Middle school girl disciplined for refusing weigh-in in front of her class

© The Des Moines Register

Iowa middle school student Ireland Hobert-Hochtold

During a check-up in her physical education class, Ireland Hobert-Hochtold told her teacher that she didn't want to take part in the FitnessGram program, a fitness measurement tool her school has used for at least four years.

Ireland's decision landed her in the principal's office.

"I don't feel like it's [the school's] business," Ireland told the Des Moines Register. "I feel like it's my doctor and my mom and my own business - or maybe not even my own, because I don't need to know that right now."

The FitnessGram program, which has been in existence since 1982, assesses six areas of health-related fitness - including body composition, flexibility, muscular strength and endurance, and aerobic capacity. Once physical education teachers conduct tests, they measure scores using the Healthy Fitness Zone standards. School administrators use the reports in letters addressed to parents that explain the importance of physical activity and outline "areas for improvement."

Right now, 21 states require schools to hold obesity screenings and send letters home in cases when students' BMI exceeds a certain level. BMI, however, often doesn't provide a holistic picture of fitness level. That's why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends supplementing BMI tests with assessments like skinfold thickness measurements.

While school officials tout the FitnessGram program as a tool in combating the nation's childhood obesity problem, the process has been likened to fat shaming. Critics point out that it may bring on body image problems in youngsters, compelling them to develop eating disorders.

Earlier this year, a third grader expressed her displeasure to the after receiving a letter from the New York City Department of Education that placed her in the "overweight" category. A mother in Florida also spoke out against the state's department of public health after receiving a letter that placed her physically fit daughter "at risk" for obesity. Upon visiting FitnessGram's website, the mother found out that "at-risk" actually meant "overweight."

Clinical psychologist Michael Feldman says that the BMI tests and letters could reinforce these negative feelings among youngsters, especially girls.

"[Fat letters] insinuate that children are to blame for their condition and that they lack awareness or willpower. And because "fat letters" are a collaboration between the child's school, parents and doctor, kids are likely to feel that school officials, health care professionals and possibly their own parents are ganging up on them over their weight," Feldman argued in a article last year. "This will simply validate their fears that they are somehow bad or subpar because their body is unacceptable."

According to the National Eating Disorders Association (NESA), many elementary and middle school-aged girls report concerns about their weight and body shape. More than 40 percent of girls in the first through third grade say they want to be thinner. Among 10-year-olds, more than 80 percent express wishes to be thinner. NESA has repeatedly warned against using the FitnessGram assessments, saying that could influence young students to skip meals, vomit, or take laxatives.

In Pleasant Hill, Iowa, Ireland's act of defiance against the FitnessGram program has compelled a couple of her classmates to take a similar position and refuse to participate. It also may prompt a policy change, as the school board will discuss whether to stop weighing kids in the school system. Last year, Massachusetts' school board voted 10 to 1 to stop sending "fat letters" after five years of doing the practice, citing parents' privacy concerns and the inadequacy of the BMI as an indicator of obesity.

Ireland's mother, Heather Hobert-Hoch, told the Des Moines Register that she fully support's her daughter's decision. "She doesn't want her weight taken anywhere," Hobert-Hoch said. "The family stopped using a scale years ago and Ireland has been very happy since then. It's very common among young girls, and even women, to become obsessed with the number on the scale."

Parent and eating disorder awareness groups have railed against similar well-meaning but insensitive efforts to combat childhood obesity - like a public health campaign in California that circulated an altered photo of an overweight girl on the web and a series of television ads in Georgia that said "Being fat takes the fun out of being a kid."

Read More

Merkel facing widespread public discontent over Russian sanctions

© Reuters / Francois Lenoir

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel

German chancellor Angela Merkel may have hard time keeping Russia sanctions in place, as she is facing widespread public discontent, both within her nation and in the EU. The restrictive measures were introduced earlier this year and now their effects on the EU economy, and German in particular, are undermining trade. The EU is facing two possible options at this point, either a gradual revocation of the economic restrictions on Russia or a further tightening of the sanctions regime with the implementation of new restrictions, according to a report by Financial Times.

"Keeping sanctions in place is a challenge for German policy," says Gernot Erler, an MP of the opposition Social Democratic Party.

The current sanctions will expire one year after they have been imposed, meaning that without further escalation, the sanctions will begin to ease starting March 2015. There are only two possible scenarios for the outcome of the EU sanctions. The first being the case if Russian leader Vladimir Putin initiates yet another wave of military escalation in Eastern Ukraine. The other is if Putin explicitly shows his willingness to reach a negotiated solution, in which case the internal pressure in the EU to abolish the sanctions will be extremely high.

