Come, Look, See…


Kids Who Take Sexual Abstinence Classes…
April 13, 2007, 8:05 pm
Filed under: Government, Politics, Science

A newly released study has found that kids who take abstinence classes… (you ready for this?)… DON’T ABSTAIN!

And to think that Bush and Company puts in $176 million dollars of tax payers’ money ANNUALY toward a program that everyone but the ignorati knows doesn’t work.

The study found that those who attended abstinence classes averaged the same number of sexual partners than those kids who did not. In addition, the onset of sexual activity was no different. The abstinence class participants had sex at about the same age than the control group – 14 years and 9 months.

It should be obvious what BushCo will do in response to this new study – intimidate the researchers to shut their mouths, attack the credibility of the researchers, re-word the data in their favor and pump more money into abstinence programs.

For the full report go here.

Picture credit: David Honig
hypnocrites.blogspot.com

Advertisements


Operation Bite: War with Iran April 6, 2007
March 30, 2007, 9:48 pm
Filed under: Government, Politics

Russian sources report imminent war with Iran on April 6, 2007. I first read about this on governmentdirt.com, but it appears to have originated at the Online Journal. Let’s hope this is completely inaccurate.

Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn
By Webster G. Tarpley
Mar 26, 2007, 01:02

WASHINGTON DC, — The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.

“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.

Resources:

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html



Illegal Immigration
March 2, 2007, 4:15 am
Filed under: Government, Politics

This is the definition of a vicious cycle. We need to figure this out quick. Hopefully we can come to some resolve, and soon. For the sake and lives of those crossing, and for those of us here in the U.S. who are forced to support them. I understand why they come. They have nothing. I blame that on the caste system in Mexico. The white rich and mestizo poor. The poor are poor because their jobs just don’t pay. And those jobs are the same jobs that support our own middle class in the U.S. In Monterrey, for example, Mexico’s Rich Industrial Center, public school teachers get paid on average of $200-$300 dollars a month. That’s about $6 to $10 dollars a day. Even with a wall, they will continue to find ways to get into this country because their life depends on it. So what to do?

Below is a paragraph from Wikipedia on illegal immigration which illustrates the cycle well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

The United States Government Accountability Office estimates that “between 400,000 and 700,000 unauthorized migrants have entered the United States each year since 1992.” A substantial portion did so by crossing either the United States–Mexico border or the United States-Canada border.[4]

According to the Pew Hispanic Center somewhat more than half of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country illegally rather than overstay their visas, where “Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded or swam across the Rio Grande or American Canal in California or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada.” [5]

Stricter enforcement of the border has failed to significantly curb illegal immigration, instead pushing the flow into more remote regions, slightly reducing the rate of apprehensions and increasing the cost to taxpayers of each arrest from $300 in 1992 to $1700 in 2002. [6] Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as San Diego and El Paso, which do have extensive border fencing, diverting illegal immigrants into rural mountainous and desert areas. The border between Arizona and Mexico has become a major entrance area for illegal immigration to the United States, due in part to the increased difficulty of crossing illegally in California.[7] Each year there are several hundred immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border. The number of deaths has been steadily increasing since the middle 1990s with exposure (including heat stroke, dehydration, and hypothermia) a leading cause.[8]

The tightening of border enforcement has disrupted the “traditional” circular movement of migrant workers from Mexico by increasing the costs and risks of crossing the border, thereby reducing their rate of return migration to Mexico. The difficulty of the journey has prompted many migrant workers to stay in the United States longer or indefinitely.[9]



U.S. Law Allows Chemical/Biological Testing on You
February 9, 2007, 7:41 pm
Filed under: Government

And people say Chemtrails are a bunch of bullshit…

PUBLIC LAW 105—85—NOV. 18, 1997: USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.



Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage
January 19, 2007, 9:40 pm
Filed under: Government, Politics

Leave it to Republicans to speak for low-wage workers arguing against an increase in the federal minimum-wage. Instead of wallowing over their party’s loss of power in the U.S. House, (which by the way is the single best thing to happen to this country in 6 years), they should focus more on speaking to those whom their arguments most affect – the low-wage worker.

