now you, our newly elected, fresh-caught president, contemplate a shooting war with Iran. Those who favor this idea will assure you that it will be short and sweet. Shock and Awe. Duck soup. A cakewalk. The Iranians will just take it, perhaps put up some slight and hapless resistance, and roll quickly over. Our airplanes, after all, say varooom and pow-pow-pow and boom.

Good luck.

Note that in the foregoing list of wars, all were expected to end quickly. This should not surprise. Military men live in the psychic world of the cavalry charge, of decisive battle, of courage, heroism, and glorious victory. Modern militaries are designed with shsort-and-sweet in mind, with tanks ships and aircraft intended to fight other tanks ships and aircraft. Unfortunately wars nowadays are more like dealing with a recalcitrant bureaucracy. They go on and on. Concentrated firepower doesn’t work well against dispersed enemies. The treasury bleeds, the public wearies. Quick victory seldom comes. The Pentagon thrashes and thrashes every more desperately, a saber tooth in the tar pits of La Brea. Just give us a little more time, a few more troops, a surge….

Reflect that the Pentagon hasn’t won a war since 1945, unless you count titanic eruptions like Grenada. Yes, it usually wins the conventional battles, as it did in Afghanistan, as it did in Iraq, Mission Accomplished, but then the enemy deploys the most fearsome weapons of the last half-centry: the AK, the RPG, and the IED.

The Pentagon can bomb Iran with impunity, as it could Afghanistatn. It thinks it can keep the Straits open, as it thought it could do all the things in the past that it couldn’t. How many burning supertankers does it take to discourage the rest?

Then the unexpected comes. It turns out that the enemy is not as stupid as the strategy required. Pehhaps thousands of Iranian troops infiltrate into largely Shiite Iraq, which blows again. Oh fun.

If you can’t win any war at all, start a larger one. And you, Mr. Santorum, or Romney, or Gingrich, will hold the bag. Such a deal.

So, Israel firster Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus? Go figure. Do you think this statement had anything to do with it?:

“I will travel to Israel on my first foreign trip. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable.”

Or how about this one:

“I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.”

I could showcase a few more examples of where Romney’s allegiances truly lie…but what’s the point?

I guess we should count our blessings. Though Ron Paul came in third, it’s still an impressive victory when you consider that Iowa is an evangelical stronghold, whose voter support for the state of Israel takes precedence over any concern they might have for their own country.

Without a doubt, Paul performed better than any other candidate. He definitely made the case that he was the best suited to deliver this nation from the unsound fiscal policies of the Treasury Department and the privately owned Federal Reserve. But that was obviously a secondary concern for the voters in Iowa. Paul had to be defeated because he stuck true to his principals, and made it clear that he would not send more of our children to die in yet another Jewish war of survival.

How else would you explain why Rick Santorum came in second? He wasn’t going anywhere until he revealed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would demand that Iran’s nuclear sites be dismantled, and then launch an attack against them after they inevitably refused.

Of course Michelle Bachman and Newt Gingrich are even more devoted to Israel. So why did they finish behind Paul? The voters apparently had what alcoholics call a “moment of clarity,” and realized that neither of them stood a chance of defeating Obama. Bachman is a blithering idiot who can barely spell America (let alone serve its best interests), and the serial adulterer/hypocrite Gingrich has way too much baggage.

Speaking of Newt, didn’t he just get through weeping over his long dead mother? Poor guy…now he has something new to cry about. And I would wager that these tears are a lot more genuine. That’s right, Newt! You ain’t foolin’ anybody. We know the only thing you have an emotional attachment to is your political career and the Zionist masters who fund it.

Remember last June, when Newt urged the Jewish Republican Coalition in Beverly Hills to “never underestimate the hold that Israel has on the American heart.”

Speak for yourself, Newt. So far as America is concerned: while I agree that Israel certainly does have a hold on one of our organs, I would argue that it resides a bit further south. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu certainly has his fingers clenched around that organ, and uses it as a steering mechanism to further his criminal agenda. Don’t take my word for it. Back in 2001, he bragged that,“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

Nothing has changed, and the Iowa caucus proves it. It’s not just media manipulation and vote fraud that guides that vote. Iowa is a microcosm of the 70 million Christian Zionists, evangelicals and other dispensationalists who represent the most coveted voting block in America.

