Friday, November 22, 2013

Why Life Is Hell for ‘Pet’ Fish

Avatar of Whitney-C

Posted November 15, 2013 by Whitney Calk
Before I knew any better, I used to beg my parents to buy me “pet” fish from pet stores. We’d bring them home and dump them into a probably-not-big-enough tank—and for some reason, we found joy in watching them swim in pitiful, endless circles.
Back then, it didn’t occur to me that there was anything wrong with condemning a tropical animal, who would swim freely in nature with no boundaries, to life in a 10-gallon glass prison. As it turns out, there is SO much wrong with it.
Now, we know that puppies, kittens, birds, and other animals sold in pet stores come from “puppy mills” and other mass breeding facilitiesBut where do fish in pet stores come from?

Saltwater Fish

Ninety-five percent of saltwater fish sold in stores are captured from the wild.
Fishers douse the coral reefs with cyanide, which is ingested by the fish who live there, and as reported in Scientific American“[t]he resulting asphyxiation stuns some fish and sends others into spasms, making them easy to grab by hand or net.”
Half the affected fish die on the reef, and 40 percent of those who survive the initial poisoning die before they reach an aquarium.

Freshwater Fish

Approximately 90 percent of freshwater fish are raised on farms. Goldfish, for instance, are usually bred in giant tubs in facilities that produce as many as 250 million fish per year.
These animals are sold to pet stores and other shops, and many are doomed to live in plastic bags or bowls, neither of which provides them with the space or oxygen that they need.


Pet stores like to promote betta fish as easy “starter pets” who are able to survive and thrive in extremely tiny containers with only a few inches of water to swim around in.


Betta fish are native to Asia, where they live in the shallow water of rice paddies, ponds, or slow-moving streams. Since the water is shallow, it is also warm, which is why betta fish in captivity require a minimum of 10 gallons of water in an aquarium that can be kept heated to at least 75 degrees.
Oh, and if you’re wondering how they get to pet stores, here’s your answer:
bettas pet store
Bottom line: Buying any animals, including fish, from pet stores supports industries that treat animals as nothing more than merchandise and sends a message that animals’ lives are only worth what we’re willing to pay for them.

Please don’t buy fish or support pet stores that sell them.

Read more:

Wednesday, November 20, 2013


HUNTER LIE #1 We help animals by keeping their populations in check. If we didn't kill them they would starve from overpopulation. FACT If this were true, there would be piles of evidence [bones/bodies] all over the planet in places where hunters have historically found the habitats and animals too inaccessible to kill. The world would have heard these stories each time scientists discovered closed, ecological loops--islands--of which there are 10s of 1000s on Earth. The biological reality is that if left alone, animal species regulate themselves. These 'controlling' elements are based primarily on food supplies and weather. Conditions which trigger hormonal responses in the females of non-human species. These responses determine whether the offspring will be male or female; how many babies a given animal will have; or if indeed they will have a successful pregnancy at all. Factor in disease and natural die-offs, and if hunting were never undertaken again, the environment would, for the first time in hundreds of years, function as the perfectly synchronized interdependent system Mother Nature intended. "Dis"harmony--overpopulation--is CAUSED BY HUNTING. Species will adapt to FILL a void. These 'voids' are caused by Fish and Wildlife policies which encourage hunters to decimate natural predators, i.e., cougars, coyotes, wolves, etc.-- a standard practice of wildlife "managers" throughout the world. Obviously once predators are removed, if food supplies are plentiful and weather conditions favorable, an overpopulation problem is created. However, if conditions are NOT favorable, a massive environmental disaster, resulting in the starvation of animals targeted by such "management" methods becomes the reality. Wildlife officials KNOW FULL WELL they are manipulating prey species to the point of overpopulation by killing off their natural predators. This is done out of A) GREED. Hunting licenses and other hunting-related revenues bring big bucks into local, state and federal coffers. Because state and federal wildlife "management" are completely CONTROLLED by hunters whose interests are 100% self-serving. The non-hunting public is totally disregarded, and their tax dollars hijacked for wildlife mass murder, with estimates as high as nearly 5 BILLION animals slaughtered annually by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. HUNTER LIE # 2 Without the money we contribute, many of the areas which exist for animal populations wouldn't be there. FACT Every single taxpaying citizen supports our National Parks system, and ALL OTHER PUBLIC LANDS. Hunters contribute with revenues generated by hunting licenses and other hunting related usage fees. Whatever hunters provide in fees is minuscule in relation to what they COST the U.S. taxpayer. POACHING IS RAMPANT. Multiple billions are spent--annually--in manpower and on the increasing decimation of protected and endangered species from hunters' criminal activities, which far outweigh the comparatively tiny contributions of hunting licensing/usage fees. The taxpaying public and wildlife are continually egregiously abused for the sole benefit of hunters. 50% of federally funded wildlife "refuges" regularly allow trapping/hunting within them. This disenfranchises the non-hunting public from enjoying these lands and bastardizes the purpose of wildlife "refuges" which were created to PROTECT the inhabitants. The average taxpayer is forced to support these refuges, which in turn SUBSIDIZES hunters--not the other way around. If most hunters had to purchase this same acreage and maintain its wildlife, few would have the where-with-all to do so. Without taxpayer funding, these wildlife refuges would not exist, and neither would the land hunters exploit at the public's expense. The war on our wildlife is an elitist's game, fully SUBSIDIZED by the abuse of taxpayer money to the tune of BILLIONS annually. HUNTER LIE #3 We are avid environmentalists and conservationists. FACT Hunters claiming to be "caring" environmentalists because they help support green spaces [so does every taxpayer] is like saying you're pro-animal because you support slaughterhouses. Perpetuating the existence of animals for your own benefit [via artificial overpopulation] at the expense of their pain, suffering and death does not make you an environmentalist--only a malevolent opportunist. Hunting/poaching ranks second behind habitat destruction, as the leading cause of global, non-human species loss. Hunting is nothing short of ecological rape and the deluded and depraved partaking in such selfish acts of bloodlust can find no HONEST justification for their crimes. Copyright C 2011 Brennan Browne Shared from Google Keep