But what happens in case the tensions over the Ukrainian crisis remain at their current level, with neither side undertaking any major action in Eastern Ukraine?

A German ex-diplomat, quoted by FT, suggested that public opinion may change in favour of a more dovish approach. In his opinion, Germans are already asking why traditionally strong relations with Russia must be jeopardized. "They say, 'For God's sake let's forget about Crimea.' " It will be "increasingly difficult domestically speaking for Angela Merkel," he concludes.

The Merkel-led cabinet has four main political objectives, which are: detente in Ukraine, the Kremlin's non-involvement in other nations' domestic affairs, strengthening the EU and retaining a domestic power base. All of these goals will be hard to pursue at once due to several reasons. Eastern Europe's high reliance on the now-cut economic ties with Russia are negatively affecting the living standards of many people. Businesses involved in Russia, like the Eastern Committee, are actively lobbying in favour of the sanctions' revocation. Adding to this, the Russian government-owned media company, RT, is launching a German-language website in 2015, to explain to the German public the Kremlin's stance on international issues, while Russian businesses are lobbying their interests in Germany and Europe as well.

At this point the Merkel-led government is in better position than at the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, as it has capitalized on the developments in Ukraine, winning over public opinion and consolidating the EU on its pro-Ukrainian stance. However, in a smoldering standoff with Russia time is on the latter's side, as in the absence of acts of explicit hostility, public opinion in Europe will slowly shift towards peace, with Crimea slowly being forgotten.

Read More

Are you one of these "new technology rejecters"?: What will it take to get you to swallow GMO and Nanotech foods?

Dear reader: Are you one of these "new technology rejecters"?

Apparently will be the one getting a label if you don't want GMOs or nanoparticles in your food. Read on...

Previously, research from North Carolina State University and the University of Minnesota showed that people were willing to consume food with nanotechnology (particles, chips for purposes of tracking and changing texture, taste) - but they wanted it labeled and were willing to pay more to have nano-free or nano-labeled food.

The duo is back to tell you what it would take to get consumers to finally accept genetically modified organisms and nanotech in their food - with a dose of chiding, that is.

The researchers conducted what they say is a nationally representative survey of 1,117 U.S. consumers. Participants were asked to answer an array of questions that explored their willingness to purchase foods that contained GM tech and foods that contained nanotech.

The questions also explored the price of the various foods and whether participants would buy foods that contained nanotech or GM tech if the foods had enhanced nutrition, improved taste, improved food safety, or if the production of the food had environmental benefits. (Hopefully, the questions were asked in a purely theoretical light because so far, GMO and nanotech foods have delivered none of those things.)

Dr. Jennifer Kuzma, senior author of a paper on the research and co-director of the Genetic Engineering in Society Center at NC State. (Her position reveals an obvious bias, but wait until you find out what label you get if you don't accept GMOs and nano foods.)

In general, people are willing to pay more to avoid GM or nanotech in foods, and people were more averse to GM tech than to nanotech.

However, it's not really that simple. There were some qualifiers, indicating that many people would be willing to buy GM or nanotech in foods if there were health or safety benefits.

They broke the participants up into four groups - guess which label you fall into?

• Eighteen percent of participants belonged to a group labeled the "new technology rejecters" - they would not buy GM or nanotech foods under any circumstances. (


• Nineteen percent of participants belonged to a group labeled the "technology averse," which would buy GM or nanotech foods only if those products conveyed food safety benefits.


• Twenty-three percent of participants were "price oriented," basing their shopping decisions primarily on the cost of the food - regardless of the presence of GM or nanotech.


• And 40 percent of participants were "benefit oriented," meaning they would buy GM or nanotech foods if the foods had enhanced nutrition or food safety.

Therefore, they concluded that if nutrition and safety were promised factors, people would gobble up the "benefits." Gotta love those labels...

Kuzma added:

This tells us that GM or nanotech food products have greater potential to be viable in the marketplace if companies focus on developing products that have safety and nutrition benefits - because a majority of consumers would be willing to buy those products.

From a policy standpoint, it also argues that GM and nanotech foods should be labeled, so that the technology rejecters can avoid them. (You can avoid them, but you will still get called names! )

Where, praytell, did they find the participants for this survey - certainly not in Hawaii, Oregon, or California, where GMOs are considered the bane of environment and health and where people take unadulterated food seriously. GMOs have not delivered on their promises of ending hunger, better health and better environment. The majority of the public remains unaware of unregulated nanotech in their food.