These psychotics believe that their unwavering support for the state of Israel is the “golden ticket” they need to gain access through the pearly gates. They’re counting on a catastrophic war in the Middle East to hasten the return of Jesus Christ, who will then descend from the clouds and gather them up in one fel swoop. Once deposited safely in heaven, Christ can then go about his business wiping out the rest of his creation.

For decades, false prophets like Jerry Falwell; Hal Lindsey; Pat Robertson; Tim Lehay and John Hagee have all promised that the return of Christ is just around the corner. But since none of these prophecies ever come to pass, Christian Zionists have grown tired of waiting and believe it’s time to take matters into their own hands. They figure if they can stoke the flames of Armageddon themselves, it just might send up the right smoke signal to get the good Lord’s ass in gear.

That’s why the war rhetoric and saber rattling against Iran by all of these GOP hopefuls is so appealing to them. Who else would be attracted to a presidential candidate who promises to take their nation to war if elected? To the rest of us, the thought of heading into yet another hot conflict is nothing less than horrific. But the Christian Zionists don’t care because they’re confident that they won’t be around to see it. By the time the feces hits the oscillating wind generator, they’ll be watching the action from a ringside seat in heaven while toasting marshmallows and singing “Kumbaya.”

And what is to become of all the Jewish people that these evangelical nut jobs claim to love so dearly? Let’s not kid ourselves. These people are certainly no friends of the Jews. Their doctrine is ultimately hostile to Judaism, and requires that all Jews must convert to Christianity or perish along with the rest of us. So why do we often find collaboration between Christian Zionists, and some segments of the Jewish community, who might otherwise find this kind of “convert or die” theology offensive?

Another quote that is commonly attributed to Netanyahu is, “My opinion of Christian Zionists? They’re scum. But don’t tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now.”

While I have a hard time believing that Netanyahu would be so careless as to say something like that in public, it can’t be far from how some Jews feel, particularly those who rely on the billions of American dollars we send Israel each year, along with the weapons and manpower required to continue these wars that are being waged on their behalf.

Yes…Christian Zionists are the useful idiots who facilitate Israel’s criminal activity, and they’re also the one’s who are taking this nation into another war. They’ll get the mushroom clouds they want, but they won’t be watching them from heaven. Discounting their dispensationalist fantasy of an end-times scenario, what does war with Iran really mean? Forget about $500 per barrel oil. That’s the least of our worries. War with Iran means war with Russia and China. War with Iran means World War III.

The Russian Ministry of Defense recently issued a bulletin to PM Putin and President Medvedev stating that China’s President Hu has now agreed “in principal” that the only way to stop US led western aggression is through “direct and immediate military action” and that Hu has ordered his Naval Forces to “prepare for warfare.”

That dovetails with a statement from Major General Zhao Zhangzhong of the Chinese National Defense University, who said that China “would not hesitate to protect Iran” even if it led to a third World War, and that not hesitating to fight a third World War would be entirely for domestic political needs. China currently buys large quantities of oil from Iran and is their third largest trading partner.

As for Russia? On December 18, 2011, Russian Centre for Socio-Political Studies Director Vladimir Yevseyev insisted that Russia would stop any military attack against Iran, adding that that “a military attack against Tehran will be a serious problem for Russia, because Caucasus and Central Asia are strategic regions for Russia.”

He’s not the only Russian sounding the alarm. According to Press TV, “Last week, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin vehemently criticized any plans of attacking Iran, describing the measure as “a very dangerous scenario” which could lead to a “regional catastrophe.”

Regional my ass! We’re talking about WWIII, folks—brought to you by the same people who brought us the last two World Wars! So much for the claim that “Israel is a strategic ally of the US.”

Don’t you just love clichés? The hardcore supporters of the criminal Israeli state certainly do. How many times have you heard these one-liners recited ad nouseum?

“Israel is the only democracy is the Middle East.”

“You can’t trade land for peace.”

“We have to prevent another Holocaust.”

