[Login / Register]

Menu

Forums

error

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/11/2016 1:57:45 PM
	Here’s What The Media Won’t Report About The Dakota Access Pipeline Opposition NOVEMBER 9, 2016 By Chris “Kikila” Perrin There is an ongoing clash in what is known as North Dakota; an event that is more than simply a protest, it is an intersection of many different ideas and values that transcend the issues that appear to be at the fore: water, land, and oil. One of the unfortunate side-effects of this growing intersection is that the deeper meaning, the long-standing issues that have contributed to the confrontation, are being ignored and therefore forgotten by the press, and by those who rely on the popular media for information. By framing discussions and reporting of the Dakota Access Pipeline and Water Protectors from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their supporters as a legal question, the mass media not only overlooks the colonial and assimilatory aspect of such arguments, they actively participate in them. That a definable rule of law, as codified by a judicial body and overseen by agents of that body (often a police force), is universal and, therefore, universally applicable, let alone fair, is acolonial construction. As actions in and around Cannon Ball escalate, there is a growing discussion in the popular press as to the legality of these actions. Treaty rights, private property, and violations like trespassing have all become central issues to how the grievances of the Water Protectors and their allies are being portrayed, particularly on the ground, ignoring the very idea that the imposition of a colonial legal structure is, by its very imposition, an act of colonization. Pre-Columbian North Americans were not a lawless group, despite such portrayal. Nor are their descendants. What was at issue during the early stages of colonization was the inability for Euro-North American governments to recognize indigenous concepts of law (Sally Falk Moore, Law as Process: An Anthropological Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Introduction). Imposing Euro-American legal structures on Native Americans not only created the conditions for dispossessing indigenous peoples from their traditional lands, it also set the stage for all future arguments. Basically, in creating a legal system in the European model, the U.S. is able to choose the language of all conversations it has with Native land defenders, and Native territorial disputes. It has been suggested in the press that the treaty governing the disputed territory opens the land to development, and that the Water Protectors and their allies are misinformed. Other articles argue that eminent domain was never employed in this area, pointing out that much of the property in question is private. In what is typical of the propaganda rhetoric offered by the mainstream media, it is what isn’t said, or omitted, that needs clarification. Private property, insofar as this context is concerned, is a colonial import, making the point moot when talking about industrial development. That the press and conservative commentators point to the rule of law and legislation by an assimilatory judicial body as justification for continued dispossession, and the unending marginalization of alternative systems of justice, forces the conversation to take place within the colonial framework. As police escalate the violence at encampments near Cannon Ball in what can only be described as the next wave of cultural genocide through Manifest Destiny, aspects of the greater conversation over assimilation and colonialism remain off the table. At the very least, grassroots and social media have forced the issue into the mainstream. At most, the way this moment in history is represented, and the conversations this action is producing, are not addressing the underlying issues that continue to undermine reconciliation, leading to an even greater divide between the colonial government and its marginalized and forgotten citizens. This article (Here’s What the Media Won’t Report About the Dakota Access Pipeline Opposition) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Chris “Kikila” Perrin and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com. (activistpost.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/11/2016 3:00:49 PM
	Assad Adviser Says We Are In A Time That Will Determine The Future Of The World NOVEMBER 10, 2016 By Brandon Turbeville As the war in Syria continues to rage on, it is becoming more and more obvious that the battle taking place is about much more than Syria as a country. In this place, the cradle of civilization, there are now two warring ideologies. One that demands total fealty and the absence of all dissent, and one that believes a nation’s people should decide for themselves the direction of their country. One ideology wants to force its hegemonic world system upon all other nations, and the other contends that nations should choose their own direction. This is not to argue perfection on the part of Syria or Russia by any means. But it is a reality nonetheless. Even in the United States itself, a battle is raging that will determine whether or not the country will continue to march forward in totalitarianism and decline or whether individual choice and high living standards will rule the day. The elections have been, of course, merely a manifestation of the most vile elements of American society and