Thursday, November 14, 2013

The 16 Stages of Going Vegan

Posted November 13, 2013 by Annie Leal
1. You've spent your entire life relying on this theory:sassy liz meme

It’s OK—we forgive you. But seriously, what were you thinking?

2. So when you see this, you just laugh:

3. But then you start thinking, “Wait, what if these people are actually right?”

search bar animal feelings

4. You manage to push the thought aside, but days later, you stumble onto a video about factory farming.

You cry for about 12 minutes straight, then decide that you want to help animals by going vegan.

5. But WTF does that even mean?

vegan meaning

6. You’re a little intimidated at first, but the food in the photos looks delicious, so you decide to give it a try anyway.

vegan food gif

7. You tell your friends on Facebook, and their reaction is: “WUT?”

head no

8. You tell your family members, and they immediately label it as a phase.

annie's parents
Whatever. You’ll prove them wrong.

9. But then dinner time rolls around, and you can’t think of anything to make. 

empty sad fridge                                                                                Photo by: Dave Gingrich | CC by 2.0

10. You start freaking out, but then you remember reading that Oreos are vegan.

You survived this night.

11. But what are you going to have for breakfast? Human beings can’t survive on Oreos alone!

You decide to make your first trip to the grocery store in search of vegan goods. And then it happens: You see the window with the most beautiful view!
vegan meat in grocery store
Who would’ve thought that your local grocery store sold vegan meat?!

12. You start discovering magical vegan products that just blow your mind.

Vegenaise love letter image
Every time someone opens a jar of Vegenaise, a baby unicorn gets wings.

13. Your friends are impressed that you’ve lasted so long, but they decide to test you by inviting you out to eat. But you’re not even worried because you’re quickly becoming a master at finding vegan food anywhere.

vegan food everywhere
Check out our vegan restaurant guide!

14. Thanks to you, one of your friends decided to give being vegan a try, and you’re like:

Sean dancing gif
“Dude, nutritional yeast will CHANGE YOUR LIFE!”

15. You master answering every vegan myth question imaginable.

“But what the f*ck do vegans eat?!”

“People can’t be vegan. I mean, where will you get your protein from?”

Oh, and this chart pretty much sums all of them up: 
vegan pie chart

16. You realize that helping animals was the best decision that you ever could’ve made.

peta animal rights vegan clothing hooded sweatshirt

Not vegan? This is your chance!

go vegan pledge

Read more:

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

VICTORY *THIS PRACTICE IS NOW PROHIBITED* Cruelty Behind the Mask of Jakarta’s Monkey – A Life Of Torture & Begging



The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 10/22/2013 11:17 AM | Jakarta
The Jakarta Animal Aid Network (JAAN) welcomed the decision by Governor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to prohibit topeng monyet (masked monkey shows) across the city by next year.