And then there’s my favorite: “Israel has a right to exist.” Does it?“No country has a right to exist,” proclaimed former CIA heavyweight Michael Scheuer during a 2010 C-SPAN interview.“The United States doesn’t have a right to exist. Britain doesn’t have a right to exist. Bolivia doesn’t have a right to exist! Countries exist if they can get along with their neighbors, if they have a thriving economy and a social system which is equitable. If countries have a right to exist, we would be resurrecting the Soviet Union, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and every other country that has gone down the tubes.”

That’s one way to put it. But I would argue that not only does Israel have no right to exist…it doesn’t exist. At least not according to International law. Why? Because although the UN General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine back in 1947, it was never ratified in the Security Council. Israel, therefore, is an illegitimate nation.

Furthermore, “when we think of Israel’s right to exist, we often think of the 1967 borders as though somehow it is written that when you discuss two states, the 1967 borders are what we are to discuss,” says human rights attorney Lamis Deek of Al-Awda New York. “Nowhere is that written. It is an arbitrary date picked on the date of another occupation. It could have been ‘48 or ‘47 or 2001. There’s nowhere that it says that we have to stick to the green line or the 1967 borders.”

Of course these are all legal arguments. Would I be forced to change my tune if Israel did obtain formal recognition by the UN? Certainly not. No outside entity has the moral authority to govern the indigenous population. Only the Palestinians have the right to control land that their ancestors have inhabited for thousands of years.

Anyway, back to clichés. It seems like every year or so, the Israeli Hasbara machine introduces a new phrase that is then picked up and recited by journalists and politicians. One of the more recent ones is that “President Obama threw Israel under the bus” when he recommended that Israel resume peace talks based upon 1967 borders. That really got the Israeli loyalists up in arms.

Of course Obama later backpedaled and proved to be the biggest obstacle to Palestinian statehood. “Peace is hard work,” Obama declared to the UN General Assembly last September. “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.”

As if that weren’t bad enough, he had to get down on his knees and grovel before his Zionist masters. “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable,” said Obama. “Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring.”

Obama certainly has not thrown Israel under the bus…but he should. As a matter of fact, Israel should be thrown from a moving train. After all, Israel is the engineer behind the controls of this runaway locomotive, and our politicians are the ones shoveling coal into the boiler.

Isn’t it high time we got our asses out of the caboose, jumped a few freight cars, and took control of this thing before it jumps the tracks?

ALL ABOARD! Next stop: New Hampshire!

Despite overseeing an industry that includes machine guns and other deadly weapons, ATF regulations for the manufacture of weapons are often unclear, leading to reliance on a secretive system by which firearms manufacturers can submit proposed weapons for testing and find out one at a time whether they comply with the law, critics say.

The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.

That process, known as “letter rulings,” results in various findings about what makes a weapon. Program critics, including the ATF’s former assistant director of criminal investigations, said one determination contended that a shoestring was a machine gun.

The letters are sent only to the person submitting the weapon, making it hard for other gun manufacturers, designers and dealers looking for guidance to make judgments about the agency’s evolving interpretations of the federal code. That lack of publication also means that no one knows when the agency issues rulings at odds with similar cases.

Read More…

When you read about discrimination in the information technology workforce, you’ll be reading about one of two things: about how one group of people is underrepresented in the workforce or how another group of people is funding themselves through programs that only benefit their group. Both stories are talking about discrimination, but only one of them is called discriminatory. The other? It’s usually applauded as ‘doing some good’ or as helping a group of people who are underprivileged.

Yet if you read about them the way I just described them, you can see that both are discriminating. When a group is underrepresented in a field of work, it could be because of discrimination. When a group is banding together to exclude other groups in order to promote itself, that is clearly discrimination. Yet when the stories are printed, it’s usually just the first thing that’s mentioned as discriminatory. The second is usually applauded as a good thing.