the battle continues on despite the result. Those vile elements are exactly those which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s political and media advisor addressed when she recently took to social media to condemn Western policy in Syria. But it was not only the foreign policy of proxy wars that Bouthaina Shaaban condemned, it was what she described as an attitude of “racism” and “supremacism” that accompanies those policies. Shaaban wrote, In a world where lies and rumors replace facts, and become central to the corporate media narrative; in such a world you only feel absolute comfort when you sit down with friends, allies, and partners who share your principles, values, and ethical standards, and do not dispute the fundamentals of your principles and objectives. As you go smoothly through the meeting’s agenda, simply because everyone means what he says and does what he promises, you start thinking about the difficulties you face with the other side, and you remember that the reasons behind the pointless discussion with their officials are lack of honesty and the contradictions between their true motives and what they express in public. Right there, you sense what is wrong with our world today, and what is the main source for the troubles we face, ranging from wasting time in pointless discussion all the way to the loss of innocent lives, the destruction of countries, and denying entire generations the right to education and a free and dignified life. The foreign ministers of the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran met in Moscow, and it was clear that all of them are departing from a deep belief in the sovereignty of states, a rejection of foreign intervention, the right of people to decide their fate away from foreign dictates, a rejection of land grab by force, and absolute solidarity with peoples suffering injustice and the loss of their rights. And when the discussion is based on such principles, and on the unity of ideas, values, and ethics, it is not too difficult for such a discussion to reach important strategic conclusion, which would shape the future. In such a meeting, hegemonic, colonial, and superior attitudes are completely absent; and you start to remember how hateful the racist approach present in meetings with Westerners, which demands you to prove your innocence at every juncture, thus robbing you of your humanity and your right to be treated equal, which should have been a nonissue in the first place. In the Moscow meeting, I saw the coming world in which our children and grandchildren would live, a world devoid of racism; a world in which politicians, the media, and all people are honest and respectful of all human beings regardless of race, gender or creed. A world, all the inhabitants of which, wherever they may be, feel a sense of belonging and share a stake in its preservation and progress. A world in which everyone accepts and cherishes the different cultures and languages, and sees them as a gift from God rather than a pretext for national and racial supremacist claims. For despite all what Westerners and their media claim, the truth is that Western treatment of all other countries is a racist and supremacist treatment that seeks to advance the interests of theWest at the expense of the rest of the world. Looking at this coming world, I feel that the sacrifices of our martyrs and wounded were not only for us, but also for all mankind, for a better world and a better future. Looking at this future world, I am certain that we are living in a difficult phase of history resulting from the difference between what the West says and what it does, because it is fighting to preserve its colonial ways and its preferred methods of humiliating, destroying, and looting other peoples for its own benefit. Looking at the future of our children and grandchildren, I feel that the battle we are fighting today was inevitable, and that it is for the greater good and for a better future for the coming generations. In this rich and constructive meeting in Moscow, I felt that the entire world is uniting to reject once and for all the concept of hegemony, and to reconstruct international relations on the basis parity, of respect, and shared interests. Wherever I go, and whenever I write, I never forget to pay homage to the souls of our martyrs, and wish a speedy recovery to our wounded brave soldiers, because their blood and suffering are the torch that lights the path to freedom and dignity. I also do not forget to salute everyone who believed in the inevitability of victory, despite all the difficulties, and worked hard to achieve this victory, offering his life, money, effort, and prayers. As for the traitors, culprits, war profiteers, and those who call on the enemy to invade their country, they will be forgotten and they will never appear in the pages of history ever again. Shaaban seems to be picking up on what many people are also starting to surmise, i.e. that we have entered a time that will determine the direction of the world and the planet on which our children and our children’s children will live. We will be the ones who determine their future. Many activists have had this feeling for some time and many people who are only tangentially aware of the political sphere are feeling it, too. Shaaban is speaking not only of her country but of the world; and the people of the world would do well to recognize that what is happening in Syria will, in one way or the other, affect us all. The battle for Syria is not a Syrian fight alone, it is a fight for the future of the world. This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link. (activistpost.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/11/2016 4:30:10 PM