No, folks, the purpose of the survey on engineered foods is to engineer YOU. (But of course it has the added benefit of helping food producers to shape market to you.) To blindly accept what is unacceptable or thus, be cast aside.

The paper, Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products," is published online in the Lead author of the paper is Dr. Chengyuan Yue of the University of Minnesota. The paper was co-authored by Shuoli Zhao, a graduate student at UM. The research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Read More

Starving cancer with a ketogenic diet and compressed oxygen: Dominic D'Agostino at TED

Dominic D'Agostino

Dr. D'Agostino is an Assistant Professor at the University of South Florida College Of Medicine, Molecular Pharmacology & Physiology where he develops and tests metabolic therapies, including alternative energy substrates and ketogenic agents for neurological disorders, cancer and wound healing. While studying the effects of gasses on the brains of Navy Seal divers, he developed an approach for metabolically starving cancer cells through diet and compressed oxygen, replacing chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation.

[embedded content]

Read More

100,000 Czech railway travelers stranded due to freezing cold weather

Around 100,000 passengers are stranded across the Czech Republic due to the disruption of the railway system

Around 100,000 passengers have been stranded across the Czech Republic due to the disruption of the railway service as a result of freezing cold weather.

"Several hundred passenger trains were cancelled or delayed," Czech Railways said on its website on Tuesday.

Czech railways authority said the disruption occurred after ice encased overhead power lines and brought railway traffic to a halt.

According to the officials, the freezing began on Monday and continued into Tuesday.

They added that people were forced to spend the night, when temperatures dropped to a low of minus 7.3 Celsius (19.4 Fahrenheit), in cold trains and at railway stations.

Czech Railways called on people to defer their trips to the time when the situation is normal.

The cold also caused power cuts and many road accidents across the country.

According to the authorities, flights at Prague's main Vaclav Havel airport were not disrupted by the cold weather.

The arctic weather also cancelled the departure of a group of soldiers heading for Afghanistan after their plane failed to take off from Prague-Kbely military airport.

Read More

MH17 investigation update - Malaysia excluded, Ukraine able to 'veto' results

© Channel 1 / East2West News

283 passengers were killed after MH17 was shot down, including 80 children and 50 crew

Several authors have recently asked why Malaysia is not part of the MH17 joint investigation team and why is Ukraine, a suspect in this case, part of it? The questions we should first be asking are what exactly is the joint investigation team, in which legal framework is it operating and why was it established?

There are actually several investigations going on on the shootdown of MH17. We will, however, focus on two of them which people seem to get mixed up: the first official inquiry led by the Dutch Safety board (DSB), which published a preliminary report on September 9, 2014 and the joint investigation team inquiry, which was established August 7, 2014.

The first investigation, led by the DSB an independent organization, is ruled by the Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention, which was established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations agency.

In the event of a plane crash, the country on which soil the accident occurs is responsible for the investigation, according to the Annex 13 protocol.

At Ukraine's request, the Netherlands is conducting the investigation through the Dutch Safety Board. This is not a breach of protocol, since the State of Occurrence, in this case Ukraine, "may delegate the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent." (Annex 13 To the Convention on International Civil Aviation, paragraph 5.1)

Article 26 of the Chicago Convention also says:

"The State in which the aircraft is registered [Malaysia] shall be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the State holding the inquiry shall communicate the report and findings in the matter to that State."

The states which participate in the Dutch Safety Board inquiry are Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia. Apart from Ukraine, the United States and Russia, all other countries part of the investigation had nationals onboard MH17. The fact that other states take part in the investigation is also standard practice, so, for all we know, this investigation follows the international rules and recommendations of the Chicago Convention.

The "sole objective" of the Dutch Safety Board investigation "is the prevention of similar accidents and incidents" not "to apportion blame or liability in respect of any party." In other words, this is not a criminal investigation. (Preliminary report, Dutch Safety Board, September 2014)

On the other hand, that is, as we will see, the specific objective of the joint investigation team (JIT): to conduct a criminal investigation and "apportion blame". It is a European entity conducting a criminal investigation under a European legal framework and which, unlike the Dutch Safety Board, does not have to abide by the rules of the ICAO. The JIT can include anyone or any state, but most importantly, and contrary to the DSB investigation, it is under no obligation to include Malaysia.

What exactly is a joint investigation team?

