As the age of sexual consent is 16, what are state employees doing fitting contraceptive implants in 13-year-old girls? Aren’t they colluding in a criminal act? These sinister devices are a clear admission by the Government. It actually expects these children to have unlawful sexual intercourse, and wants to make it easy for them. How strange, given that the one crime we all disapprove of utterly and completely is paedophilia. Even convicted gangsters, rapists, burglars and muggers look down on the paedophiles in their midst (they have another word for them, as they cannot spell or pronounce the official term).

Those who engage in paedophilia are often also accused of ‘grooming’, preparing their victims for violation and abuse. Yet here we have a policy that directly condones and encourages the sexualisation of children, and is at the very least comparable to the ‘grooming’ we are all so shocked by. What child, equipped with this rather revolting chemical lump or dose, would not grasp that she was expected by the authorities to act accordingly? I would be very interested to know exactly what the victims of this scheme are told, and how they are chosen.

This thing is done by doctors and nurses, supposedly symbols of rectitude and mercy. It often takes place in schools, where our children are meant to be safe from molesters. It is protected by law. It is paid for by your taxes and mine, extracted under the threat of prison. Perhaps most sinister of all, it is – like all child-molesting – ‘our little secret’. The girls’ parents are not asked their permission beforehand for their daughters to be corrupted by our sick state. Nor are they told afterwards. This is both totalitarian and evil.

The judges are always ready to confirm that this is no longer a Christian country in anything but name, and did so again on Friday – though I do wonder where they think our laws and their powers come from. But it is much worse than that. We are turning into a sort of Babylon, only with drizzle and sleet. Almost every sexual practice and habit – with the single exception of faithful marriage – is now encouraged by the state. First, the state poisons young minds with so-called sex-education, which is now unleashed in primary schools. Then, when the poor things act on what they have been told, doctors push chemical anti-baby capsules under their skin. I believe this sort of thing is known as ‘harm reduction’.

It all depends what you mean by harm. Having privatised the telephones, electricity and the railways, we have nationalised paedophilia.

But where are today’s Chesterton and Belloc to write for a mass market paper owned by the trade unions?

There is the most pressing need to revive the movement of those who have resisted enclosure, clearances, exorbitant rents, absentee landlordism, and a whole host of other abuses of the rural population down to the present day. Those who obtained, and who continue to defend, rural amenities such as schools, medical facilities, Post Offices, and so on. Those who opposed the destruction of the national rail and bus networks, and who continue to demand that those services be reinstated. Those who have fought, and who continue to fight, for affordable housing in the countryside, and for planning laws and procedures that take proper account of rural needs. Those who object in principle to government without the clear electoral mandate of rural as well as of urban and suburban areas. Those who have been and who are concerned that any electoral reform be sensitive to the need for effective rural representation. Distributism and the related tendencies. And those who are conservationist rather than environmentalist.

Farm labourers, smallholders, crofters and others organised in order to secure radical reforms. County divisions predominated among safe Labour seats when such first became identifiable in the 1920s, while the Labour Party and the urban working class remained profoundly wary of each other throughout the period that both could realistically be said to exist at all, with several cities proving far less receptive to Labour than much of the nearby countryside. Working farmers sat as Labour MPs between the Wars and subsequently. The Attlee Government created the Green Belt and the National Parks. Real agriculture is the mainstay of strong communities, environmental responsibility and animal welfare (leading to safe, healthy and inexpensive food) as against “factory farming”, and it is a clear example of the importance of central and local government action in safeguarding and delivering social, cultural, political and environmental goods against the ravages of the “free” market.

The President of the Countryside Alliance is a Labour peer, Baroness Mallalieu, and its Chairman is a Labour MP, Kate Hoey. For at least three consecutive General Elections until 2010, few or no Conservative MPs were returned by the hunting heartlands of Wales, Yorkshire, the Midlands, Devon and Cornwall. The present Coalition means, either that Labour is now the only electoral option for the age-old rural Radicalism of the West Country and Hampshire, and for the combination of that with Unionism (or, at least, with a strong suspicion of rule from the Scottish Central Belt or from South Wales) in the North and South of Scotland and in Mid Wales, or else that the Labour Party now demands to be replaced with something that can indeed meet this profoundly pressing and electorally opportune need.

The talk today in the more wishful thinking corners of cyberspace is that the Government will legislate to give councils the power to hold prayers if they want to. Dream on. The last time that the Conservative Party was in office, it legalised abortion up to birth, legalised destructive experimentation on embryonic human beings, made divorce legally easier than release from a car hire contract, abolished most of the restrictions protecting lowly shop workers from having to work seven-day weeks, tried to abolish them all, attempted to abolish the restrictions in relation to 25th December, had to be stopped by a Labour-led alliance of peers from removing Christian collective worship and Religious Education from state schools (do “free” schools have to have them?), and devastated the economic base of paternal authority in secure, high-waged, high-skilled, high-status employment.