	PUTIN IS ENCOURAGED, ASSAD IS SAFE WITH A WEAK AMERICA The direct link between a surge in Syrian refugees and the U.K.'s Brexit vote is clear. BY FREDERIC C. HOF ON 11/11/16 AT 8:10 AM Civilian Casualties in Aleppo Offensive This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council site. Those who advocate modest military measures to stop or at least slow the mass murder of Syrian civilians by Russia and its Assad regime client should not evade the patently unfair question they are often asked: "Are you willing to risk World War III?" As important as it is to defend civilians—for both humanitarian and policy reasons—the answer, of course, must be no. And even if world war is a remote possibility, any circumstances possibly bringing the armed forces of nuclear powers into contact are troublesome. But what of those who use the World War III ploy to argue for continued American passivity (coupled with soaring, empty rhetoric) in the face of defiant, unspeakable atrocities executed by those who have come to count on total impunity? Are they answerable for nothing in terms of risk? If Russian President Vladimir Putin concludes, on the basis on American behavior in Syria, that Uncle Sam is an empty suit—willing to talk about everything but stand for nothing—is that a risk-free outcome in Syria and the world beyond? If anything at all has been learned from the past five years of Levantine murder and mayhem, it is this: What happens in Syria does not stay in Syria. Even if it did—as Obama administration senior officials hoped it would, way back when—American passivity in the face of mass homicide would still have raised questions and inspired objections, both moral and policy-related. But nothing about this abomination has been contained within Syria, other than a ruling family and an enabling entourage preserved by Russia and Iran. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stands beside his wife, Asma, in Damascus, on March 21. Frederic Hof writes that Vladimir Putin and Iran's supreme leader have wanted Assad in power much more than Barack Obama has wanted him out. SANA/REUTERS Consider the spillage. Syria's neighbors (including a NATO ally) have been overwhelmed with refugees and beset by economic challenges. Western Europeans—all allies of the United States—have felt a migrant crisis largely fueled by Assad regime atrocities undermine their unity and roil their politics, all to the undisguised delight of Moscow. The direct line between a hemorrhage of humanity from Syria and a vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is clear. Yet there is something even more menacing for the world beyond Syria: lessons Putin may be learning from Syria to be applied elsewhere. What, after all, has Putin seen in the course of this crisis? He saw an American president call on Bashar al-Assad to step aside and then do nothing even to marginalize Syria's ruling family and its criminal entourage. He watched a "red line" drawn rhetorically, one warning ominously of serious consequences for chemical warfare. He saw the line blurred with up to a dozen Assad regime chemical attacks ignored until the big one killed over 1,400 people. Then he witnessed the line's erasure, as the promise of military strikes on the murderous Assad regime was abruptly revoked, without reference to senior American defense and foreign policy officials and with no advance warning at all to allies. When President Barack Obama cited the red-line climb-down as his proudest Oval Office moment, one can only imagine what Putin was seeing and thinking. What is Putin hearing and seeing now, more than a year after intervening militarily in Syria? He has been warned by his American counterpart that he has entered a quagmire: an elegant, self-serving exercise in mirror-imaging by someone overseeing a desultory military campaign of sorts against the Islamic State group (ISIS) in eastern Syria. As his aircraft terrorize anti-Assad civilians by pounding their hospitals, schools and even a United Nations relief convoy seeking to feed them, Putin receives an empty-handed American secretary of state imploring him to take pity, to fight Al-Qaeda instead and to oblige his client to do as President Obama asked of him over five years ago and step aside. Given what Putin sees and has seen, is it unreasonable to assume that when he catalogues American performance in Syria he draws conclusions about the United States that transcend Syria? When Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in early 2014, was the “red line” episode of the previous summer not instructive? As Russian military aircraft skirt and penetrate NATO airspace, do we whistle past the graveyard assuring ourselves that American and European performance in Syria does not encourage and energize Russian assertiveness? As the Kremlin plays cyberwarfare games inside the American political system, is there not a hint of contempt and a modicum of impunity coming through? What is it exactly about the performance of the United States in Syria that would give Putin pause anywhere else? When his air force deliberately struck a Syrian rebel unit trained and equipped by the United States, was he impressed by the words of