Horsemeat, New Duck Foot from 3-D Printer, and Viewpoint on New Public School Plan - What's your take on these topics?

USDA approves horse slaughterhouse to produce meat for human consumption

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040995_horse_meat_slaughterhouses_USDA_approval.html#ixzz2XjghsKY3

Disabled Duck Gets A New Foot Thanks To 3D Printing Technology

June 30, 2013

http://libertycrier.com/tech/disabled-duck-gets-a-new-foot-thanks-to-3d-printing-technology/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=1247d33fce-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_6_30_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_600843dec4-1247d33fce-284777229

 

Inside Common Core: This Is Nothing New

June 30, 2013

 

 

Another viewpoint on the Supreme Court's rulings...

The silver lining, despite the Supreme Court's cloudy "marriage" ruling.
Despite the gloom and despair many Christians felt about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling which re-defined family and rendered unenforceable part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, there is a silver lining, as reported by the attorney who defended Proposition 8 in California, Anthony Pugno, who wrote this excellent analysis, clarifying much disinformation reported by the main stream media:

"Here are some key facts about today's two rulings in the Prop 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases:

"1. By a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down a narrow portion of DOMA that deals only with federal recognition of marriages in those states that have adopted gender-neutral marriage. The majority opinion specifically said it was NOT requiring states to adopt same-sex 'marriage.'

"2. Also by a narrow, 5-4 decision, the Court chose to AVOID ruling on Proposition 8's validity [it was not struck down]...They held that, since California's government officials refused to defend Prop 8, there was no 'case' for the Court to decide. The minority opinion (by four judges) dissented, agreeing with our California Supreme Court that we--as the official proponents--should be allowed to give Prop 8 a defense.

Watch Dr. Chaps 16-minute TV commentary on BOTH Supreme Court rulings on "marriage"-->

"3. The Supreme Court did NOT accept our opponent's pleas to change the definition of marriage, nor did it declare a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage.'

"4. The Supreme Court 'vacated' (erased) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's previous ruling against Prop 8, which means that terrible decision provides NO legal precedent for same-sex 'marriage.'

"5. California's Constitution says that only an appellate court, not a single trial court judge, can stop a proposition's enforcement statewide. As of today, there is no such ruling. Nevertheless, the Governor and Attorney General today rushed forward with plans to make same-sex 'marriage' licenses available throughout California in the next three or four weeks. [This is a blatant violation of Prop 8, which remains law in California.]

Dr. Chaps' comment: Mr. Pugno is of course correct, that Judges, legislators, and governors do not have power to re-write Prop 8 and DOMA. Yet they choose, by their neglect, to rendered it unenforceable in court. Who will enforce the existing law? We can turn to Almighty God. As I prayed today, God gave me a scripture for America:

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof..." Isaiah 3:12-14, KJV.

So if Christians don't have "standing," fear not. The LORD standeth to judge.

Let's take a stand with God, to enforce HIS law, which stands forever and is not overruled:
Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)

Or select our free option here.
Two losses. SCOTUS enforces Same-Sex "Marriage" in California and Nationwide.

As I predicted last week, Justices Kennedy and Roberts both betrayed conservatives today, and homose xualized "Marriage" in both cases of Windsor v. United States (striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act), and Hollingsworth v. Perry (concerning Proposition 8 in California).

To be clear, both laws, DOMA and Prop 8 are still laws, still on the books, but they will not be enforced by any court. (Just as God's law still forbids sod omy, and always shall, but will not be enforced by any U.S. Court.)
Justice Kennedy cited our Founding Fathers (who are rolling over in their grave) to rule the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, which says citizens shall "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Kennedy essentially believes that "marriage equality" (which words are not in the Fifth Amendment) requires the federal government to issue federal homose xual bonus pay (including tax breaks, Social Security Benefits, etc.) to homose xual couples in all 50 states, although states may continue to deny state benefits in states where state law prohibits state benefits for couples not legally married in that state.

The full text of Kennedy's 5-4 ruling in Windsor v. United States is here. KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN joined. ROBERTS, SCALIA (with THOMAS), and ALITO (with THOMAS) filed 3 separate dissenting opinions.

As I also predicted last night, Justice Roberts betrayed conservatives in the other case, writing that California Christians did not have federal standing to sue to defend Prop 8, the ballot initiative passed twice by California voters defining traditional marriage as only valid between one man and one woman. Because the California Governors refused to defend the law in court, Christians sued to defend the law. And although the California Supreme Court ruled they have legal "state standing" to sue, (i.e. they may appear in state court to defend the law), the Supreme Court ruled today Christians as private citizens do not have "federal standing" to sue or appear to defend the state law in federal court.

