Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Cannabis (Hemp) Cures Cancer - "Run From The Cure" The Rick Simpson Story

One of the big problems we face today is the fact that the big drug companies (BigPharma) have set out to stop all natural medicine remedies that they cannot produce, because they are not patentable.
This cure for cancer fits into that category, and the video shows exactly why this conspiracy to deny health without profit for them needs to be stopped.
Publicity is the best way to expose corruption, and this is corruption of the highest level, so I post this on the hub, knowing that Hub Pages receive 20 million hits a month, so just maybe some folk will see this, and by linking, Stumbling, using social network sites and emailing links, we can put this information into the lives of those who may benefit FREE OF CHARGE from this remedy that could and should be available to everyone.
Please view this video in it's entirity, and act as you feel that you should.
Government have shown us that they are NOT reliable to safeguard our health, that they have conspired with the drug and food indutries to ensure profit takes precedent over health.
But we, the people, can defeat this conspiracy by civil disobedience, your disobedience starts by consuming what the video shows us, and ensuring that the information is passed onward, and that we expose the conspiracy against natural health that has now reached critical levels.
Below the video we will look at Codex Alimentarias, a set of rules that will in time stop all natral medicine being used in the world.
Thank you...


Codex Alimentarias

Codex alimentarius is one of the major bodies behind the effort to limit access to nutritional products and information.
Its motivation is not rocket science and neither is the source of its funding - money that somehow expected to return a profit to its members . . .
Most of the information available regarding codex alimentarius refers to its role in the USA, but it is not a US-specific body.
Far from it, Codex has wiggled its dirty little tentacles into just about every national or international body concerned with public health.
Posing as a benefactor, it then uses its significant financial and political clout to do its masters bidding.
What can we expect under Codex?
To give you an idea, here are some important points:
  • Dietary supplements could not be sold for preventive (prophylactic) or therapeutic use.
  • Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages. Only the drug companies and the big phytopharmaceutical companies would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products (at inflated prices).
  • Prescriptions would be required for anything above the extremely low doses allowed (such as 35 mg. on niacin).
  • Common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug, even benign everyday substances like water.
  • Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding (escape clauses would be eliminated).
  • All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.
  • Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labeling.
OK, now hopefully we have your attention, so lets move onwards.
Scripture predicted these changes in these last days, and 'pinned the tail to the donkey', when it named it the 'Doctrine of Devils' - that is; a doctrine designed and applied that is inspired by Satan not God.
Who do you want in charge of your health... God or Satan?


Australia’s refugee ‘solution’ is a national disgrace

By Francis Wade Jun 27, 2011 3:34PM UTC

Australia-Malaysia refugeesThe Australian government’s apathetic treatment of refugees and asylum seekers has long been a blot on its record – an irony given the historical make-up of the country and its rulers. Any hope that the new Gillard administration would reverse the hawkish policies of former prime minister John Howard, who championed the island gulags that hold thousands of refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma and elsewhere, has been short-lived – Gillard, herself a Welsh immigrant to Australia, is pushing ahead with a plan to send hundreds of refugees to Malaysia, one of only a handful of countries not to have ratified the UN refugee convention and which is therefore not bound by international laws dictating how refugees should be treated.
Forgetting the hypocrisy of Canberra’s attempts to deny those in need asylum (Gillard arrived in Australia aged four after doctors in the UK prescribed a warmer climate as a cure for a bronchial condition), there is real concern about the conditions that the 800 refugees earmarked for the ‘Malaysia Solution’ will be forced into. Nearly 170,000 refugees and asylum-seekers “come to Malaysia seeking safety, having fled situations of torture, persecution or death threats,” said an Amnesty report last year. “But once they arrive, they are abused, exploited, arrested and locked-up – in effect treated like criminals.”
The 800 leaving Australia for Malaysia are mostly ‘boatpeople’ who have washed up on Australia’s shores only to be detained in over-crowded, high security centres on Christmas Island or onshore camps, where some have been known to stay for as long as five years. They are the victims of Howard’s strengthening in 2001 of the government’s mandatory detention policy, which allows for indefinite detention of unauthorised persons, including children (something that the ruling Labour government, which used as an election stick criticism of the ‘children behind razor wire’ practice of Howard, spoke out against in the run-up to the 2007 vote).
By inking the deal with Malaysia, Gillard has violated Australia’s obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Article 33 states that “no contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his (or her) life or freedom would be threatened”. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has already said the move is illegal, and Australia’s parliament has rejected it, but that matters little – it is effectively a done deal, Ian Rintoul of the Refugee Action Coalition told DVB earlier this month.
Every now and then, a detainee in one of these Australian centres erupts in a fit of frustration, and for a brief period draws attention to conditions in the camps – earlier this year a man from the Rohingya minority in Burma attempted to set himself on fire in a Darwin camp; last week another Burmese man went on hunger strike. Other nationalities populating the camps have fled war and persecution in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere; now bound for Malaysia, they will be sent to the back of the immigration queue and forced to go through the interminable trials of registration. During that uncertain period, “they face the daily prospect of being arrested, detained in squalid conditions, and tortured and otherwise ill-treated, including by caning”, says the Amnesty report, followed by a precarious life within the bounds of strict immigrant laws.
Gillard et al are using the initiative as a warning “not to get on that boat” – continual acceptance of refugees would also “send the wrong message” to the people smugglers who facilitate these perilous journeys across seas, they say. Some observers claim it is a populist appeal aimed at harnessing support from Australia’s growing anti-immigration lobby. Regardless, Gillard chooses to ignore the end-results of these policies – a striking show of callousness and hypocrisy given her background.