“We are very happy with this decision because we have been fighting against this practice since 2009,” JAAN founder Femke den Haas said on Monday. 


Petition Target: Embassy of Indonesia, Indonesian Ministry of Environment Sponsored by: Animal Advocates Masked street monkeys in Jakarta, Indonesia are forced to wear bizarre costumes and give street performances as their owners collect money from spectators. The emaciated long-tailed macaque monkeys are made to wear doll masks, wigs, and clothes and perform human tasks such as riding bikes, rocking horses and scooters. Many are brutally trained to walk upright by being hung upside down, or having their hands tied behind their backs. In the first two weeks of being trained to perform cruel circus activities, countless monkeys suffer incredibly and die. Animal activists in Jakarta have said the practice is cruel, and illegal. We ask the Indonesian government to stop this exploitation.

This Monkey is nursing its young child and made to have a hideous mask on her head and beg for money.

These innocent sentient beings are taught through violence & fear; nothing but cruelty. 

The training is against the law and less than half of the monkey’s that undergo the training process survive to entertain. The monkey trainers simply say that life is hard in Jakarta.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Saving Greys: Candidates from the Left and Right Support Greyhou...

Saving Greys: Candidates from the Left and Right Support Greyhou...: Since the very beginning, our fight to pass greyhound protection laws has been a bipartisan effort. We are supported by lawmakers on both t...

Friday, August 2, 2013

Pet ID: A1267083

Please someone go and get this guy he is an angel: Pet ID: A1267083 Sex: M
Age: 3 Years Color: BLUE - WHITE Breed: PIT BULL Kennel: 287 OC Animal
Shelter 561 The City Drive South Orange, CA 92868 *714-935-6848* Sunday
through Saturday - 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM

