Your Questions About Green Living

What Do U think Green Party works to oppose US-Mexico border wall?

While many in the Green Party focus on border walls as overseas injustices, the Arizona Greens and other southwestern states GP members have taken a stand against the U.S. border wall now spanning California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. In addition to the wall’s assault on the environment, immigrant rights, and democratic processes, the most overlooked concern is its impact on indigenous peoples within U.S. borders.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the leadership of Secretary Janet Napolitano has continued construction, “to secure our borders and reduce illegal immigration,” the DHS website states. Yet continued seizure of land, obstruction of ceremonial pathways, and militarization of the region are devastating native nations located along the international boundary zone from California through Texas.

Arizona Green Party co-chairs Claudia Ellquist and Angel Torres submitted additional language for the Green Party Platform in the section on Immigration in 2007.

“We demand an immediate end to policies designed to force undocumented border crossers into areas where environmental conditions mean dramatically increased risk of permanent injury or death, and mean greater degradation of fragile environments, and the cutting off of corridors needed by wildlife for migration within their habitat. For these reasons we specifically oppose the walling off of both traditional urban crossing areas and of wilderness areas,” the submission recommends.

“We demand recognition of sovereignty in determining independent status of their members by indigenous nations whose people would otherwise be separated by the border demarcations of more recent nations.” The border has obstructed indigenous familial and societal relationships for generations, a problem that the wall has exacerbated.

Relative to egregious Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and citizenship initiatives, the border wall has remained a low visibility issue in national debates on immigration reform. While no-wall activism, border-crossing, environmental issues and local economies take center stage, concerns of indigenous people are marginalized.

Green Party works to oppose US-Mexico border wall

What impact does illegals have on the environmental issues from carbon foot prints to trash left behind, why it is none of this get indicated ?

how long can employer withhold promise check?

My husband along with the entire company that he works for recieved raises in January. They have not recieved any of it in their checks so far. The employer keeps telling them “next pay period” and then they have some excuse for not doing it. The employer told them they would give them back pay all the way till Jan 1.
This is a company of about 100 people. A chemical company that is small, but well known in the community offering services to other bigger chemical companies.
This company has already been in hot water either beginning of the year or December (can’t remember right now). They were in trouble for environmental issues.
So can they do keep doing this? It is May and they still haven’t gotten their raises or their “back up check”.
With them being already in hot water you would think they wouldn’t do this. Which to me may make it seem easier to report.
Can I report this maybe even anonymously?
WHO would I report this situation too?
I’m in Texas.
well that is BS. I think that is completely unethical to sit there and lie and say here is your raise-oh but you can’t have it yet-maybe next time–oh you can’t have it again–maybe next time–you you can’t have it again—-maybe next time. BS

What ever happened to environmental modification { EnMod } ?

After 3 weeks of research into Environmental modification or EnMod I found many things suprising and thought I would share and see what is you take on this – Environmental modification or EnMod was researched in the beginning of the 1970s and portions of the U.S. government and/or military viewed weather and climate modification research as having transitioned from the “basic research” stage to the “operational” stage. Experiments were occurring – or had occurred – in 22 countries, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Italy, France, South Africa, Congo and the U.S.S.R. Airborne seeding programs were undertaken to combat drought in the Philippines, Okinawa, Africa and Texas. Fog clearing had become a standard operation at airports, as had hailstorm abatement, which had been proven successful in several parts of the world. Forest fire control had been carried out in Alaska and watershed seeding was widely practiced, while lake storm snow redistribution was under extensive investigation. By 1973 there were over 700 degreed scientists and engineers in the U.S. whose major occupation was environmental modification (EnMod).

And then it all changed. In 1978 The United States became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (EnMod Convention or ENMOD for short). The EnMod Convention prohibits the use of techniques that would have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects through deliberate manipulation of natural processes and cause such phenomena as earthquakes, tidal waves and changes in climate and weather patterns.

Independent journalist Keith Harmon Snow wrote a massive report entitled: “Out of the Blue: Black Programs, Space Drones & The Unveiling of U.S. Military Offensives in Weather as a Weapon.” In it he tells us: “In 1976, U.S. government officials outlined 50 experimental projects and 20 actual pilot programs costing upwards of $100 million over the next eight years. It was an explosive subject, up [through] the 1970s but, after 1977, EnMod interest seemed to disappear almost overnight. In other words, after decades of intense research and development, after billions of dollars of investment, after major institutions and governmental bodies were created and charged with oversight of EnMod and its many peripheral issues, and after the entire reorganization of the U.S. Government to channel and guide and map out the future of this new and promising military and civilian ‘technology’ – said to be more important than the atom bomb – everything stopped.
Or did it?
It was as if a huge curtain fell over the subject as all research, all institutional interests, huge salaries and thousands of jobs – vanished. And the mass media stopped reporting anything and everything as if struck by plague. That – sudden and total silence – is perhaps the most telling and suspicious indication of the secrecy and denial that the EnMod arena was shackled with. Today it is almost as if it never happened.”

Could it be that the US government said, “Oh gee, we can’t do that any more” and just gave up on military EnMod – or did the whole program go “black”?

A social conservative would most likely favor which of the following policies?

A. national health insurance
B. tougher government regulations against sexually explicit programming on cable television
C. a reduction in defense spending
D. an affirmative action plan to increase the number of minority students in medical school

Which of the following groups is most supportive of the Texas Democratic party?
A. non-Hispanic whites
B. African-Americans
C. Latinos
D. none of the above-there is no difference among the three groups

Social conservatives active in the Texas Republican party would be more likely to stress which of the following issue positions?
A. opposition to a state income tax
B. support for abortion rights
C. support for tougher environmental regulations
D. opposition to government regulation of private schools

Ok im not gonna lie these are from my quiz ive answered all xcept these .. im lost i dnt get it :S
some one can help plzz :S

Would you vote for Al Gore if he ran for President in 2008?

I am an America-loving liberal democrat in Texas and I really want to see regime change here in the USA. I feel that Bushco has corrupted our government and run our country into the ground by allowing high gas prices, the erosion of our good alliances and reputation with other countries, and political scandals left and right.

However, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is the right choice for President because she vacilates too much in her opinions and seems to try too hard to appeal to the middle of the road people who tend to know nothing about real issues that affect them every day.

I think Al Gore is primed to take our country back to the success of the nineties and lead the way in environmental reform and alternative energy sourcing – two of the LARGEST coming problems. If you can’t see them as real problems baring down on us then you are BLIND. Osama is not the threat, disappearing oil and rising temperatures are, and Al Gore is prepared to handle all three.