The EPA conducted unlawful experiments on humans, then lied about it and tried to cover it up.
The Nuremberg Code; the Helsinki Accords; the Belmont Report; and U.S. common law, statutes, and regulations, to include state laws and the Federal Code “Common Rule” and EPA rule 1000.17, all prohibit human experimentation that might cause harm to the subjects. Human risk can be considered only for the researchers themselves in circumstances where the research is essential and vital. The civil or criminal offense of human experimentation that risks harm to the subjects would be either exposure to harm or the fear of harm by infliction of mental distress if subjects found out that the public position of the EPA is that small particles are toxic and lethal and cause cancer. Which lie to believe? That is the twist – you can’t make these things up.
In 2011 and 2012, Milloy and Dunn wrote letters to the EPA, the NIH journal editor who published the article, the EPA inspector general, and the federal Office for Scientific Integrity. They wrote to all the physicians in Congress, all the deans of the ten domestic medical schools doing human experiments, and state medical boards in North Carolina and Michigan, all attempting to stop the human experiments.
The authors have written about the EPA project of research that exposed human beings of all ages, even children, to that same small particle air pollution to see if they could cause some harm. EPA sponsorship of these studies at ten domestic and six foreign medical schools was admitted under oath by an EPA official, Wayne Cascio, M.D., and it is unethical and illegal.
And when they got caught, they hired another agency to conduct an “investigation,” (cough… cover up … cough) by forming a committee stacked with EPA cronies and apparatchiks.
A college diversity
weenie activist at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh (Annual cost of attendance: $48,796) thinks gay students will be traumatized by the presence of a Chik-fil-A in a campus food court.
“I’ve tried very hard within the last semester and a half to promote this safe environment for the LGBTQ community. So I fear that with the Chick-fil-A being in Options [an on-campus food court] that maybe people will feel that safe place is at risk,” Rachel Coury (President of the Duquesne Gay-Straight Alliance) explained, adding that at the very least her organization would like “someone” to “make a statement” on the issue.
“It would be a really big deal for Lambda [Gay-Straight Alliance] and the whole LGBTQ community on campus if someone could make a statement to eliminate the fear of being marginalized by having this business on campus,” she said.
At least United Airlines Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Customer Service has produced some hilarious memes. I am kind of eager to see how the tactic of bringing up the victim’s past bad behavior (swapping prescription drugs for gay sex) works as a PR strategy.
I have been a bit gob-smacked by people in web forums and on social media defending United Airlines violent removal of a passenger from a flight from Chicago to Louisville. Some say, “That’s the policy. When an authority figure tells you to get off a plane, you must do as you are told.” One person even said the passenger was “trespassing on private property,” so removal by force was warranted.
Contractually, United was within their legal rights since every ticket they issue contains a provision allowing them to kick a passenger off any flight for any reason. Legally, United was within their rights to use local law enforcement to strong-arm a passenger off of its aircraft. (Their right to leave said passenger bloodied is a bit more of a gray area.)
But this is a question of business practices, not rights. A restaurant can theoretically use force to remove me from a table in the middle of a meal if a higher-paying customer demands my table. If they do, then I can decide never to eat there again, and to publicize the incident so that others may decide not to eat there as well.
United overbooked the flight, then boarded it anyway. (Screw up). After the plane was full, they discovered they needed more seats to move a flight crew to Louisville. (Screw up) They did not offer passengers sufficient compensation to entice enough of them to give up seats. (Bad decision). They did not look for other ways of getting their crew to Louisville; such as another airline, or a flight to a nearby city. (Bad decision). They resorted to the use of an arbtirary system (bad policy) to choose a passenger to be forcibly removed. They then dispatched law enforcement personnel (bad decision/bad policy) who ended up physically assaulting a passenger who did not want to give up the seat he had paid for. Then, facing a PR backlash, they weaseled and attacked the passenger … again (bad decision).
