When a woman stays in an abusive violent relationship, societies won’t simply declare that it must be inconsensual and illegal.



Societies will ask the woman first whether she wants to stay or not. Yet when a woman happily chooses to share a rich smart male, be a prostitute or concubine, societies simply say that it’s so bad it must be inconsensual, and it must be illegal.

When a woman gets stuck in a bad marriage with a violent, financially irresponsible male, societies do not say that it’s because she must have ended up that way due to lack of better choices (which is really the case actually). However, when a woman gets paid a lot of money for becoming a nude model, or become a concubine for a rich smart male, societies simply presume that the woman is a “victim” and the reason why such women do that is due to lack of choice.

Also, why women are blamed for wanting to switch to other males?

If you go to a restaurant and you see other better restaurants, of course you move out. Of course better restaurants will attract more customers. Of course the other restaurants are not going to admit that their restaurant is worse. They’ll simply say that you must have done something unethical or whatever.

It’s all under our nose. None of those freedom restrictions are there to protect women. It’s all there to ration them.

It’s the same reason why many successful minority groups, like the Jews in Europe, the Chinese in Indonesia, the capitalists in US, are prosecuted. Because women prefer the rich and the smart.

The Jews are richer and smarter.

Envy is simply the preference to get rid superior competitors. That’s why monks in China and Europe don’t get married. So high IQ people don’t make kids.

That’s why education is the main way to control population. So the number of kids produced correlate negatively with IQ. That’s also why child support laws demand money proportional to a man’s wealth, to prevent rich males from making too many kids. And that’s also why we have anti polygamy, anti prostitution, and anti free sex laws (in many countries).

And that’s also why we have religions, to give faith-based justification for political decisions that many people really want but too ashamed to tell, extermination of those more capable than them.

That’s also why Hitler was popular. And that’s also why when you go to church, mosque, or any popular religion the first thing they taught is not “Thou shall not steal” but “Don’t have free sex”.

Freedom means competition. Some people are uncompetitive. So religious leaders get popularity by embracing prejudices all those uncompetitive people cherish.

When this comes up, Da Vinci Code will not look very significant.

This is science, not some spurious conspiracy theory. You can check our credible references in http://GenePoolSurvivalGuide.com

You’ve heard all the debates between creationists, and those that support evolution theory. The public know just the scratch. The whole social structure will change.

Many have pointed this out. Yet people don’t bother pointing out where evolution theory is. They are just going to come up with pretext to silence the scientific truth, whatever.

Well, Copernicus doesn’t get believed in a day simply because he did the Math right doesn’t he?

About the Author: Jim Thio is a silver medalist in International Physics Olympiad. He’s learning evolution theory to understand humans nature and make humans happier. He visions a better world where the productive make more kids and the parasites get more cash.

Source: www.isnare.com

One day I was tuning up and down the radio dial as I drove down the Interstate. Time after time, I landed on talk shows featuring callers that were simply dismayed at the direction America is going.



They were frustrated that so many important issues were either being glossed over or ignored by federal, state, and local government. It was clear that a great many people were highly concerned, yet felt helpless to do anything about it.

That’s when I decided to design some t-shirts with patriotic messages and try selling them at public events. Boy did it work! Typically we set up our tent and sell dozens of shirts to people who thank us right and left for putting their feelings into words on a t-shirt they can wear and be proud of.

And that brings us to an even more important point. Americans have a FIRST Amendment RIGHT to speak their minds. It’s not the Fifth Amendment or the Thirteenth Amendment — it’s the FIRST and perhaps most important.

But while speaking our minds is clearly at the foundation of what it means to be Americans, the vast majority of us feel we can’t make a difference. Therefore, we don’t even try.

Over and over I hear from people who are fired up about major issues, yet keep their thoughts to themselves. Often they mistakenly feel they’re the only one who feels that way.

After wearing one of my shirts they quickly see the purpose of our tees to stem the tide of division and empower those who are willing to STAND.

Instead of everyone going their own private way, concentrating on being politically correct, you have people enthusiastically sharing ideas, passions, and concerns. And you know what, folks? That’s where real solutions come from.

We shouldn’t plug away at our lives while we trust all the important issues to the government. There are a lot of good people in government, but they don’t have all the good ideas. And government, by its nature, can’t solve problems well WITHOUT the help of its citizenry.