Since the California government will not enforce Proposition 8, and private citizens cannot sue, then homose xuals in California are free to "marry" each other, and obtain full state benefits, despite the existence of Prop 8 which remains California law, but is not being enforced by either the state or federal government.

The full text of Roberts' 5-4 ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry is here. ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN joined. KENNEDY filed a dissenting opinion, joined by THOMAS, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR.

Friends, today is a shameful day in American history. When courts refuse to enforce good existing laws (including God's law), they give (by default) permission for sin to run wild across America. But when they claim the Founding Fathers somehow endorse sod omy, they have betrayed all that God and the Foundering Fathers ever stood for.

Let's continue to petition Congress, to enact a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as Jesus did in Matthew 19, between one man and one woman.

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)



Or select our free option here.






God Bless you, in Jesus' name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD


For media interviews, select here.

Gay Marriage is in and Prop. 8 is out - from U.S. Supreme Court

High Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act, Dismisses California's Prop. 8 Ban

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/?s=al&promo_code=13F3A-1#ixzz2XMCfklpr

[Sidebar:  Allegedly reported that three, at least, of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices are openly/actively homosexuals, therefore there are those asking why they didn't excuse themselves from the final voting on this particular issue - does give the "appearance" of wrong doing - what's your research on this?]

HEADS UP!! - US SB 1310 defeated in 2011 to outlaw dietary supplements is heading back again - ALSO, EPA alert - Plus other political news with one unexpected victory where the people grew tired of city council corruption and used the system to fight back by replacing all of them with better citizens

Senator Durbin to Reintroduce Supplement Bill

June 19, 2013

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/19/durbin-supplement-bill.aspx?e_cid=20130619_PRNL_art_1&utm_source=prmrnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130619

Story at-a-glance

• Illinois Senator Durbin is planning to reintroduce his supplement bill, the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act (S 1310), which would grant more power to the FDA to regulate dietary supplements like they were drugs; Durbin first introduced S 1310 in 2011, but it failed miserably, as have many of his other attempts to pass laws attacking the supplement industry
• Durbin’s citing of the 2013 GAO Dietary Supplements report, which details adverse effects reports (AERs) associated with supplements, backfires in that it demonstrates just how safe supplements are, compared to vaccines and drugs
• Based on the GAO report, there were 488 times as many adverse reactions reported for prescription drugs as from dietary supplements, and there is no evidence supporting the claim that adverse reactions to supplements are underreported; data from poison control centers confirms their safety
• The financial burden created by Durbin’s proposed legislation will likely cause many supplement companies to go under; and, as a result, the cost of your supplements will likely skyrocket and, more importantly, your supplement choices will be limited
• Manufacturers are migrating products previously classified as “supplements” into the category “food products” in order to sidestep the tighter regulations imposed on supplements, and this loophole is completely ignored by the Durbin bill

Tell Congress that Supplements Are Not Drugs! Sign Petition Here: https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=590

Urgent action alert: EPA about to raise allowable concentrations of glyphosate on food crops, edible oils and animal feed - comments needed by July 1 Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040842_glyphosate_EPA_regulations_contamination_levels.html#ixzz2WmO2LSlM

NJ Supreme Court Rules State Can Seek Custody Of Child Without Evidence Of Abuse Or Neglect

June 19, 2013

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/06/14/nj-supreme-court-rules-state-can-seek-custody-of-child-without-evidence-of-abuse/

Attempted Land Grab Ends With Voters Booting Entire City Council  [in Hackensack, NJ]

J.D. Tuccille|Jun. 13, 2013

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/13/attempted-land-grab-ends-with-voters-boo

"...Last month, the Appellate Division of the state Superior Court agreed (with property owners' attorney), ruling the Planning Board didn’t properly prove that those properties were blighted and “in need of redevelopment.” (refusing property owners' multiple applications to develop their own property)  The city council intended to appeal the appellate court’s decision.

But fortunately for property owners, Hackensack’s entire city council was booted out of office.  The grassroots group Citizens for Change won every single seat on the city council, despite being outraised 2:1.  Their slate of candidates successfully ran on a platform against costly litigation, nepotism, and corruption.  (For example, Hackensack’s police chief was recently convicted for official misconduct and insurance fraud.)  Citizens for Change also sharply criticized Hackensack’s redevelopment projects, calling them “sweetheart deals and special privileges for politically connected property owners and developers.”