Since praying in council chambers has graciously been kept legal, local churches should make it their business to hold prayer meetings in or immediately outside them before every council meeting, with councillors expressly invited to attend.

Is the Syrian regime hellbent on political suicide? There can be no doubt that he is determined to crush any resistance, but if President Bashar al-Assad had really started a massacre in the city of Homs (as was reported by most of the western media) it would have been an act of complete madness. And though he may be ruthless, Assad is no madman. So what’s really going on? Well, the truth about the situation in Syria is that, as in Libya, there is much more to it than the simple narrative we’re all fed: pro-democracy activists fighting a hated tyrant. The Russians, at least, understand that much.

William Hague has been deploring the Russian and Chinese veto of the proposed UN resolution against Syria, but a close look at the Russians’ reservations reveals some legitimate concerns. The rebel army in Syria captured 19 government soldiers in Homs, where they had set up a base. Was it honestly realistic to demand, as the UN did, that the Syrian army at that point withdraw to its barracks, leaving its soldiers captive? As far as Assad was concerned, insurgents had captured his sovereign territory; was it reasonable to expect him to step down?

There has been much talk of the Syrian army having committed the worst massacre since Assad’s father ordered the slaughter of up to 30,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama in 1982. But soon after China and Russia’s veto, the figure for those killed in Homs was reduced from 200 to 55 by one of the opposition groups (although others insisted more were killed). Homs then came under renewed military bombardment, and yes, dozens have been killed, which is sickening news to be sure, but sadly nothing out of what has passed for the ordinary in Syria for the past year. However, this idea of ‘a massacre’ went viral. It was a ‘crime against humanity’ and ‘its perpetrators must answer for it’, said Alain Juppé, foreign minister of France (and the prime architect of the Libya invasion).

The West seems as keen as ever to see the uprisings as a simple story of freedom fighters opposing tyranny, when the situation is clearly much more complex. There seems to be an awful repeat of the Libya debacle beginning to unfold: western correspondents embed themselves with self-declared former al-Qa’eda fighters and bands of tribal fanatics, but fail to report these details so as not to undermine the ‘Arab Spring’. The result of this in Libya is plain to see. Once the Islamist militias had established their rule in Tripoli, they imposed sharia law on a once secular country and set about torturing their former enemies — or anyone who happened to be black — in a way that would have put even Gaddafi to shame.

Now the same voices that helped the Islamists take over Libya — and then feigned surprise when they introduced a new, perhaps even worse type of despotism — are calling for yet another armed revolution in Syria. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that, should their insurrection succeed, the new regime might cause untold suffering for the Syrian people, most of whom (it is not often reported) have not joined the uprising. Why would they? They have plenty of justification for fearing that what will come after Assad could prove far more repressive culturally, and potentially murderous. The Nato-sponsored government-in-exile, the Syrian National Council, is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The ranks of the Free Syrian Army have been swelled by radical Islamists from as far afield as Iraq and Libya, who are being armed and funded by Qatar via Lebanon and Turkey. The Emir of Qatar, darling of the West, has at least had the decency to make his own intentions in this crystal clear: he wishes to overthrow the last secular Arab regime. The Emir recently renamed the tiny island’s main mosque after Mohammed ibn Abul Wahhab, founder of the insane Wahhabi cult that hijacked this so-called Arab Spring at the outset. He has installed its proxies in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, and aims to do the same in Syria.

The House of Saud cares nothing for ordinary Syrians — its interest in the fight is purely strategic. Along with its undeclared ally Israel, it too would like to see a group of Sunni, Wahhabi despots, hostile to their common enemy Tehran, replace Assad, who has collaborated with Iran’s ayatollahs.

This would make life easier for many western countries, which fear a nuclear-armed Iran above all else. The foreign policy wonks’ line about Syria is not idealistic but pragmatic: while the Wahhabis may be cuckoo, they are the perfect allies when it comes to containing Iran. Islamists are coming to power throughout the region, so we may as well back some biddable ones, so the thinking goes, especially as they are all conveniently turning out to be proxies of our Nato allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

But what of Syria’s religious minorities, the moderate Alawites; the Christians and the Shia? What of its women? What of the ever-dwindling number of free-thinking intellectuals, its ordinary moderate Muslim ‘folks’, in Obamaian parlance, who do not wish to live under a backward Wahhabi theocracy? They can suffer in silence, it seems. American and Israeli ‘security interests’ must come first, and are best served by a pact with the devil.