Under the auspices of Europol and Eurjust:

A joint investigation team (JIT) is a team consisting of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities, established for a fixed period and a specific purpose by way of a written agreement between the States involved, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States. (Joint Investigation Teams, Historical background, Eurojust)

The team will be led by a person from the State in which the JIT operates. Although the members of the team may originate from various jurisdictions they are to carry out their duties in accordance with the national law of the territory where the investigation is taking place. (General Legal Basis for JITs)

JITs can be set up with countries outside of the European Union as well, provided that a legal basis for the creation of such a JIT exists between the countries involved. The legal basis can take the form of an international legal instrument, a bi- or multilateral agreement or national legislation (e.g. respective Article(s) in the code of criminal procedure). (Ibid.)

Participants may come not only from EU bodies/agencies, e.g. Europol, Eurojust, OLAF, etc., but also from third States and their agencies, e.g. the FBI (Joint Investigation Teams Manual)

Ukraine has acceded to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and thus may set up a JIT. In Ukraine the authority "which decides on setting up a joint investigation team shall be the General Prosecutor's Office in Ukraine". The rules and regulations of JITs can be found in the Article 20 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

As you can see, there are clearly two investigations, operating under different legal frameworks and with two different purposes. It is convenient to note that nowhere in the DSB preliminary report is the word "crime" mentioned.

Establishment of a JIT in the Hague: Who is Leading this Criminal Investigation?

The JIT was created in late July, when "public prosecutors and investigators from the 12 countries that are involved in the investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 met at Eurojust in The Hague to discuss their judicial cooperation strategy." (Eurojust coordination meeting: investigations into Flight MH17, Eurojust, The Hague, July 28, 2014)

The Eurojust press release states further:

Today, public prosecutors and investigators from the 12 countries that are involved in the investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 met at Eurojust in The Hague to discuss their judicial cooperation strategy.

The Dutch Public Prosecution Service has started the coordination of international cooperation, and requested the assistance of Eurojust in arranging today's coordination meeting. Eurojust is the EU's judicial coordination and cooperation agency. Its mandate is to facilitate the coordination and cooperation of the Member States, and it can also invite countries from outside the European Union to participate in coordination meetings to plan strategies in fighting serious organised crime.

At today's meeting, chaired by Mr Han Moraal, National Member for the Netherlands at Eurojust, representatives of the 11 countries whose citizens are victims - the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia, UK, Belgium, Germany, the Philippines, Canada, New Zealand, Indonesia and the USA - in addition to Ukraine, Europol and Interpol, were present.

The goal of today's meeting at Eurojust was to discuss cooperation and ways of broadening and accelerating the investigations, including the establishment of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The JIT will focus first on the technical and forensic investigation in Ukraine, the location of the criminal offence. (Ibid.)

Unlike the DSB, an independent organization, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, which "started the coordination of international cooperation" is a governmental agency. The Eurojust press release states that the investigation, initiated by the Dutch, will take place in Ukraine. Is it being conducted under Ukrainian or Dutch national law? Remember, according to General Legal Basis for JITs, the "team will be led by a person from the State in which the JIT operates" and even though "the members of the team may originate from various jurisdictions they are to carry out their duties in accordance with the national law of the territory where the investigation is taking place."

What the press release above does not mention is that the Ukrainian "Prosecutor General's Office was one of those who initiated the formation of an international investigative group," according to an article by Interfax.

Does it mean that, since the JIT investigation is taking place in Ukraine, it is ruled by Ukrainian law and that Ukraine, one of the suspects, is leading the investigation? If so, this JIT investigation has no credibility whatsoever and is absolutely not independent. It is a parody of justice.

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema said:

"It is our priority or even our duty to the international community to hold a detailed inquiry into this tragedy and restore justice..."(Ukrainian Prosecutor General: Intl probe into MH17 flight crash to go on, Interfax, October 29, 2014)

The Interfax article stated further:

The Prosecutor General's Office recalled that an agreement setting up the joint investigative group of the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Ukraine, Malaysia and Eurojust was signed on August 7, 2014.

That JIT agreement, initiated at The Hague on July 28, 2014, includes a non-disclosure agreement between all the countries except Malaysia, which was only granted a "participant" status:

In the framework of the 4-country agreement signed on 8 August between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster will remain classified.

This was confirmed at a briefing in Kiev under the auspices of the office of the Prosecutor General Yuri Boychenko. In his words, the results of the investigation will be published once completed only if a consensus agreement of all parties that have signed the agreement prevails.