A happy outcome like this is no surefire guarantee that eminent domain won't be abused in the future. But it is a sign that, even in New Jersey, government officials have to keep the bullying below the public's pain threshold.

First 3D printers - Now making invisible people Harry Potter style??

Stunning Technology Makes Troops Invisible

Anti-Sulfuryl Fluoride Victory - does NOT get phased out...

Fluoride Action Network
http://www.fluoridealert.org/

June 13, 2013

Dear friends,

YOU made it happen. The Senate amendment (#1122) that would have circumvented the proposed phase-out of the food fumigant sulfuryl fluoride did not make it into the Farm Bill.
For now, the great response by FAN supporters has been heard by Senators. According to one email we received from California: "I contacted Feinstein’s office and was told 1122 is dead because of all the calls they are getting"

Thank you to all who contacted your Senators and to Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides, who worked tirelessly on this. Without your efforts we probably would have lost the Senate battle.

We will keep you apprised of what is happening in the House as they will be discussing their version of the Farm Bill which includes language to “withdraw” EPA’s proposed phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride.

The Senate amendment was the first of Dow AgroSciences' attempts to circumvent the laws protecting children from sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant (named ProFume). The EPA announced in 2011 that ProFume use would be phased out because it could lead to unsafe exposures of fluoride. That announcement was in response to objections submitted by FAN and two other environmental groups, Beyond Pesticides and the Environmental Working Group.

BACKGROUND TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT:

The amendment would have altered how EPA calculated the health risks from sulfuryl fluoride pesticide residues on foods. Instead of including all sources of fluoride, as mandated by law, two major sources of fluoride exposure would have been arbitrarily omitted, to give the illusion on paper that children weren’t already getting too much fluoride. Removing major sources of fluoride from the health risk assessment would not reduce the actual fluoride exposure children receive, or the adverse health effects of those over-exposures.

According to a June 4th article in Inside EPA the amendment was crafted by individuals in the EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (one of America’s largest environmental groups). We assume it was the political appointees at EPA who want to placate Dow AgroSciences (maker of sulfuryl fluoride). For the NRDC it was the wrongly held belief that if sulfuryl fluoride is phased-out more methyl bromide, an ozone destroying fumigant, would be used. This didn’t happen in Europe where they, unlike the US, have stopped using methyl bromide for several years.


From the Team at FAN

Global Politics - McDonald's, Euthanasia, Meat in Ice Cream?

McDonald's closing all restaurants in Bolivia as nation rejects fast food

Thursday, June 13, 2013
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040752_Bolivia_McDonalds_restaurants_fast_food.html#ixzz2W7HEQCqs

Euthanasia for children nears approval by Belgian Parliament; doctors to mass-euthanize children and Alzheimer's patients

June 12, 2013
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040744_euthanasia_children_mercy_killings.html#ixzz2W7HVCMUM

Meat scrap leftovers now being reprocessed into ice cream: The dismal future of food

June 12, 2013
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040742_meat_scraps_ice_cream_animal_protein_hydrolysates.html#ixzz2W7LO79Fv

GMO updates

Will Detection of Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Decimate US Economy?

June 11, 2013

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/11/unapproved-gm-wheat.aspx?e_cid=20130611_PRNL_art_1&utm_source=prmrnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130611

 

 

 

Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food       

June 11, 2013

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/11/modern-food-nutritional-content.aspx?e_cid=20130611_PRNL_art_2&utm_source=prmrnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20130611

 

"...nutritional content of the conventional food supply has been rapidly declining for the last 50 years as a natural consequence of increasingly poor soil conditions on modern farms, and it is getting worse.

 

"But food has actually been getting gradually less nutritious for far longer than that, as a direct result of humans’ preferences for sweeter, starchier and less colorful fruits and vegetables.

As written in the New York Times:¹      ..."                                

"Media Myths" about "unconstitutional" Constitution vs FACTS

The Constitution is not “Unconstitutional”

by Robert Natelson on June 7, 2013     

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/06/the-constitution-is-not-unconstitutional/

 

Judging by recent claims in the media such as this one, there is still a lot of life in the old tale (dating back to the Anti-Federalists) that the 1787 federal convention “ran away” and that the Constitution was unconstitutionally adopted.

I’ve dealt with both claims in this column occasionally (see, e.g., here and here), but maybe now is a good time to present a more complete correction of the record.