Raising the minimum wage is not an end-all solution; it is neither a blow to our economy as some would lead you to believe. Some have argued that a minimum wage increase would lead to layoffs and hurt small businesses because owners will not pay low-skilled workers $7.25 an hour. After the federal minimum wage increase in 1996-97, a study by the Economic Policy Institute failed to find “systematic or significant” job loss resulting from the increase. Instead, low-wage workers experienced growth in both employment and earnings opportunities, as was evidenced by lowered unemployment and poverty rates, increased family income and increased average hourly wages. Others argue that increasing the minimum wage will also increase prices for the consumer. This is true, although any price increase on goods will be modest. The same increase, however, will lead to more purchasing power for the low-wage worker who will buy many of the same goods which increase in price. The myth that most minimum wage workers are teenagers is also a misconception. In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute, 80% of workers whose wage would increase to $7.25 are adults (20 years and older). When all is said and done, four Nobel-prize winning economists (plus 558 other economists) agree that raising the federal minimum-wage is needed.

It is irresponsible to perpetuate myths which simply are unfounded and unsupported by research. Republicans need to stop with the partisan bias and focus on speaking the truth.



Pearl Harbor; We knew about this one too!
January 12, 2007, 10:04 pm
Filed under: Conspiracies, Government, Politics

Quick stats on Pearl Harbor:
– Pearl Harbor attacked Sunday, December 7, 1941
– Two waves of attacks: 7:49 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.
– First wave included 183 Japanese dive- and torpedo-bombers with zero escorts
– Second wave included an additional 168 Japanese planes.
– 18 operational warships sunk, including four battleships, sunk or damaged
– 188 aircraft destroyed
– 2,403 Americans killed (68 of them civilians)
– 1,178 Americans wounded

Many Americans are unaware that evidence regarding Pearl Harbor points to our government being fully aware of the attacks that were to take place on December 7, 1941. Much like the assassination of JFK and 9/11, “conspiracy theorists” (although in this case, the people uncovering the truth were less ‘theorists’ and more ‘realists’) have accumulated a wealth of evidence to support such a claim.

During that time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in a bind. An overwhelming 80% of Americans were opposed to entering WWII as an active participant. After Pearl Harbor, things quickly changed and Roosevelt gained wide support from Congress to declare war on Japan. Much like the aftermath of 9/11, however, questions around the attack immediately surfaced.

Why was America attacked? Was it avoidable? Were the Japanese going to attack again? Why didn’t our readily available Army and Navy commanders (Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter Short) fumble in their job to protect one of America’s most important naval bases? …and of course, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE?

Roosevelt was all too aware of the questions surrounding the attack and quickly summoned up a special commission to investigate. Big surprise! (Side note: The trend of creating “special commissions” didn’t begin here, but has come to be -just what you do- after shit hits the fan or to distract the public from the real issue – see Pearl Harbor, JFK, Watergate, Clinton-Lewinsky, 9/11, steroids and baseball…hell even the Bowl Championship Series gets a special commission in Washington! The sad thing is these commissions wouldn’t happen if the average American was smarter than our President and recognized them as what they are – smoke and mirrors. Again, I digress! Back to the topic.) Anyway the chair of this commission was Associate Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts. The interesting thing about this man is that he was the leading advocate of the Committee to Aid America by Aiding the Allies. It’s a no-brainer what happened next. The commission absolved any high ranking political and military members, except for two – Admiral Kimmel and General Short! Suffice to say, they were blamed for being unprepared, removed from their positions and demoted. It’s amazing the MacGyverish things you can do with smoke and mirrors, eh?

Back to the topic at hand. It’s widely known now that the U.S. had some vital information regarding an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. However, this information was not passed on to the Naval and Army commanders. The blunder of Pearl Harbor was originally blamed on political mismanagement of critical intelligence information.

This of course doesn’t explain why we did nothing to prevent Pearl Harbor, even in the face of intercepted Japanese messages (which were received in Washington as early as Dec 4th indicating failing relations and irreversible action against U.S. interests). The message in question is referred to the EAST WIND RAIN message, which Roosevelt and his cronies denied ever receiving. Chief Warrant Officer Ralph T. Briggs who was working at the Cheltenham, Maryland intercept station in late 1941 however, testified that he received the message, and Navy memoirs indicated that the message had even been received prior to him getting it. This testimony was backed up by a man named Captain Laurence Safford.

Whether or not our govt. knew exactly where Japan was going to attack remains unclear. But what is clear is that: there was no real urgency to alert the commanders at Pearl Harbor, our government did in fact know of an impending attack, our govt. knew who would attack us, and they very well knew where we’d be attacked (EAST! WIND! RAIN!). So Roosevelt and his buddies sat and waited for the attack and quickly used it as an excuse to go to war with Japan.

God, does history repeat itself or what?!

I’ll write a little more about this later, but alas, it’s time for me to leave work. 🙂 For more info, GOOGLE it!