Of course, Russia and China’s veto at the UN had nothing to do with concerns about human rights. For China, it was revenge for being duped by Nato after the UN sanctioned a no-fly zone over Libya strictly to protect civilians but which was used as an excuse for all-out war and subsequently to ensure that China no longer had access to the country’s vast oil reserves. Russia has extensive economic investments in Syria, whose main port is leased to the Russian Navy; and it sells billions of dollars of arms to the Assad regime.

But we sell many billions more to Saudi Arabia, which is Britain’s main trading partner. We installed the Al-Saud dynasty back in the 1920s, and we’ll continue to be silent, as we always have been, on that country’s repulsive human rights record. What goes around certainly comes around in the Middle East, and it comes around with a depressing regularity. The Arab Spring was never going to end the cycle.

There is no limit, it seems, to the blood price Arabs have to pay for their “spring”. After the carnage in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya, Syria’s 11-month-old uprising grows ever more gruesome. Four days of bombardment of rebel-controlled districts in the Syrian city of Homs have yielded horrific images and reports from the embattled Bab al-Amr opposition stronghold: of mosques full of corpses, streets strewn with body parts, residential areas reduced to rubble.

Television footage broadcast in the Arab world is still more graphic, and the impact convulsive. Whatever the arguments about the number of dead on either side, the scale of human suffering is unmistakable – and comes after almost a year of continuous bloodletting, torture and sectarian revenge attacks.

So when Russia and China vetoed Saturday’s western-sponsored UN resolution condemning Bashar al-Assad’s regime, requiring his troops to return to barracks and backing an Arab League plan for him to be replaced, US and British leaders and their allies, echoed by the western media, felt able to denounce it as a “disgusting” and “shameful” act of betrayal of Syrians.

But that assumes externally imposed regime change, which is what the resolution entailed, would either work, have legitimacy or actually stop the killing. By decreeing a “political process” with a predetermined outcome, the withdrawal of the Syrian army from the streets with no parallel demand on armed rebel groups, and full implementation within 21 days – with a provision for “further measures” in the event of “non-compliance” – it also paved the way for foreign military intervention.

It’s been widely claimed that the double veto has given Assad the green light to intensify repression and made full-scale civil war more likely. But by ruling out UN-backed intervention, it could just as well be argued that it puts pressure on the main opposition group, the western-backed Syrian National Council, to negotiate – given that its whole strategy has been based on creating the conditions for a Libyan-style no-fly zone.

Russia and China have used Syria to challenge the west’s attempt to corral the Arab uprisings for its own interests. The veto has strengthened Russia’s hand with the Assad regime, while Russian officials have privately assured opposition leaders that the quarrel is with the US, not them. And Barack Obama has now pledged to “try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention”.

But that’s a long way from ruling it out. Already US, British and French leaders are busy setting up a new coalition of the willing with their autocratic Saudi and Gulf allies, satirically named “friends of democratic Syria”, to build up the opposition and drive Assad from power.

Intervention is in fact already taking place. The Saudis and Qataris are reported to be funding and arming the opposition. The Free Syrian Army has a safe haven in Turkey. Western special forces are said to be giving military support on the ground. And if that fails, the UN can be bypassed by invoking the “responsibility to protect” civilians, along Libyan lines.

But none of that will stop the killing. It will escalate it. That is the clear lesson of last year’s Nato intervention in Libya. When it began, the death toll was 1,000 to 2,000. By the time Muammar Gaddafi was captured and lynched seven months later, it was estimated at more than 10 times that figure. The legacy of foreign intervention in Libya has also been mass ethnic cleansing, torture and detention without trial, continuing armed conflict, and a western-orchestrated administration so unaccountable it resisted revealing its members’ names.

Russia and China have now signalled there will be no more UN-sanctioned Libyas. But for the US, Britain and their allies to indulge in moral posturing over Syria or pose as friends of its people is preposterous. It’s not just their responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan or, say, their support for the Bahrain dictatorship – even as it violently suppresses its own uprising while sponsoring the UN resolution for democratic transition in Syria. For 45 years, they have underwritten Israel’s occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, yet now promise to guarantee Syria’s “territorial integrity”.

The Syrian crisis operates at several levels. Part of it is a popular uprising against an authoritarian nationalist regime, which still retains significant public support. In the face of sustained repression that uprising has increasingly morphed into what the Arab League mission’s leaked report described as an “armed entity”.

The conflict has also taken on a grimly sectarian dimension, as the Alawite-dominated security machine trades on minorities’ fear of a predominantly majority Sunni opposition. On the ground, that has fed a surge of Iraqi and Lebanese-style confessional cleansing and killings.

But the third dimension – Syria’s role as Iran’s main strategic ally – is what has made the crisis so toxic in a region where the west and its Arab clients have tried to turn the tide of the Arab awakening to their own advantage by ramping up conflict with Tehran.