To get at the the truth you have to know about the laws and practices then applying to interstate conventions, and the procedure leading up to the 1787 gathering. Although the Anti-Federalists were right about certain things (some of their political predictions were brilliant), by and large the law was not their strong point. So their claims that the convention delegates exceeded their powers were partly the result of legal ignorance. They also may have hoped to convince themselves and the public that they had successfully done something they actually had failed to do. Explanation below.

For other reasons, many later writers have accepted the Anti-Federalist charge. This is because most people who write about the Founding may be either historians or lawyers, but they are seldom both. And even the few who are both historians and lawyers have rarely studied 18th century law and convention practice—yours truly modestly excepted.

The usual (false) narrative goes like this:

“The Confederation Congress called the convention and limited its power to proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. The Convention disregarded the limit, and drafted an entirely new document. The Articles provided that they could be changed only by unanimous consent among the states. But the convention illegally disregarded that, and allowed ratification of the Constitution by only nine states.”

Here are the facts:

* Before and during the Founding Era, there were many interstate conventions, and most of them were called by individual colonies and states. The call or invitation set the outer limits of the topic, and the powers of individual colony or state “committees” (delegations) were fixed by documents called “commissions” issued by each state to its “commissioners” (delegates).

* Congress did not call the Constitutional Convention. It was called by Virginia and, secondarily, by New Jersey in November 1786 in response to the recommendation of the Annapolis Convention the previous September. These calls provided for the convention to propose changes in the “federal constitution” without limiting the gathering to amendments to the Articles. The unanimous authority of 18th century dictionaries tells us that “constitution” in this context meant the entire political system, not merely the Articles as such.

* Congress didn’t get around to considered the matter until late February of the following year. By then, seven of the 13 states had agreed to participate and broadly empowered their commissioners (delegates) to consider changes in the political system.

* Congress had no legal power to affect that effort, but a congressional committee did recommend that Congress endorse it. Congressional delegates from New York, where Anti-Federalist sentiment was strong, were instructed to try to stop it. They moved that Congress “recommend” that the convention be limited only to amending the Articles. Congress defeated the New York motion.

* The congressional delegates from Massachusetts then proposed a compromise. They watered down the New York motion to state only that “in the opinion of Congress it is expedient” that the convention be so limited. In this form it passed.

* But this “opinion” had no—repeat, no—legal force.

* The New York and Massachusetts efforts made sense, however, only on the assumption that the seven states that already had empowered their delegates were giving them authority well beyond that of proposing amendments to the Articles.

* New York and Massachusetts later agreed to participate in the Constitutional Convention, but limited their commissioners to proposing amendments to the Articles.

* All the other states ignored them. The original seven continued to give their commissioners authority to recommend an entirely new system. Three more states decided to participate, and they also followed the original, broad formula.

* Thus, in Philadelphia, only the seven commissioners from New York and Massachusetts lacked power to propose a new form of government. Of the seven, three signed the Constitution, one in an individual capacity (Hamilton). Of the 55 delegates, therefore, only Nathaniel Gorham and Rufus King of Massachusetts arguably exceeded their authority by signing.

* There was nothing otherwise illegal about proposing a new system. Interstate conventions were considered meetings under international law. The Articles of Confederation were essentially a treaty among sovereign states. (The word “confederation” was based on the Latin word for treaty: foedus.) In other words, the role of the Confederation Congress was much like the role of the UN among sovereign nations today.

* Signatories of treaties always have the power to reconsider the terms of their connections, even if their coordinating agent (such as the UN or the Confederation Congress) objects.

* The Convention was not held under the Articles; it was by agreement of participating states outside the Articles. The Articles did not control the proceedings, either legally or practically.

* The Declaration of Independence explicitly presented Americans to the world as “one people”—not as 13 different peoples. It is true that this “one people” initially operated through 13 separate governments. But this is by no means unusual in world history, where single “peoples” often have been ruled by multiple governments. Good Founding-Era examples were the political fragmention of the German people and of the Italian people. Good modern examples are Korea, Ireland, and the Arabian peninsula.

* Under the political theory of the Founding Era, the people were the “principals” and public officials their “agents.” Although the American people had granted governmental power to disconnected sets of agents, they also had the right to change that arrangement. (See the Declaration of Independence.) Legally, a principal could (and still may) revoke and alter his agent’s authority at any time, and entrust all or part of that authority to others.