Any one of the signatories has the right to veto the publication of the results of the investigation without explanation.

Following the signing of this agreement, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the agreement and allowed for the participation of Malaysian staff to participate in the investigation. The Causes of the MH17 Crash are "Classified". Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium Signed a "Non-disclosure Agreement", Live Journal, August 23, 2014)

So one of the major differences between the Dutch Safety Board investigation and the JIT investigation is that in the DSB investigation "The State in which the aircraft is registered [Malaysia] shall be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the State holding the inquiry shall communicate the report and findings in the matter to that State."

The JIT investigation, on the other hand, is under no obligation to "communicate the report and findings" to Malaysia.

On October 9, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans and Minister of Defence Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert wrote the following in a letter to the President of Dutch the House of Representatives:

A meeting was held at Eurojust on 28 July 2014, laying thegroundwork for a good working relationship between the police and justice authorities of the countries involved. One of the forms this has taken is the establishment of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), comprising representatives of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Ukraine and Malaysia[as a "participant"]. This team will pave the way for better international cooperation, facilitating the exchange of knowledge, expertise and evidence.

How is excluding Malaysia from the team and granting it an inferior status in the investigation paving "the way for better international cooperation, facilitating the exchange of knowledge, expertise and evidence?" It does exactly the opposite.

Malaysian officials have complained in late November that they were excluded from the JIT and are headed to the Netherlands on December 3 to discuss their status:

Come Dec 3, Malaysia's inspector-general of police (IGP) and the attorney-general (A-G) will head for the Netherlands to discuss among others, the role of the Malaysian team in the joint international investigations into the downing of Malaysia Airlines (MAS) Flight MH17 in July...

"At the moment, Malaysia is not in the joint investigation team. We are merely, a participant. We must be included in the joint investigation team," he said...

Currently, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine and Australia are in the joint investigation team.

During his visit to Malaysia earlier this month, Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte had agreed to Malaysia's participation in the international investigation. (MH17: IGP, A-G Off To The Netherlands On Dec 3, Bernama, November 19, 2014)

Why is Belgium part of the JIT and not Malaysia? Four Belgians died on the plane compared to 43 Malaysians. But more importantly, it was a Malaysian plane which was attacked. How can Malaysia be excluded from this investigation? Some authors argue that it is due to Malaysia's reluctance to put the blame on the Russians or the Donetsk separatists without irrefutable evidence.

© Getty Images

The remains of Flight MH17 - another false flag used for imperial propaganda

Media Blackout on Ukraine's Official Report blaming Russia and the "Pro-Russian Rebels"

Ukraine did not hesitate to point the finger at the militants in the Donetsk region though. We may recall that the exact same day the JIT agreement was signed, on August 7, 2014, Ukraine's Secret Service (SBU) published its own investigation report entitled Terrorists and Militants planned cynical terrorist attack at Aeroflot civil aircraft. This report, which blames "pro-Russian rebels", went virtually unnoticed in the mainstream press.

According to the official SBU report entitled Terrorists and Militants planned cynical terrorist attack at Aeroflot civil aircraft, the Donetsk militia (with the support of Moscow) was aiming at a Russian Aeroflot passenger plane and shot down the Malaysian MH17 airliner by mistake. That's the official Ukraine government story which has not been reported by the MSM.

Following the release of the SBU report, the Western mainstream media went silent. (Michel Chossudovsky, Desperate MH17 "Intelligence" Spin. Ukraine Secret Service Contends that "Pro-Russian Rebels had Targeted a Russian Passenger Plane". "But Shot Down Flight MH17 by Mistake", August 11, 2014)

Why did Ukraine issue a report blaming the separatists the same day it joined the investigation team? And why didn't the mainstream press talk about it? We can only speculate, but it is not unusual that it was not a "breaking news".

Western governments, particularly the U.S., were quick to place the blame on Russia and/or the militants in Eastern Ukraine, who had allegedly "shot the passenger plane" down with a missile, or so they said. Without a shred of evidence, that narrative was parroted by the western mainstream media and is still upheld today, even though the preliminary report published by the Dutch Safety Board last September does not even mention once the term "missile". The very unusual term "high energy objects" was used to describe what had hit the plane and caused its demise.

Moreover, of significance, a major piece of legislation introduced into the US Congress H.Rep. 758 refers to the downing of MH17 allegedly by Russia and pro-Russian separatists as a potential casus belli, which could be used to justify military action against the Russian Federation.