Monday, July 29, 2013

Monday, July 22, 2013

Animal Research is Scientific fraud

  • Vivisection or Science: A Choice To Make
     - By Prof. Pietro Croce - Excerpts from Croce's book of the same name, in which the former animal researcher details precisely why vivisection is unscientific and misleading.
  • The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket - Part Two - By Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research - Exposes the massive fraud in drug testing that ensures the survival and proliferation of the highly dangerous and profitable drug industry.
  • The Controlled Clinical Trial: An Analysis - By Harris L. Coulter PhD - Review of the book of the same name, in which the author critically examines the usefulness of randomised clinical trials. His thorough research reveals why the "controlled clinical trial" (CCT) cannot guarantee drug safety and efficacy.
  • Can Human Medicine Be Based On Veterinary Medicine? - By Javier Burgos, SUPRESS/The Nature of Wellness - Outlines basic arguements on why animal-based research is counter-productive to human medicine.
  • A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation - By Medical Research Modernization Committee - The animal research community wishes the public to equate animal experimentation with medical progress, but increasing numbers of scientists and clinicians are challenging animal experimentation on scientific grounds.
  • Doctors Against Vivisection - Quotes by doctors denouncing the scientific validity of animal research. Excerpted from the book 1000 Doctors (& many more) Against Vivisection, (Ed. Hans Ruesch), CIVIS, 1989.
  • DBAE's Third International Scientific Congress - For the first time, lawyers joined doctors to seriously question the validity of animal experimentation in relation to human health at Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments's Third International Scientific Congress, London, 10 May 1995.
  • Why a Coalition of Doctors and Lawyers? - Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, an alliance of medical and legal professionals, was formed out of Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments's 1995 international scientific Congress, at which medical speakers were joined by lawyers.
  • Cancer Research - A Super Fraud? - By Robert Ryan BSc, CAFMR - Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?
  • Oink if You Are For Organ Transplantation - By Javier Burgos, SUPRESS/The Nature of Wellness - Argues against the madness of transplantation in general, and xeno-transplantation, or interspecies transplantation, in particular.
  • Baboon-to-Human Bone Marrow Transplant: Another Bloody Mess - By Hoorik Davoudian BSc, SUPRESS/The Nature of Wellness - Explains the absurdity and hopelessness of this FDA approved experiment.
  • A Guide to The Problems With Animal-to-Human Organ Transplants - By Alix Fano MA, Murry J. Cohen MD, Marjorie Cramer MD, Ray Greek MD, and Stephen R. Kaufman MD, Medical Research Modernization Committee - There have been some 55 animal-to-human whole organ transplants attempted since 1906. All have proven unsuccessful, resulting in the suffering and death of all patients and donor animals.
  • Doctors and Lawyers Unite to Oppose Transgenic Transplants - Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine called for a moratorium on transgenic transplants.
  • Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud - By Hans Ruesch - Review of the book of the same name, which exposes vivisection as the racket that has become an endless source of profits and new diseases. The book explores the history and activities of the Drug Trust, an American-based, international drug cartel.
  • Why Do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill? - By Robert Ryan BSc, CAFMR - Deaths due to the intake of pharmaceutical drugs have reached epidemic proportions. Is this because drugs are fraudulently tested?
  • Animal Experimentation: The Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution - By Hoorik Davoudian BSc, SUPRESS/The Nature of Wellness - Exposes the scientific fraudulence of animal research and shows how it is routinely used and manipulated to make toxicants appear "safe" for human consumption. For a review of the book, click here.
  • Slow Learners Or What? - Excerpted from the New York Times - Environmental regulation in the United States has been thrown into question after the National Institute of Environmental Health Services found upon reviewing their animal tests that these were inappropriate in identifying health hazards because chemicals frequently have wholly different effects between animals and humans.
  • Animal Experimentation: The Medico-Legal Alibi - Dr André Menache, speaking at the 10th World Congress on Law and Medicine, held at Jerusalem, Israel on 29 August, 1994.
  • How Scientific are the ANU Monkey Experiments? By Robert Ryan, CAFMR - A refutation of the scientific validity of primate experiments carried out the Australian National University.
  • ANU Monkey Experiments: Science Or Science Fiction - By Robert Ryan, CAFMR - More on the unscientific ANU monkey experiments.
  • Critique of NonHuman-Primate Research At Yerkes: A Summary - By Murry J. Cohen MD, Stephen R. Kaufman MD, and Brandon P. Reines MD, Medical Research Modernization Committee - Those who experiment on nonhuman primates have grossly exaggerated the role of nonhuman-primate studies in medical progress and significantly minimized the misleading data that results.
  • A Critique of Maternal Deprivation Monkey Experiments at The State University of New York Health Science Center - By Murry J. Cohen MD, Medical Research Modernization Committee - The relevance and importance of maternal deprivation monkey experiments continue to be scientifically debated because of conceptual and methodological flaws in the experimental design.
  • Science On Trial: The Human Cost of Animal Experiments - By Dr Robert Sharpe - Review of the book of the same name, in which the former Senior Research Chemist presents a powerful body of evidence and argument to demonstrate that, far from being scientific, animal research is methodologically flawed, and has retarded advances in human health.
  • Ask This Child's Mother What She Thinks of Animal Research - By CAFMR - Thalidomide, a drug responsible for over 10,000 birth defects, is further proof that animal testing cannot guarantee drug safety.
  • The Thalidomide Tragedy: Another Example Of Animal Research Misleading Science - By John Lesso, CAFMR - With the recent appearance of Thalidomide's dreadful effects being passed on to the children of the drug's victims, once again the issue has been raised of whether the drug tragedy in the 1960's could have been predicted and thereby averted by the manufactures' original animal tests.
  • Shortcomings of AIDS-Related Animal Experimentation - By Stephen R. Kaufman MD, Murry J. Cohen MD, and Steve Simmons, Medical Research Modernization Committee - Animal experimentation consumes much of the funding for research aimed at addressing the AIDS epidemic. The Medical Research Modernization Committee has identified fundamental scientific problems with animal experimentation in general and AIDS-related animal experimentation in particular.

John C. Hammell, Legislative Advocate, Founder
International Advocates for Health Freedom
PO Box 625
Floyd, Virginia 24091, USA
800-333-2553 - (North America)
overseas: 540-745-6534
540-745-6535 fax

Monday, June 17, 2013

US pork producer Smithfield Foods to be sold to China for $4.72 billion - and this is just the beginning


US pork producer Smithfield Foods to be sold to China for $4.72 billion - and this is just the beginning

Sunday, June 16, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Tags: ChinaSmithfield Foodsfood safety

(NaturalNews) Recent announcements about the acquisition of U.S.-based Smithfield Foods Inc., the world's largest pork producer and processor, by a major Chinese holding company has sent significant shockwaves throughout the American economy. According to new reports, Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. is in the process of pulling the trigger on purchasing Smithfield for $4.72 billion, a move that some say marks the beginning of a much larger takeover of American industry by the Far East.