* Put another way, the American people could revisit the treaty obligations their agents had contracted on their behalf. The 1787 convention suggested that the people do just that—by taking some of the power heretofore exercised by state officials and the Confederation Congress and entrusting it to new federal officials. This was why James Madison said on the Convention floor that “he thought it indispensable that the new Constitution should be ratified in the most unexceptionable form, and by the supreme authority of the people themselves.”

* The ratification procedure was crafted so that the Constitution would never come until effect unless it represented the will of a majority of the American electorate. The Framers did this in two ways: (1) Ratification or rejection would come not from state politicians, but from conventions directly elected by the voters for the sole purpose of considering the Constitution, and (2) the Constitution would not go into effect unless conventions in nine states agreed.

* Why nine states? Because as the Constitution’s initial allocation of the new House of Representatives showed (Art.I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3), the Framers believed that any and all combinations of nine states would comprise a majority of American citizens. Even if the five most populous states all refused to ratify, the remaining nine still would represent a majority of the electorate. Moreover, as a matter of political reality, the Constitution would not go into effect unless some large states—particularly Pennsylvania and Virginia—were among the nine.

* Ultimately, of course, all 13 states ratified, satisfying even those who claimed the Articles governed.

So relax: The Founders were honorable men, and the Constitution is constitutional.

 

About Robert Natelson

Rob Natelson is one of America’s best-known constitutional scholars and a former and tenured law professor at the University of Montana. Natelson is a Senior Fellow at both the Independence Institute and Arizona’s Goldwater Institute.

 

GMO labeling research

More Research on the GMO labeling in Connecticut >>

Breaking News: Connecticut passes GMO labeling law

June 5, 2013 by Eric L. Zielinski  
Filed under Food News

Leave a comment

Thu. June 6, 2013 by Eric L. Zielinski
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/food_news/gmo_laws.html

IRS Scandal - Questions - GMOs - Guns - WWII history

Riveting and Chilling: Victims of IRS Targeting Tell Their Stories on Capitol Hill

Katie Pavlich | Jun 04, 2013

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/06/04/riveting-and-chilling-victims-of-irs-targeting-tell-their-war-stories-on-capitol-hill-n1612696

‘The Question Libertarians Just Can’t Answer’ 

June 4, 2013  [Sidebar: author says to reword the question]

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-answer/

Connecticut becomes first state to pass legislation requiring genetically modified (GM) food labeling

June 4, 2013 [Sidebar: below article are several comments that indicate the House and Governor changed the wording of the Senate bill on GMO labeling to the point of making it totally ineffective and useless - obviously need more research on this new item]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/04/connecticut-becomes-first-state-to-pass-legislation-requiring-genetically-modified-gm-food-labeling/

“Mental Illness” Diagnoses Are the Slippery Slope to Gun Confiscation

June 4, 2013  [Sidebar: "1-5 children are now mentally ill" and "50% of all adults will be mentally ill"--all this based on the new definition for "mentally ill" in the updated psychiatrist manual]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15615-mental-illness-diagnoses-are-the-slippery-slope-to-gun-confiscation

Hawaii’s Forgotten Internment Camps

June 5, 2013  [Sidebar: video of WWII history in Hawaii]

http://libertycrier.com/front-page/hawaiis-forgotten-internment-camps/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=9c954d4254-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_6_5_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_600843dec4-9c954d4254-284777229

Video - Alvaro Vargas Llosa on the Immigration Debate

Alvaro Vargas Llosa on the Immigration Debate

{Sidebar: Video interview very short and focuses on questions regarding Congress - Llosa has said that if welfare is not given to immigrants--get rid of the "welfare state," and if immigration is opened up the way it was before current regulations, then immigration would increase America's economy as each immigrant would contribute towards society with their self-reliance efforts, just as past immigration did in building America.}

Anti-GMO Petition to Repeal the "Monsanto Protection Act"

Oregon Senator takes on “Monsanto Protection Act”

June 2, 2013 by Eric L. Zielinski
Filed under Food News

Leave a comment

Sun. June 2, 2013 By Eric L. Zielinski
(NaturalHealth365) According to Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), the so-called Monsanto Protection Act is “one of the most outrageous special interest provisions in years.”

Historically, the United States has had a process ensuring that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were not sold, planted and grown until they were proven to be safe for humans and crops. However, “The Monsanto Protection Act overrides that process,” Merkley states on his website, and “that’s just wrong.”

Inspired to reverse this heinous crime against humanity, Merkley has proposed an amendment, to the farm bill, that would repeal the Monsanto Protection Act. He calls for people to sign his petition ASAP and help end this outrageous special interest override of federal judicial decisions.

