Tell Us Why We’re At War, Candidates

By Peter Van Buren, The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

When I was a kid, successive presidents told us we had to fight in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, because if we didn’t fight them over there, we’d have to fight them on the beaches of California. We believed. It was a lie.

I was a teenager during the Cold War, several presidents told us we needed to create massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, garrison the world, maybe invade Cuba, fight covert wars and use the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with dictators, or the Russians would destroy us. We believed. It was a lie.

When I was in college our president told us that we needed to fight in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua or the Sandinistas would come to the United States. He told us Managua was closer to Washington DC than LA was. He told us we needed to fight in Lebanon, Grenada, and Libya to protect ourselves. We believed. It was a lie.

When I was a little older our president told us how evil Saddam Hussein was, how his soldiers bayoneted babies in Kuwait. He told us Saddam was a threat to America. He told us we needed to invade Panama to oust a dictator to protect America. We believed. It was a lie.

Another president told us we had to fight terrorists in Somalia, as well as bomb Iraq, to protect ourselves. We believed. It was a lie.

The one after him told us that because a bunch of Saudis from a group loosely tied to Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11, we needed to occupy that country and destroy the Taliban, who had not attacked us, for our own safety. The Taliban are still there 15 years later, and so is the American army. We believed. It was a lie.

via Tell Us Why We’re At War, Candidates

‘Stop watering our food with fossil fuel chemicals!’ Californians pressure governor to abandon practice of spraying crops with fracking wastewater – NaturalNews.com

by: Daniel Barker

(NaturalNews) California residents are gathering signatures for a petition calling for Governor Jerry Brown and the State Water Board to take action against the use of oilfield wastewater for food crop irrigation.

Concerned citizens gathered Saturday at grocery stores throughout the state, talking to fellow Californians about the issue and collecting more signatures for the petition, which has already been signed by more than 250,000 people.

The citizens are upset about the widespread use of minimally treated wastewater from oil drilling operations to irrigate food crops, the use of which they believe may pose serious health risks to consumers.

via ‘Stop watering our food with fossil fuel chemicals!’ Californians pressure governor to abandon practice of spraying crops with fracking wastewater – NaturalNews.com

Mass. Senate Passes 10-Year Fracking Moratorium

The Massachusetts Senate approved a bill yesterday to place a ten-year moratorium on fracking and the disposal of fracking wastewater in the Commonwealth.

“Across the country, fracking is polluting drinking water and making families sick,” said Ben Hellerstein, State Director for Environment Massachusetts. “We applaud Senate leaders for taking steps to ensure this dirty drilling and its toxic waste never come to Massachusetts.”

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a method of drilling that involves injecting millions of gallons of water, often laced with toxic chemicals, deep underground to fracture rock formations and release oil and gas.

In a single year, fracking across the country produced at least 14 billion gallons of wastewater containing toxic and often radioactive elements — wastewater for which there is no known failsafe disposal or treatment method.

Although fracking is not currently happening in Massachusetts, the Hartford Shale, a rock formation under the Connecticut River Valley, may contain deposits of gas suitable for drilling.

via Mass. Senate Passes 10-Year Fracking Moratorium

Could fracking be causing cancer? This experiment’s results say YES… and quite rapidly, too! – NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) According to statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas now powers about 33 percent of the US electrical grid, but the technique that’s used to extract oil from the ground today is much different from the drilling methods of the past. To speed up the process, a high-tech method was invented called high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. While we still call the end product “natural gas” there really is nothing natural about hydraulic fracturing.

Fracking uses high pressure, water, sand and a myriad of chemicals to fracture the rock up to 1,000 feet away from the the well, according to a study titled “Malignant human cell transformation of Marcellus Shale gas drilling flow back water.” Fracking is unleashed between 6,000 and 10,000 feet deep in the well, according to the study, and about 5.5 million gallons of water are used for each fracking well. The pressure causes fractures to form and forces water and chemicals back up to the surface. Between 30 and 70 percent of the water returns to the surface as flowback. This flowback water contains chemicals from the fracturing process and an unknown quantity of heavy metals and radioactive compounds that are destabilized underground during the fracturing process. This can cause heavy metals to contaminate rural wells, farmland and food.