USA "Blackmails" UN. - General Assembly can nullify "VETO POWERS" under "Uniting for Peace" mechanism

The US could withdraw funding from the United Nations if its members decide to recognise and independent Palestinian state, a close ally of President Barack Obama has warned.

By Jon Swaine, New York and Adrian Blomfield
The US could withdraw funding from the United Nations if its members decide to recognise and independent Palestinian state, a close ally of President Barack Obama has warned. Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the UN, said there was "no greater threat" to US support and funding of the UN than the prospect of Palestinian statehood being endorsed by member states.
Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian authority, plans to ask the UN general assembly, which comprises all 192 members, to vote on recognition at its annual meeting in New York in September.
The US and Israel are pressing Mr Abbas to drop his plans. Mr Obama has strongly opposed the move, raising the prospect of a veto in the UN Security Council, which is expected to vote on a Palestinian statehood proposal in July.
But Palestinian officials have spoken of their determination to a circumvent a US veto by deploying a rarely used Cold War mechanism known as "Uniting for Peace" under which a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly can override the Security Council.
Although Palestinians believe they are close to securing such a majority, the General Assembly does not have the power to confer UN membership on a new Palestinian state, meaning that a successful vote would represent little more than a symbolic triumph.

Even so, Republicans in the US Congress are promising to react aggressively to any approval of statehood. Two congressmen have already vowed to initiate bills to withdraw UN funding in the House of Representatives.
Such a development could be devastating to the UN. The US provides almost a quarter of its $2.5 billion (£1.6 billion) annual budget, making a yearly contribution of almost $600 million (£375 million).
Speaking at an event in Washington, Miss Rice said the Obama administration was devoting "extraordinary efforts and energy" to restarting middle-eastern peace talks so that a vote in September could be avoided.
On the prospect of it being approved, she said: "This would be exceedingly politically damaging in our domestic context, as you can well imagine.
"And I cannot frankly think of a greater threat to our ability to maintain financial and political support for the United Nations in Congress than such an outcome".
A video of Miss Rice making the comments has been removed from the internet.
Attempting to play down their significance, a spokesman for the ambassador said: "These were informal remarks in a domestic setting."
The US is desperate to avoid being put into a position of having to wield its veto. With growing international support for Palestinian statehood, even in Europe, the US is looking increasingly isolated in its support for Israel and a veto would badly damage Mr Obama's credentials in a rapidly changing Middle East.
But the president faces a politically damaging backlash from the pro-Israeli lobby and its many supporters in Congress if he does not block a resolution, a move that could also cost all-important Jewish votes in key swing states like Florida during next year's presidential election.
Mr Obama has already angered the Israeli government and its US supporters by calling for a Palestinian state that roughly corresponds to the existing boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel occupied after the Six Day war of 1967.
The move was intended to rejuvenate the stalled Middle East peace process.
But Palestinian officials, in public at least, say they remain committed to a UN vote as the only realistic way of breaking the deadlock.
Western powers have backed a two-year Palestinian state-building programme that reaches fruition at the end of August. It has already been judged a success by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and Palestinian officials say it would be hypocritical for the West to back the state-building exercise but not its "logical outcome".
Britain has indicated that it would not join the US in vetoing Palestinian statehood in the Security Council. But David Cameron is also hoping to avert a highly divisive vote in the general assembly.
"The question is whether we can do anything that might deflect the Palestinians from going ahead with this," a British diplomatic source said.
Some Palestinian officials have conceded in private that they do not want to fall out with Mr Obama and are working on ways to resume peace talks with Israel and postpone a statehood vote.