protest? Does he have any reason to think he is acting recklessly anywhere? Putin is an opportunist trying to make domestic political hay from the impression that Russia is back as a military superpower. There is danger he could go too far. He may well think that Uncle Sam is an empty suit. The discovery of his error could be a costly undertaking, and not just for him. A similar Kremlin miscalculation over a half-century ago led to the Soviet insertion of missiles into Cuba and a hair-raising nuclear crisis. The bureaucratic restraints on a dice-rolling Russian leader then do not seem to be in play now. If Putin decides to play with fire, set aside for a moment his personal calculations about Washington. Who in the Kremlin will slow him down? For the people of Syria, for Syria's neighbors, for American allies in Europe, and for the Obama administration, Syria has been the problem from hell. Yes, Obama really did want Assad to step aside. Yes, the president sincerely thought a verbal warning would be good enough to prevent chemical attacks. Yes, he and his secretary of state truly believe—and are absolutely right—that Assad is a de facto ally of and a recruiter for ISIS. By basing his political survival strategy on collective punishment and mass homicide, Assad de-legitimized himself and made large parts of Syria safe for ISIS and for other criminal bands. Still, Putin and Iran's supreme leader—for separate but compatible reasons—have wanted Assad in power much more than the Obama administration has wanted him out. Russia and Iran have been willing to do the heavy lifting in Syria in spite of their client's incompetence and his symbiotic relationship with ISIS. For all of Assad's downsides, he serves Putin's domestic interests in projecting a grand Russian comeback, and he serves Iran's regional interests by subordinating his slice of Syria to Tehran's proxy (Hezbollah) in Lebanon. There is nothing in Syria as destructive as the Assad family and its entourage, and yet the United States has spent quality time over the past five years building rhetorical mountains and doing policy backflips while carping about an imperfect Syrian opposition and complaining about American partners and allies pursuing, in the absence of American leadership, their own agendas. The sheer volume and eloquence of talk about the inadmissibility of mass murder, the requirement for accountability and justice and the connection between children dead and ISIS alive may impress those whose lips are moving. But verbosity has had no operational companion. Washington proclaims the abomination that is Syria and then stands to the side as Assad and his enablers do their worst to Syrians, to Syria's neighbors, to Western interests, and to the conscience of humanity. As Russia, the regime, and Iran create military facts by terrorizing children and their parents, the leaders of a hollowed-out West intone piously about there being no military solution for Syria: a nonexpiring permission slip for doing nothing while people die. None of this goes unnoticed by Putin. One hopes and prays he sees Syria as the Obama administration does: a one-off phenomenon that means nothing anywhere else. One believes and fears this is not the case. Respect for Russia should be a cardinal principle of American foreign policy. Reciprocity is required. Yet with a cynical, opportunistic risk-taker like Putin in the Kremlin, it has to be earned the old-fashioned way. Those of us who beg this administration, in its dying days, to end the free ride for mass murder in Syria both to protect innocent civilians and to resurrect the prospect of a negotiated settlement, cannot pretend that the Russian presence changes nothing; that somehow only the operations of the Assad regime are to be complicated and damaged by actions we recommend. We cannot discount the risks of escalation, even in the context of overwhelming American military superiority. If Obama gives Syrian rebels with whom we have worked effective antiaircraft weapons, or if he hits regime helicopter bases with cruise missiles, we cannot assume that Russia—based on what it has seen over the past five years—will not respond and escalate in the expectation that Washington will fold, quickly and unceremoniously. Indeed, this expectation—systematically (if unintentionally) implanted in Putin's psyche—may constitute the greatest escalatory risk of all. But those who have, albeit inadvertently and with the best of intentions, transmitted messages of American weakness, confusion and doubt to the likes of Putin also bear an explanatory burden. They have left millions of Syrian civilians defenseless and have placed at risk the credibility and reputation of the United States in the process. They have much to answer for. But first things first: Explain to your countrymen how you are not putting global security at risk by acceding to mass murder in Syria and by encouraging Putin to think he faces an empty suit. And in so doing, please: Do not try to attach the specter of World War III to those who have urged, in the context of Syria and for over five years, a convergence of word with deed. Frederic C. Hof is director of the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. (Newsweek)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/11/2016 5:33:50 PM