Reports of a potential Smithfield acquisition have been surfacing here and there in recent months. But now it appears that the decision is all but complete, pending approval from Smithfield's shareholders. As reported by, the deal was officially announced at the end of May, and part of its terms included shareholders receiving $34 per share, a roughly 31 percent premium from earlier share value, as part of the deal.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment still has to review the deal to assess any potential national security risks. But by the way the mainstream media is currently talking about the deal, it is essentially already a reality, which means a major segment of the American food economy will soon be controlled by a Chinese corporation. And not surprisingly, many of those paying attention to this development are completely outraged.

"There is public unease when a foreign buyer acquires the largest pork-producing company in the world that is a major player in the local economy and is the source of our bacon and ribs," wrote Sharon Valentine in a recent editorial published by

"The U.S. government may not consider our food supply a security risk, but recent Chinese scandals involving thousands of pigs floating in the rivers near Shanghai and pork tainted with a food additive that makes people sick could force the government to rethink the definition of safe and secure to include our food. It's not who brings home the bacon but what is in the bacon."

Is China finally cashing in on its U.S. debt holdings by buying up what's left of the American economy?

The real crux of the issue here is that foreign buyouts of American companies have been picking up in recent years, and show no signs of slowing down anytime soon. The American economy, which has already been almost completely ransacked as far as the manufacturing sector goes, is now being slowly disassembled in the service and food sectors as well, which is a legitimate cause for concern.

Besides being a foreign company from a nation rife with major food safety disasters, Shuanghui also has its own sordid history of food safety scandals. According to, Shuanghui was forced to recall some of its pork products back in 2011 after being exposed for using a toxic additive that was banned more than a decade ago. And in 2012, tests revealed maggots and bacteria in Shuanghui ribs and sausages.

"It's a bad deal for American workers," says Dr. Peter Morici, an economist who recently shared his thoughts with the media. "Initially, we'll get some exports, they'll learn how to produce pork themselves, (and) the industry will move there. Before you know it, the pork industry will move there, like the auto parts industry."

Sources for this article include:

Learn more:

Roundup Weed Killer causes breast cancer, why is this crap legal?

Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate -- the chemical name of Roundup herbicide -- multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%... even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt).

The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, is entitled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors." You can read the abstract here.

There's a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms:

ppm = parts per million = 10 (-6) = number of parts out of a million

ppb = parts per billion = 10 (-9), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppm

ppt = parts per trillion = 10 (-12), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppm

The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb.

This news, all by itself, sent shockwaves across the 'net all weekend. Women were asking things like: "You mean to tell me that glyphosate residues on crops in just ppt or ppb concentrations can give me breast cancer?" It doesn't exactly translate like that. It depends on how much you eat vs. your body mass (nanograms of glyphosate per kilogram of body weight). But with ridiculously small amounts of this chemical now being correlated to cancer cell proliferation, you don't have to eat much at all in order to put yourself at risk.

But it's not just eating glyphosate that's the problem. You're also DRINKING it.

California allows 1,000 ppb of glyphosate in drinking water

In December of 1997, California released its Glyphosate in Drinking Water California Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view the document yourself at:

The document openly admits:

Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used in agriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure to glyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift, residues in food crops and from runoff into potential drinking water sources.

It then goes on to state something borrowed straight from Monsanto's quack science team: "Glyphosate is not mutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats."

Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of "1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water."

Yes, that's 1,000 times higher than the amount now shown to cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cell proliferation.

What's even more shocking is that California's allowable exposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than the federal (EPA) level -- 700 ppb.

Yes, California -- the state where more people are concerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else -- actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its "official" report that set a higher water contamination level than the federal government!

Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented years earlier

Even though California released this document in 1997, the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. For example, a study published two years earlier -- in 1995 -- in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded:

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. ...In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.

Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells... reduced sperm counts in male rats... an increase in fetal loss...

In other words, California knew -- or should have known -- that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But the California government willfully ignored this evidence and seemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptive Monsanto spin into its "Public Health Goal" documents, thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosate in drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cell proliferation.

Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10%

Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment period which was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewing Monsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) document.

You can view that document here:

It concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for all Californians should be lowered to 900 ppb -- still nine hundred times higher than the amount needed to accelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the study released last week.

This 2007 document from the California government also borrows language that sounds like it's right out of Monsanto's P.R. department: "Based on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity study results, glyphosate is not likely to pose a cancer hazard to humans," it says.

Now the evidence is becoming clear: Monsanto's chemicals are killing women

Now it's 2013. We've seen the horrific results of the GMO rat study revealing the growth of massive tumors in rats exposed to GMOs and Roundup (glyphosate). We've also now seen the "parts per trillion" study showing cancer cell proliferation being caused by ultra-low concentrations of glyphosate.

We also know the biotech industry has gone to ridiculous lengths to spread disinfo on all this -- to try to discredit scientists who speak out against GMOs and glyphosate, to get scientists blackballed from the industry, and to buy off politicians and members of the press to make sure there is no coverage granted to any scientific studies reporting the dangers of genetically modified crops (and their related chemical herbicides).

Glyphosate is the new DDT

Based on what we're seeing now, I believe glyphosate is the most toxic chemical that has ever been widely deployed across our food supply. Glyphosate is the new DDT, and it's contaminating our waterways, soils, food and bodies.

Furthermore, the California government has clearly been complicit in allowing extremely high levels of glyphosate to contaminate the public drink water, thereby causing tens of millions of Californians to be poisoned with concentrations of glyphosate that promote cancer cell growth.

And what will the California government tell you now that the truth has come out? Now that they've allowed their own population to be exposed to a thousand times the concentration needed to accelerate the growth of cancer tumors?

"Run for the cure!" And don't label GMOs, either, because you don't have a right to know whether you're eating deadly poison in your food.

Join the Monsanto Video Revolt, July 24, 2013

Take part in the global video revolt against Monsanto. Learn more at:

Learn more:

Friday, June 7, 2013

The Most Disturbing Sound in the World

Sounds of the Animals from a factory farm; can you make it through the 30 seconds?

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Thursday, May 2, 2013


Phajaan is horrific to any elephant,especially babies.It is no way to treat nor train them.Time to stop this age-old abuse.

What is Phajaan? It means "crush the spirit," so the elephant gives up its will to live as an elephant to its abusers, the mahouts.

"In Thailand and India the villagers believe that in order for an elephant to be tame and suitable for work, it must go through a religious process called Phajaan.
The ordeal begins when [a calf is either stolen from the wild or] an unsuspecting elephant calf stumbles upon an Indian or Thailand village. As soon as its spotted the villagers chase the already nervous and confused little elephant into a makeshift wooden cage. The cages used are so small that the elephant within can barely move.

However this tiny piece of freedom is taken away as the villagers tie the elephant’s legs together and chain it down. Once the elephant calf in firmly restrained the village’s spiritual leader climbs onto it’s back and proceeds to drive a spike into it’s head. He/she then says a traditional prayer, which means “Elephant, if you stop struggling then we won’t hurt you”.

The act of violence preformed by the spiritual leader is only the beginning for the petrified little elephant. For the next three to six days the villagers take turns at driving nails and other nasty objects into the elephant’s sensitive spots, as well as pelting it with stones and beating it with clubs. It is allowed no water, food or sleep during this time.

During the silent nights, evenings and mornings that fall upon the village, the only sounds that can be heard are from the tortured elephant. It bellows in agony, desperately trumpets for help, even screaming and crying for it’s mother as a human child would. The villagers laugh and jeer as the young elephant suffers from uncontrollable diarrhea – No doubt caused by the suffering it is enduring.

It is a constant struggle for the elephant calf to remain standing. It’s legs are tied together, and the ground is quite slippery: Covered in the elephant’s own blood, urine and feces. If failing to stand up straight, the punishment is swift and brutal.

Eventually this torture and deprivation breaks the young elephant’s spirit, and supposedly breaks the bond between it and it’s mother. The spiritual leaders can apparently sense when an elephant’s spirit has changed (broken), and when this happens, the elephant is released.

Not all of the elephants put through this ordeal survive, as those with the stronger spirits die from torture, thirst and starvation."

via WWA Animal Awareness

Read more about the phajaan: [shared from ]