What exactly is the “Monsanto Protection Act”?
On Tuesday, March 26, the anonymously written “Monsanto Protection Act” was signed by President Obama allowing corporations to sell genetically modified (GM) seeds even when federal courts have blocked them from doing so. It was passed in secret, stuffed discretely 78 pages within the budget bill H.R. 933 that prevented a springtime government shutdown.
Because this was a must-pass bill under tight time constraints, the House and Senate approved it with no debate.

Although researchers and activists have raised significant concerns regarding GMOs, Obama’s signature has veritably given biotech companies like Monsanto complete immunity to continue engineering and selling man-made crops. Even in the event that experimental crops are found to be dangerous or to cause runaway crop plagues, the U.S. government now has no judicial power to stop them from being planted and harvested.

GOP blocks Merkley amendment
On May 23, a member of the GOP blocked Merkley’s request for a vote on his amendment. Indignant about the chain of the events, the Oregon Senator said the following on the floor:

“The fact that the act instructs seed producers to ignore a ruling of the court is troubling. It raises profound questions about the constitutional separation of powers and the ability of our courts to hold agencies accountable to the law and their responsibilities. I can tell you that this process and this policy has provoked outrage across the country!”

Merkley said this just two days before the historical March Against Monsanto – where over 2 million people, from 52 countries, protested to make GMO labeling mandatory.

The battle rages on!
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group that represents Monsanto, DuPont & Co. and other makers of GMOs, has said that it supports voluntary labeling for people who seek out such products. However, it also states that mandatory labeling would only mislead or confuse consumers into thinking genetically engineered products are not safe. Even the FDA has determined that there is no difference between GMO and organic, non-GMO foods!

Stateside, legislatures in Vermont and Connecticut moved ahead this month with votes to require food companies label GMOs. However, local leaders fear that Monsanto and Big Ag will sue individual states on the basis that they are circumventing federal authority.

Commercially, natural supermarket giant Whole Foods Markets Inc. has recently released that all products in its North American stores will clearly label GMOs by 2018. Obviously done as a marketing advantage, Whole Foods reports that there is growing demand for non-GMOs products. Market analysis has stated that the sales of products with a “Non-GMO” verification label has spiked between 15 percent and 30 percent.

Take action today and sign the petition to help Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley take down the Monsanto Protection Act!

About the author: Eric is a peer-reviewed, published researcher. His work on heart disease and autism has been accepted internationally at various scientific conferences through organizations like the American Public Health Association and Australian-based Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute. Be sure to follow his research – here at: NaturalHealth365.com.

Sources:
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
http://www.merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=7EE6208F-807F-4BF6-B3DD-397DC20ACBB4
http://www.jeffmerkley.com/petition/monsanto/

Alert from Fluoride Action Network (FAN) - Congressional vote on Monday to keep fluoride as a pesticide

June 2, 2013

Dear Kenneth M:

This request is urgent for all of us living in the U.S. and Puerto Rico:

As early as THIS MONDAY (June 3), the U.S. Senate may vote on an Amendment to the Farm Bill that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from phasing out the use of sulfuryl fluoride as a fumigant on countless foods made in the U.S. No other western country, besides Australia, allows this toxic fluoride fumigant to enter the food supply.


The Amendment, introduced by Senator Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana), removes key health protections from the Food Quality Protection Act, a law passed in 1996 to ensure that pesticide exposures do not harm children. The Amendment eliminates the protections for fluoride, but no other chemical. A proposed House Bill seeks to do the same thing, but the Amendment is far more worrying because, as a fly-by night addition to an enormous bill, it will receive far less scrutiny and be much harder to defeat than a stand alone piece of legislation. (FAN only learned about it today, June 2, 2013, 7:41 a.m.)


If the Amendment passes, there will be little that can be done to prevent the indefinite fumigation of the food supply with fluoride. This in turn will make it harder for anyone living in the U.S. to avoid fluoride, as foods fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride have no labeling requirement.


There is still time to prevent this from happening, but we need to act as quickly as the industry lobbyists seeking to fast track it through. Here’s what we need your help with:


1.) Send a letter to your Senator.


2.) Call your Senator. Phone calls are more influential than emails, and Senate staff does take note of constituent positions on issues.


3.) Please forword this bulletin to friends and family via email and share on Facebook and other social media sites. You can share this bulletin by clicking on the link below entitled "view it in your browser", then cutting and pasting the URL into a social media post.


Thank you,


Stuart Cooper


FAN Campaign Manager