	WHY GERMANY AND OTHER eU COUNTRIES CAN NOW DEPORT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AFGHANS BY MIRREN GIDDA on 11/10/16 at 8:00 am Hofmannstrasse 69, in the German city of Munich, looks like most other office complexes. Once the headquarters of the German engineering giant Siemens, the rectangular, white building is now home to 680 migrants waiting for the German government to decide their future. Among them is 30-year-old Abdullah (not his real name), his two brothers, his wife and their three children. The family—who asked to remain anonymous because their asylum application is ongoing—arrived in Germany in September last year, after fleeing the Afghan capital of Kabul. The Taliban, Abdullah says, had begun sending him death threats because of his work as a journalist. (Abdullah, who asked to keep his newspaper’s name anonymous, wrote many articles critical of the group.) Eventually, in the summer of 2015, the Taliban tried to kill him, he says. “I was in the car with my father and my brother on the way to work,” he recalls. “A bomb went off in front of our car, by a mosque.” The three men survived, but Abdullah was shaken. He decided he couldn’t stay in Afghanistan any longer. Abdullah and his family have managed to put 3,700 miles between them and the militants. A new EU agreement, however, gives Germany the power to undo all that. On October 2, after months of negotiations, the EU and Afghanistan signed a migration deal, known as the Joint Way Forward, which allows member states to deport an unlimited number of Afghan migrants back to their home country, unless they have permission to remain in Europe. (Although the Taliban and the Islamic State militant group, also known as ISIS, are fighting for control of different parts of Afghanistan, EU member states classify many Afghans as economic migrants, meaning they don’t have the right to asylum.) EU countries were already able to deport Afghan asylum seekers before they signed the agreement, but they required the cooperation of the Afghan government to do so. That often delayed the process and effectively limited the number of Afghans the EU countries could send back home. Under the terms of the deal, member states will be able to deport migrants faster and in larger numbers. The agreement even says that the EU and Afghanistan will together “explore the possibility to build a dedicated terminal for return in Kabul airport.” (The EU will also develop and fund reintegration programs for the deported Afghans.) Days after Afghanistan and the EU signed the deal, they co-hosted an international conference in Brussels with the goal of raising funds for Afghanistan. During the summit, the EU and its member states pledged to give $5.6 billion in aid to the country over the next four years, prompting Amnesty International to criticize the bloc for apparently paying off Kabul to take back its migrants. “Trading Afghan government acceptance of returned Afghan nationals for humanitarian and development aid is an absolute disgrace,” the human rights organization said in a statement. “This represents another dark moment in EU foreign relations.” The EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Federica Mogherini, denied the accusation. “There is never, never a conditionality link between our development aid and whatever we do on migration,” she said at a press conference. Back in March, however, it looked as if the EU was planning on linking these two issues. On March 3, Statewatch—a nonprofit that monitors civil liberties in Europe—obtained an EU memo discussing Afghan migrants. The document, which makes several references to the Joint Way Forward, notes: “The State Building Contract for EUR 200 million in preparation [which was agreed to at the Brussels conference] is intended to be made migration sensitive, probably through one indicator linking it to the Government’s policy on migration and return and possibly to the implementation of the ‘Joint Way Forward.’” Speaking to Newsweek , a spokeswoman says the memo was intended as a brainstorming document rather than a policy paper. Although the EU has distanced itself from the memo, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier seemed to reference its stance during the Brussels conference. Germany’s financial contribution, the minister said, was conditional on Afghanistan’s “cooperation in the area of refugees and migration.” His words highlight a shift in Germany’s migration policy. Once one of Europe’s most generous nations—taking in more than a million refugees in 2015—the country is no longer so welcoming. Germany was one of the main countries pushing for the agreement, partly because it is struggling to house and process the influx of refugees it has received over the past few years. In 2015, 1.1 million asylum seekers entered Germany, of which some 154,000 came from Afghanistan. Migrants queue outside the Berlin Office of Health and Social Affairs (LAGESO) for their registration process in Berlin, Germany on December 9, 2015. That year, 1.1 million asylum-seekers arrived in Germany, seeking refuge.FABRIZIO BENSCH/REUTERS These new arrivals threatened to overwhelm the country, and across Germany, public support for welcoming asylum seekers dropped. In October 2015, British polling company YouGov conducted a survey that found a majority of Germans (55 percent) believed the number of migrants in the country was too high. By January 2016, this figure had climbed to 62 percent. (As of October, 58 percent of people polled by YouGov thought there were too many migrants.) A key reason for this rise, according to YouGov : a series of sex attacks