The overthrow of the Syrian regime would be a serious blow to Iran’s influence in the Middle East. And as the conflict in Syria has escalated, so has the western-Israeli confrontation with Iran. Even as US defence secretary Leon Panetta and national intelligence director James Clapper acknowledged that Iran isn’t after all “trying to build a nuclear weapon”, Panetta has let it be known there is a “strong likelihood” Israel will attack Iran as early as April, while Iran faces crippling EU oil sanctions over its nuclear programme.

Western intervention in Syria – and Russia and China’s opposition to it – can only be understood in that context: as part of a proxy war against Iran, which disastrously threatens to become a direct one. There is little sign, meanwhile, of either the Syrian regime or opposition making a decisive breakthrough.

If the opposition can’t shoot its way to power and the regime doesn’t implode, the only way out of deepening civil war is a negotiated political settlement leading to genuine elections. To stand any chance of success, that would now need to be guaranteed by the main powers in the region and beyond. The alternative of western and Gulf-dictator intervention could only lead to far greater bloodshed – and deny Syrians control of their own country.

Pursuant to the Rights Plan, each holder of record of the outstanding common shares of the Company on February 1, 2012 will be issued one right per common share. The rights will trade with the common shares and be represented by the certificates representing common shares. Although the Rights Plan is effective immediately, it is subject to TSX Venture Exchange approval and must be ratified by the shareholders of the Company within six (6) months of its adoption. The Rights Plan will be submitted to the shareholders of the Company for ratification at the Annual General and Special Meeting of Shareholders to be held April 12, 2012.
A copy of the Rights Plan is posted and available for viewing on http://sedar.com/.
The Rights Plan is similar to shareholder rights plans adopted by numerous other Canadian corporations. Neither the Board nor senior management of the Company is aware of any current, pending or threatened take-over bid for the Company.
About Gold Bullion Development Corp.
Gold Bullion Development Corp. is a TSX Venture-listed junior natural resource company focusing on the exploration and development of its Granada Property near Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec.
For more information on Gold Bullion Development Corp. (TSXV:GBB.V) (OTCPINK:GBBFF), visit our web site: : www.GoldBullionDevelopmentCorp.com
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Service Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. This news release may contain forward-looking statements including but not limited to comments regarding the timing and content of upcoming work programs, geological interpretations, receipt of property titles, potential mineral recovery processes, etc. Forward-looking statements address future events and conditions and therefore, involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated in such statements.
For further information contact:
Frank J. Basa, P.Eng., President and Chief Executive Officer, Tel: (514) 397-4000
Progressive Investor Relations (Canada) Tel (604) 689-2881 or email info@progressive-ir.com

Gold Mining Stocks at Investorideas.com

Drill hole D2N-03 was drilled into the Dos Naciones Este target, located approximately 2.5 km southwest of drill holes D2N-01 and 02. Hole D2N-03 was collared in an outcrop of skarn and intersected 10.0 m of skarn mineralization averaging 0.76 % copper and 9.3 g/t silver from a depth of 4.5 metres below a zone of very poor recovery.
The size of these targets has yet to be fully tested and as a result Yale is recommending additional drilling at Dos Naciones. Del Toro must spend a total of $800,000 at Dos Naciones prior to July 7, 2013 to earn a 70% interest in the property.
About Yale Resources:
Yale Resources utilizes the project generator business model to maximize its exposure to discovery while minimizing shareholder risk. Yale currently has nine projects in its portfolio of which five are optioned out with commitments totalling approximately $1.3 M in expenditures during the next 12 months. At the same time Yale continues to work on its non-optioned properties as well as reviewing new projects.
Ian Foreman, P.Geo, is Yale�s Qualified Person, according to National Instrument 43-101, for the Dos Naciones properties and is responsible for any technical data mentioned in this news release.
Samples from Dos Naciones were prepared and analyzed by IPL Inspectorate in their facilities in Mexico and Vancouver, respectively. Samples generally consisted of 1-3 kg of material. Gold analyses were performed by 30 gram fire assay with an AA finish. Silver, copper, lead and zinc were analyzed as part of a multi-element ICP package using an aqua regia digestion. Over limit samples with greater than 1% Cu, Pb and Zn were re-analyzed using ore grade detection limits.
On behalf of the Board,
“Ian Foreman”
Ian Foreman, P.Geo.
President
For additional information on Yale Resources please call the Company at 604-678-2531.
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Statements in this press release, other than purely historical information, including statements relating to the Company’s future plans and objectives or expected results, may include forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions and are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties inherent in resource exploration and development. As a result, actual results may vary materially from those described in the forward-looking statements.
Contact:
Yale Resources Ltd.
Ian Foreman
604-678-2531

Gold Mining Stocks at Investorideas.com