Whereas Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, was destroyed by a Russian-made missile provided by the Russian Federation to separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, resulting in the loss of 298 innocent lives; (See full text of H.Rep. 758, 113th Congress, November 14, 2014)

For Western governments and their subservient media, that "proved" they were right: "high energy objects" confirmed it was a missile that brought the plane down. Why then was not the word "missile" used in the report?

Independent analysts as well as OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw have rather mentioned no signs of a missile could be found on the wreckage, only machine gun-like holes, evidence which corroborates the Spanish air trafic controler's testimony who claimed Ukrainian fighter jets had shot MH17 down. Eyewitnesses on the ground have also told the BBC Russian service that they saw Ukrainian fighter jets next to MH17 before it crashed. The report was censored by the BBC. (You can view it and read the transcript in this article: Deleted BBC Report. "Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7″, Donetsk Eyewitnesses)

It poses a serious problem that Ukraine is part of an investigation into an incident for which it is a suspect, when the main victim, Malaysia, is excluded. The investigation should either include all the suspects as well as the victims or none of them. But most importantly, Ukraine should not lead an investigation into a crime for which it is a suspect.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.

Read More

Outrage on Bulgarian forums: "We turned out to be the same stupid prostitutes as the Poles"

I decided to read the comments on Bulgarian information resources. You can feel for our Bulgarian brothers. Translated a couple dozen of them. The vast majority of the comments, of course were written in the following spirit:

* * *

Yes, something happened, what I was talking about a long time ago - the South Stream will pass through the territory of the country, which is a more reliable partner than we are! Well, we're a wealthy country, for us 400 million euros... is nothing. We will not even ask for compensation from the EU, you can be sure!

* * *

God, what idiots are in charge right now!

* * *

Are you Bulgarians or are you stupid? We had to fight!!!

* * *

It's very simple. To this point we were led by greedy Prime Minister with BSP party. It is a national disaster!

* * *

BSP, ABV, ATTACK, organize protests in front of the Presidential Palace, the Parliament, in order to prove to them that we are a civil society and not paid sorosoids!

* * *

In a year we will buy Russian gas from Turkey and Greece, only with commission to the Turks and the Byzantines.

* * *

Interesting, how now on forums the sorosoids will tell how dependent are Bulgarian politicians from Putin? The tragedy of Bulgaria is in vassal dependence and colonial administration! That's a reason for protest (if there is any civil society left, and not NGOs)!!!

* * *

What's going to happen to us? Probably, the next step is the placement of Chevron in Dobrudja and beginning of shale gas extraction, the price of which will be poisoned land and water, with the prospect of exchanging it for this paper, worthy of aboriginals.

* * *

How can you comment this treason? Future generations must know who destroyed their state, on whose grave to piss, whose descendants to curse.

* * *

We got to this because of traitors from the Reformation Block. Now, instead of Bulgaria, which could become an energy hub, it will be Turkey and Greece.

* * *

No comment necessary. We deserved such fate, and the definition of "Fool No. 1 in the world."

* * *

It's time to go get some firewood!

* * *

Don't worry, the pipeline will pass through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, and Serbia. We don't need money for transit, guaranteed deliveries and cheap gas prices.

* * *

The West will never allow Bulgaria to have cheap energy and, as a consequence, a strong economy. They want us just as a colony and a source of cheap labor and cheap resources.

* * *

No Western country will allow us to have so much influence and the pipe. They do not trust us, because we are primitive, but Turks and Greeks are more respected. So everything goes according to plan.

* * *

I don't get it, is someone going to resign? Although Bulgarian "politicians" are not familiar with the words "honor", "dignity" and "resignation".

* * *

It's all over! From the most productive per capita country we have become more pitiful than the Gypsies.

* * *

This month I will not have sex with my wife because it is contrary to European values. First the European Commission should have sex with her. I profess European values.

* * *

We - Bessarabian Bulgarians want to be together with Bulgaria, but Bulgaria outside the EU, Bulgaria is a good friend of Russia! Enough already of European slavery!

* * *

How can you be such an idiot to refuse such a project!?

* * *

The truth is that Putin and Erdogan are statesmen and work for the good of their countries, not like our assholes, unfortunately.

* * *

It was clear to all of us that with the coming to power of an idiot there will be no "South Stream". But he won the majority of the votes, didn't he?

* * *

We got the same stupid prostitutes, as the poles, who were also opposed the "Nord Stream". The Russians went around them and now sell gas to the Germans for $300, at the same time, as these geniuses are paying $515. Didn't we have an example?

Read More