United maybe didn’t violate any laws, but their handling of this episode was wretchedly bad. And they fully deserve the backlash they are getting. The flying public is now aware that if they buy a ticket on United, they have no guarantee of keeping their seat, and they can be bloodied and dragged out of the plane by armed guards if they object. They can make their purchasing decisions accordingly.
An interesting question from pawfurbehr:
What do you think the future will be for gays 20-30 years from now?
I think part of the answer to that will depend on how much success the Left has with their project of importing millions and millions of Islamic Supremacists into Western countries for purposes of Demographic Realignment.
But, that aside, I think it would be nice if gay culture just went away. If gays could just melt into the societal mainstream and abandon the tribalism and identify politics.
What do you think?
V just nailed it, in another post:
“Those ignorant bitter-clinger hicks in flyover rust belt states hate women and are so stupid they fell for Russia’s tricks,” is the essence of [the Left’s explanation for the 2016 election].
In other words, saying “Russia hacked our election”…
- …is an insult – to the American people. That’s one thing wrong with it. But, there’s more.
- No one ever disputes that the DNC and Podesta e-mails that came out, were genuine. In other words: the hacking/leaking gave the voters true and relevant information about a major candidate’s wrong-doing and shady dealings.
When I was a kid, we had the original “-gate” scandal. It was this thing called Watergate. One of Watergate’s lessons, supposedly, was that if a major politician is up to no good, it doesn’t matter how the information comes out. It’s only important that it comes out. So that the voters will know.
Whoever leaked the DNC and Podesta emails didn’t “attack” or “harm” or “undermine” our democracy. They enhanced it. *Because* the information was 100% true and relevant in this case, the hackers/leakers did our democracy a big favor. Whoever they were.
- And, if we are supposed to worry about interference in our elections/democracy, then…
- What about Hillary’s dependence on Saudi Arabian money? Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-gay and anti-woman countries on Earth. Can we talk about how Saudi Arabia has hacked our democracy?
- Why don’t we talk about Bill and Hillary hacking our democracy, with their massive pay-for-play corruption and scandals? Or Hillary’s cheating in the debates? (part of what the e-mails exposed)
- Why don’t we talk about the Controlled Media hacking our democracy, with their tyranny of Fake News?
Remember the endless drumbeat about how Hillary is up in the polls, Hillary has it locked, Hillary is 95% sure to win. All that was Fake News intended to depress non-Hillary voters. That is: To suppress voter turnout!
Hey, why don’t we talk about the known, active collusion in 2016 between the Controlled Media and Hillary campaign operatives?
- Why don’t we talk about George Soros and the Left hacking our democracy, with all their paid/staged protests, violence, trolls and astro-turfing?
- Why don’t we talk about U.S. interference in other countries’ elections? The CIA has interfered in German media and every German election since the end of World War II. Is Angela Merkel, then, illegitimate?
- Last but not least, let’s cover the reasons why Russia could easily NOT have had any part in the DNC or Podesta e-mail hacking/leaking.
- The evidence that it was Russia was always shaky, and still is.
- Wikileaks says flat-out that their source wasn’t anyone connected to the Russian government.
In 10 years, they’ve always published real stuff and been fairly truthful. So, I’m not going to ignore their story.
- Julian Assange has implied that his source was Seth Rich, a murdered DNC insider.
Of course I’d feel better if Assange would say it outright; but I can understand his reluctance. (Don’t mess with an ongoing police investigation, don’t burden Rich’s family with publicity, etc.) Assange went pretty far, in implying it.
- Wikileaks VAULT 7. We now know that the CIA often hacks into things – whether for spying, or mischief, or setting up a long-range manipulation – and leaves Russian fingerprints deliberately to mislead people.
That means something. Sadly and from now on, it means we can never automatically believe the U.S. intelligence agencies when they say “Russia did it”, about any hacking episode, ever.
Anytime someone says to me “The intelligence agencies all say it was Russia”, I say “Whoa. Have you heard of Vault 7? the Umbrage group? the Marble program? Look it up. And know that all bets are off.”
If I missed another good reason, please add it in the comments.