Let’s take a recent headline from popular tech blog TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/21/no-boys-allowed-women-innovate-mobile-accelerator-is-just-for-women/ ) and then switch some of the words around. You tell me why it is that one choice of words is seen as discriminatory while another is not:

No Blacks Allowed: Asians Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Asians

No Women Allowed: Men Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Men

No Hispanics Allowed: Whites Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Whites

No Christians Allowed: Jews Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Jews

Any of these four headlines can be seen as discriminatory because of the way they’re worded. After all, you’re clearly telling one group that they aren’t able to participate and that you’re promoting another group over them. The original headline, ‘No Boys Allowed: Women Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Women’ was a story about a startup incubator group started by three women who want to help other women get their businesses going. There’s nothing wrong with this: if you want to promote your group and do so by excluding all other groups, it should be your right to do so. But what if they’d been “white people” promoting only other “white people?” Would that change things for some reason?

Basically, my question is this: What’s the difference between promoting, say, Jews as a group versus promoting whites as a group? Why is one considered worse than the other? I personally happen to be of Russian heritage, yet if I were to begin an incubator, my headline would read like this instead:

No Idiots Allowed: Good Ideas Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Good Ideas

Read the rest at this link.

Remember how Tesla Motors’ CEO Elon Musk said that the company was looking forward from the uber-expensive, electrified Lotus that is the Roadster towards a future with a more affordable, family-style sedan?  This was to answer critics of the company’s low volume and high price tag on said Roadster as to the company’s true future.  It was also fed to the public as a reason the federal government should invest low interest loans in the company.

Well, Tesla Motors has now released final pricing for the upcoming Model S family car.  It’s base price?  “About half the Roadster” if you’re looking for a positive spin.  “$57,400? if you’re looking for reality.

Remember: that’s base price, not actual price.  Nobody ever spends base price anymore.  It usually gets you the lowest of the line with zero frills and only one key.  You pay extra for family keysets and a radio.  It’s how auto salesmen make their money.  Don’t forget the all-important undercoat spray either.

So the $57,400 price tag gets you a 160-mile (claimed) range in the Model S.  The Performance model with all the frills will be $79,900 and the realistic models fall in-between that at $59,900 and $69,900, depending on how big you want your batteries.

I’m sure there will be a soupy Brabus version eventually, probably for a cool $100k.  You know, in case you need some iPod docks and you want the motor painted a different color. Oh wait.. the “Signature Performance” is just about that price.

So over-paid CEOs, “green cred” sports figures and movie stars, and others with plenty of money to throw around: the Model S will be here in 2013, complete with government subsidy (er.. tax incentive).

The rest of us still don’t have access to an affordable, realistically usable electric car.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” – American Declaration of Independence

In striving to understand concepts, I’ve found that trimming away the excess and looking only at the basic principles involved, simplified for easy understanding, always gets to the truth of the matter.  Often, whether it be in science, religion, philosophy, or politics, the shape of the argument is convoluted because it centers on the various muscles, fats, and tissues surrounding the bone and sinew that make up the true structure of the matter.

By cutting away those excesses and looking towards the skeletal structure of the issue at hand, the arguments given by those involved are often found to be empty and without true meaning.  Debating, for instance, whether or not people should have cake in their diet ignores the fundamental question of whether or not people should have a choice in their own diet.  Quite often, issues in politics, especially, ignore the fundamental principle of self-ownership – you own yourself, I own myself.  Or do we?

“But let us remember, at the same time, government is sacred, and not to be trifled with.” -Jonathan Mayhew

Governments are often instituted in order to allow people to band together in a collective to accomplish common goals.  Usually these goals revolve around personal and community security – keeping one person from thieving from another, stopping violence, etc.  Some governments throughout history have been more successful at accomplishing these goals than others.  All of them have three things in common:

1. All governments are institutions of force; without force, they cannot exist.
2. All governments eventually grow in size and scope until they become untenable.
3. All governments are sooner or later usurped by those who wish to have power over others and use that power for their own gain.

Many may try to argue these three fundamental principles as I’ve outlined them, but none will be able to show, historically, where any government has not either been all three of these things or been usurped by one that was.

These three principles are actually circular.  The first creates the ability to have the second which then gives rise to the third, which reinforces the first.

All governments are institutions of force; without force, they cannot exist.

In order for a government to operate, it must be given power over the people.  How much power is a matter of conjecture at the initial institution of the government, but powers must be given to it all the same.  Without the power of taxation (a form of theft, more on that in a moment), of punishment (usually, fundamentally, for not paying taxes), and self-defense (meaning the ability to defend itself), governments are not possible.  Every government has these three things or it will be replaced with one that does.