So could fracking be causing cancer? A new study says, yes, and it could be happening much faster than previously predicted.

Source: Could fracking be causing cancer? This experiment’s results say YES… and quite rapidly, too! – NaturalNews.com

Week twenty of the Russian military intervention in Syria: a ceasefire and yet another huge victory for Russia | The Vineyard of the Saker

The recent agreement between the USA and Russia really solves nothing, it does not even end the war, and both sides are expressing a great deal of caution about its future implementation. And yet, this is a huge victory for Russia. While it is too early to say that “the Russian won in Syria”, I think that it is now fair to say that the Russian position on Syria has won. Here is why:First: nobody is suggesting anymore that Assad will be ousted or Damascus taken. That, in turn, means that everybody has now recognized that Syrian Arab Republic, backed by Russia, has successfully repelled the aggression of the huge coalition the AngloZionists built to overthrow Assad.Second: Russia has forced the UNSC and the USA to admit that the vast majority of those who fight Assad today are terrorist. Of course, this is not how this was declared, but if you look at the organizations which the UNSC has already declared as ‘terrorists’ then you already have an absolute majority of the anti-Assad forces. This means that the moral and legal legitimacy of the anti-Assad forces is lies in tatters.Third: regardless of what Erdogan does actually try to do next, there are now clear signs that neither NATO, nor the EU nor even the Turkish high military command want a war with Russia. And that means that Erdogan’s gamble has not paid off and that his entire Syria policy is now comprehensively dead. Keep in mind that following the treacherous attack on the Russian Su-24 the Kremlin made it a policy goal to “Saakashvilize” Erdogan. This goal is now almost reached and Erdogan’s future looks very, very bleak: everybody ( except maybe the Saudis) is sick and tired of this maniac. The best thing which could happen to Turkey now would for the military to get rid of Erdogan and to replace him with somebody willing to repair all the damage he did.Fourth: all the threats to impose a no-fly zone or to occupy Syria have now been invalidated by an agreement which basically declares that anybody not respecting the cease-fire is a legitimate target for engagement and destruction.

Source: Week twenty of the Russian military intervention in Syria: a ceasefire and yet another huge victory for Russia | The Vineyard of the Saker

Week Eleven of the Russian Intervention in Syria: a step back from the brink? | The Vineyard of the Saker

By The Saker

This has been an amazing week. While last week I concluded that “The only way to avoid a war is to finally give up, even if that is initially denied publicly, on the “Assad must go” policy”. Now it is true that various US officials, including Kerry, did make statements about the fact that Assad need not go right now, that a “transition” was important or that “the institutions of the state” had to be preserved, but of course what I, and many others really meant, was that the US needed to fundamentally change its policy towards the Syrian conflict. Furthermore, since Turkey committed an act of war against Russia under the “umbrella” of the US and NATO, this also created a fantastically dangerous situation in which a rogue state like Turkey could have the impression of impunity because of its membership in NATO. Here again, what was needed was not just a positive statement, but a fundamental change in US policy.

There is a possibility that this fundamental change might have happened this week. Others have a very different interpretation of what took place and I am not categorically affirming that it did – only time will show – but at least it is possible that it has. Let’s look at what happened.

First, there were some very unambiguous statements from John Kerry in Moscow. The most noticed ones were:

“As I emphasized today, the United States and our partners are not seeking so-called “regime change,” as it is known in Syria” source.

“Now, we don’t seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy, no” source.

via Week Eleven of the Russian Intervention in Syria: a step back from the brink? | The Vineyard of the Saker.

Israel Key Link in Exporting ISIS Oil – YouTube