So speak up! Write a letter to the editor, call a radio talk show, put up a website, and tell others what you think. And most important call your elected officials to let them know you’re alive and well. You will feel better. You will have more impact. And you will be living the life of a truly patriotic American.

About the Author: John Hackett is a fired-up American and founder of http://www.VoiceOfAmericaTees.com See his creative collection of attractive t-shirts that address a patriotic view on all the major issues of our day. Now you can wear a shirt you’ll be proud of. Reach John at firedup@voiceofamericatees.com.

Source: www.isnare.com

Many environmental protection lawsuits turn on the question of who has standing; are the legal issues limited to property owners, or does the general public have a right to intervene?



Environmental protection law is a body of law, which is a system of complex and interlocking statutes, common law, treaties, conventions, regulations and policies which seeks to protect the natural environment which may be affected, impacted or endangered by human activities.

One of the earliest environmental protection lawsuits to establish that citizens may sue for environmental and aesthetic harms was Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, decided in 1965 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The case helped halt the construction of a power plant on Storm King Mountain in New York State.

The Environmental Movement has three main roots: Conservation of natural resources, preservation of wilderness and the movement to reduce pollution and improve urban life.

Some people are skeptical of the environmental movement and feel that it is more deeply rooted in politics than science. Although there have been serious debates about climate change and effects of some pesticides and herbicides that mimic animal sex steroids, science has shown that the claims of environmentalists have creedence, that we are indeed experiencing human-induced climate change, and that there are serious side effects in the over-application of pesticides and herbicides.

Largely due to this political critique and confusion, and a growing concern with the environmental health problems caused by pesticides, some serious biologists and ecologists created the scientific ecology movement which would not confuse empirical data with visions of a desirable future world.

However, the environmental movement today persists in many smaller local groups, usually within ecoregions, furthering spiritual and aesthetic values which Thoreau or those who rewrote Chief Seattle’s Reply would recognize.

The visions and confusions, however, persist. The new tribalist vision of society, for example, echoes the concerns of the original environmentalists to a degree. And the more local groups increasingly find that they benefit from collaboration, e.g. on consensus decision making methods, or making simultaneous policy, or relying on common legal resources, or even sometimes a common glossary.

Despite all the political talk and dispute among environmental groups; we can all agree on one thing: Each individual must take good care of mother earth while he or she is here – a borrowed time that eventually is passed on to the next generation.

Thank you for your time.

About the Author: Find more information about Environmental Protection on the Environmental Protection website. Check it out!

Source: www.isnare.com

There is a lot of talk lately about immigration. I can hardly pick up a copy of the news without reading some headline story about the latest government position on the immigration issues our country is dealing with. Every political leader has a different perspective on how our country should be handling the issues ahead of us.



I, for one, have a hard time seeing our country become so divided over things that clearly do not matter when there are much more significant things happening in the world. I get frustrated seeing our nation divided about immigration when there are hundreds of thousands of people starving and dying of preventable diseases in many countries of the world. We like our American society just so and no one from the outside is allowed to come in and interrupt how we like it.

As a columnist for my local newspaper, many people have been asking me to write a column on my opinion about the immigration controversy that has been happening lately. I have been hesitant to write on the issue simply because I have had a hard time entering a debate that I am not sure qualifies as a real debate. On the one hand I can see why immigration is an issue we need to deal with. I am in full agreement that we must do all we can to protect the citizens of America. On the other hand, I think we would do well to remember that at one point or another, all of the families that call themselves American were at some point immigrants to our land.

How then, can we take a nation that is relatively so young and one whose citizens all originated from other lands and all of a sudden put a standard upon who can and cannot enter and live in our lands? When did we, as American citizens and even the American government, earn the right to choose who should be allowed to become part of our nation and who cannot?

If we take a serious look at the effects of immigration on our current society, we will likely see just as many benefits of immigration as we see problems. There is no doubt that people who come to America through immigration perform jobs that many Americans are unwilling to do. These jobs are vital to our national economy and well being, and therefore we need to think before we act to strictly on immigration.

The bottom line for me is that people have value. We need to care more about the health and lives of people than we care about whether or not they are disturbing us. We need to give everyone, whether through immigration or not, an equal chance to enjoy the freedoms we love.

About the Author: Triston Huntsmin loves to write for his local newspaper. He is hesitant, however, to enter debates such as the one on immigration in the U.S. See www.findimmigration.info for more.

Source: www.isnare.com