In the American Republic, for instance, we began with the Articles of Confederation, which gave the federal government none of these three powers, reserving them instead for the individual states that were members of the federation.  While the states themselves survived, the confederation they’d made did not.  The U.S. Constitution was born and immediately endowed to the new federal government all three of the required powers.

Because government has the power to tax, punish, and defend itself, it is therefore an entity over and above any individual person.  I, as an individual, do not have the power to take anything from you, nor do I have the right to demand that you give anything to me or to punish you for not doing so.  I have only the right to defend myself should you attempt the same against me.  So as an individual, my most basic right is to defend what is mine from those who would take it away.

“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” -Abraham Lincoln

Unless those who want to take it are government.  Then my right to self-defense is, apparently, annulled, since my personal defense would potentially cause harm to the self-defense right of the government.

Looking at it this way, we see that government is given super-rights – rights that not only are over and above any rights an individual person would have, but that are actually of higher priority than the rights of an individual.  This makes government, by definition, a god.

At its most basic level, no matter the political type to which you refer, government is force.  It forces people to participate, takes productivity from them (taxes), and does not allow them to fight back against its use of force with force.

Of course, psychologically at this basic level, no human would accept this type of oppression.  So pretty words and phrases (nice ways of putting things) are used to describe it.  We are given “arbitration” means – always using government-installed rules – to air our grievances should government become too oppressive to us.  These are used as vents to keep the steam pot of revolt from exploding.

So the most basic rule of government – the easiest way to describe it – is to liken it to a gun.  Government is a gun and it must always be pointed at someone, somewhere, forcing them to comply.

All governments eventually grow in size and scope until they become untenable.

No matter how small their beginnings, governments grow.  Usually through bureaucracies.  These are the basic institutions which governments always give rise to.  The very founding document of the United States, the Constitution, in fact, creates several bureaucracies in only a couple of short pages of handwritten script.

“Bureaucracy gives birth to itself and then expects maternity benefits.” -Dale Dauten

With the basic powers given to it, as discussed, government will naturally grow and prosper because, like the plantation owner, it does not require only its own labor and efforts to sustain itself.  Its main sustenance is derived from the people who make up its tax base (its slaves).

Best of all, it employs some of those very slaves to act as enforcers over the rest of the slaves, thus giving the appearance that it is providing services (overseeing the slaves to make sure they are “safe”) when in reality all it actually does is police them to be sure they’re paying everything they can into the coffers of taxation.

Since it does not have to work to sustain itself and its tax base is required to labor for it, government naturally will grow fat and over-sized with time.

All governments are sooner or later usurped by those who wish to have power over others and use that power for their own gain.

Of course, as government grows, the power it wields attracts those who wish to use that power for their own ends.  Sometimes those ends are lusts for more power, sometimes for worldly gain, sometimes for (supposed) enlightenment, many times for nothing more than to have wielded such power to begin with – a sort of attempt at being a god.

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.” -Andrew Jackson

Today, we see this in action on many fronts in our own government.  Again, since government is legalized force, it will naturally attract those who wish to use force to their own ends.  Warfare, corporate monopolies, slavery, and all other wide-scale oppression requires government.  Without the super-rights given to government, these things cannot happen on any large scale.

Often, of course, the misnomer that only with the help of government can we be protected from those types of oppression is used to promote government as an ideal.  Yet, in history, no war, monopoly, or slavery has happened on any scale beyond an individual criminal without the aid of government to make them happen.

So government is evil.

The fundamental question must be asked and answered by each individual who would be ruled or be free.  The question is not whether or not you need government to protect you from others.  It’s really a question of whether you need government’s definite oppression in order to fight potential oppression.

The real bare bones of any government is not what type it is; socialist, democracy, republic or dictatorship matters not at all.  No matter the type, all government is force.  So the real question is: is the force necessary and just?  Regardless of what type of government is being proposed, the force it will have at its disposal will be more than any individual under that government will be able to wield alone.  Is that just?

Should one individual or group of individuals be given more power than any other?  When you get to the marrow of the thing, that is the true question of government.

“The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.” -Thomas Paine