Find us on Facebook too.
To Trevor Noah:
You sold-out, despicable clown. They bribed Ecuador with $4.2 Bn IMF loan. You put on CIA mole Ken Dilanian to smear Assange for your corporate masters, you wretched cocksucker. You claim “everybody hates Assange,” except for most of the world not being PAID to say otherwise.
At a campaign rally in Alabama, Trump professed his affection for the Saudi royalty and their money. “They are buying apartments and properties from me. They spend $40-50 million. I am supposed to hate them? I love them very much.”
Monsanto’s lies and its troll army are contradicted in no uncertain terms. They have monkeyed with science in numerous ways, and corrupted the process of ensuring food safety.
In our view, the science and the risk assessment supporting the Enlist Duo decision are flawed. The science consisted solely of toxicologic studies commissioned by the herbicide manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s and never published, not an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These studies predated current knowledge of low-dose, endocrine-mediated, and epigenetic effects and were not designed to detect them. The risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law. It failed to consider ecologic impact, such as effects on the monarch butterfly and other pollinators. It considered only pure glyphosate, despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the pure compound.
…This decision was made in haste. It was based on poorly designed and outdated studies and on an incomplete assessment of human exposure and environmental effects.
…National Toxicology Program should urgently assess the toxicology of pure glyphosate, formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides.
…Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops.
In the early days of the Iraq War, media analyst Andrew Tyndall examined 414 news stories aired by ABC, CBS, and NBC about the build up to the war, finding that 380 of them, a staggering 92%, sourced back to one of three U.S. government agencies: the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon. A further study found that of 574 stories aired between Bush’s speech to the UN in September 2002 and the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, only 12 stories, just 2%, dealt with the possible aftermath of the invasion.
New corporate news protection law seeks to leave bloggers and freelancers dangling in the breeze. Particularly Wikileaks will remain a target, and so will independent bloggers across the spectrum, such as yours truly.
Media giants put multimillion-dollar lobbying muscle behind shield law
The question of who would receive the additional legal protections as a “covered journalist” has become a contentious point, with bloggers and lawmakers taking umbrage at the idea of the government deciding who is and isn’t a legitimate reporter.
During the markup of the Senate bill, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the committee had entered “dangerous territory” by drawing lines between who does, or does not, qualify for protection.
“It seems to me the First Amendment protects the activity, not the employment status of the person engaging in it,” Cruz said.
It’s not often I agree with republican congressmen. But since Obama has openly turned to fascism and the sponsoring of terrorists, you take what you can get.