in the German city of Cologne on New Year's Eve. Around 650 women have since reported that men, described as being predominantly of North African and Arab heritage, sexually assaulted and robbed them. In an interview with German newspaper Bild , the country’s justice minister, Heiko Maas, said he believed the attacks were coordinated. “ If such a horde gathers in order to commit crimes, that appears in some form to be planned,” he said. Violence is another factor. In July, hostility toward asylum seekers worsened after migrants carried out two separate attacks in the German towns of Ansbach and Würzburg. (An Afghan migrant was responsible for the assault in Würzburg; ISIS claimed responsibility for both incidents.) In total, the assailants wounded 20 people. Some Germans have blamed Chancellor Angela Merkel for the attacks. On September 4, her party, the Christian Democratic Union, came in third in her own constituency in regional elections. In second place was the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland, a former fringe party that has won significant public support—in Merkel’s district it took nearly 21 percent of the vote—for its anti-immigration stance. Two weeks later, in Berlin’s regional elections, Merkel’s party suffered another defeat. The Christian Democrats won just 17.6 percent of the vote, its worst resultsince the end of World War II. Speaking after the loss, Merkel acknowledged voters’ anger over her migration policies. “If I could, I would turn back time by many, many years to better prepare myself and the whole German government for the situation that reached us unprepared in late summer 2015,” she said. The chancellor has now abandoned her rallying cry of “ Wir schaffen das ” (“We can do this”). On October 9, she embarked on a three-day trip to Africa and warned would-be migrants against coming to Germany. “ It is often young people in particular who embark on the journey to Europe with totally false perception," she said in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. “They are prepared to put their lives at risk without knowing what awaits them or whether they will even be allowed to stay.” Those words could also apply to Afghans seeking asylum in Germany. As many face the prospect of deportation, aid organizations have warned that Afghanistan cannot take in more returnees. Already, fighting has uprooted about 1 million people from their homes, with thousands living in makeshift camps around Afghanistan. Many of these people lack running water, electricity and access to health care. In September, the U.N. made an urgent appeal for $152 million to help care for the country’s displaced people. (At the time of this writing, the U.N. had not secured these funds.) The number of displaced people in Afghanistan is likely to grow. In June, Pakistan’s federal minister for states and frontier regions, Abdul Qadir Baloch, told the news site Irin, which reports on humanitarian crises, that Islamabad wanted the country’s Afghan migrants (who number 3 million) to leave by the end of the year. Baloch called on the Afghan government and the international community to assist in repatriating these people. So far, 370,000 Afghans have returned from Pakistan this year, some to areas under Taliban control. U.N. agencies have said they expect 600,000 Afghans to return from Pakistan by the end of the year. Joining them in Afghanistan will be the rejected asylum seekers from Europe. EU member states will fly many of the migrants into Kabul’s airport and leave them to make their way home or remain in the crowded capital. Though the city is safer than many other parts of Afghanistan, it is hardly risk-free; on October 11, unidentified attackers killed 14 Shiite Muslims at a shrine in the western part of the city. Abdullah is afraid that if German officials don’t believe his story, he will soon find himself on one of those flights. If he and his family are sent back, he says, the Taliban might learn of his return and threaten him again—or worse. Abdullah thought that Germany would offer him safety. Now he fears it will betray him. (Newsweek)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+2

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/11/2016 11:46:22 PM
	BRIEFLY Stuff that matters DAVID VS GOLIATH Shutterstock California county bans fracking, even though big oil spent big money to stop it. In a rare bit of good environmental news, voters in California’s fourth-largest oil-producing county passed a measure to ban fracking and other fossil fuel extraction techniques. Proponents won even though oil companies outspent them 30 to one. “David beat Goliath in Monterey County’s stunning victory against oil industry pollution,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “This triumph against fracking will inspire communities across California and the whole country to stand up to this toxic industry.” Fracking, the process of extracting natural gas from underground, emits high levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. It also contaminates ground water, has been linked with a variety of health effects, and is connected to the emergence of thousands of earthquakes in the midwest. Fracking remains popular in other parts of the country. In Colorado,voters approved an amendment supported by the oil and gas industry that will make local fracking bans harder to pass. Katie Herzog 1 day ago (GRIST)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

My Links