http://youtu.be/pl8uxT0lUsQ

Pregnant Women Should Take Iodine Supplement: Docs

Monday, 26 May 2014 10:35 AM

Pregnant women should take an iodine supplement to protect the brain development of their babies, according to the leading U.S. group of pediatricians.
Iodine, which the body can get from iodide, is needed to make the thyroid hormones that are required for children’s brain development before and after birth.
“Women who are childbearing age need to pay attention to this topic as well, because about half of the pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned,” Dr. Jerome Paulson said.
“Women in the early part of the pregnancy may not realize they’re pregnant.”
Paulson is the chairperson of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Environmental Health, which authored the policy statement. He is also a pediatrician at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
The recommendations were published in the journal Pediatrics on Monday.
People typically get the iodine they need from table salt, which in the U.S. is fortified with iodide. Eating processed foods exposes Americans to salt that is not iodized, however.
The Council writes that past research has suggested about one-third of pregnant women in the U.S. are marginally iodine deficient. Also, only about 15 percent of women take a supplement containing an adequate amount of iodide.
The American Thyroid Association and the National Academy of Sciences suggest pregnant and breastfeeding women get 290 micrograms of iodide per day.
Women may need to take a supplement with 150 micrograms of iodide to reach that recommended level, but most prenatal and lactation vitamins contain less, according to the Council.
“Breastfeeding mothers should take a supplement that includes at least 150 micrograms of iodide and use iodized table salt,” the Council writes.
Additionally, the Council says women may need to be tested for iodine deficiency if they are vegan or don’t eat fish.
“Obviously iodine is critical to the fetal and child brain,” Dr. Loralei Thornburg said. “Therefore having a diet that’s rich in iodine is critical.”
Thornburg was not involved in making the new recommendation. She is a high-risk pregnancy expert at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.
“Although many women are largely iodine deficient, most women do get iodine in the (form) of food,” she told Reuters Health. “This isn’t something women should freak out about just yet.”
Thornburg said the ideal amount of iodide supplementation depends on how much of the compound women already get from their diets.
The Council says a pregnant or lactating woman’s combined iodide intake should be between 290 and 1100 micrograms per day. Specifically, it should be in the form of potassium iodide.
“This is something that’s fairly routine,” Paulson said. “I think what we’re saying is people need to pay attention to the details of what they’re doing, but not radically change their behavior.”
The authors also suggest pregnant or lactating women avoid nitrate, found in contaminated well water, and thiocyanate, which is usually found in cigarette smoke and certain vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage. The two chemicals can disrupt the ability of iodine to be processed into hormones. However, women rarely eat enough of the vegetables for thiocyanate levels from those sources to be concerning, they note.
Finally, the Council recommends that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proceed with appropriate regulation of perchlorate in waterways. Perchlorate, which is a chemical used in rocket fuels and explosives, can disrupt the body’s use of iodine to make thyroid hormones.
“I think people can have some control over their exposure to tobacco smoke, but they may not even be aware of the perchlorate or other chemicals in the water,” Paulson said.
The Council also writes that there is some inconsistency between the iodide on the label of supplements and their actual content. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration should “do what is necessary to allow consumers to identify and use iodide supplements with confidence” if the industry’s actions are insufficient, it adds.
© 2014 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Health-News/iodine-pregnancy-supplement/2014/05/26/id/573346#ixzz32rFjIrRA
Alert: What Is Your Risk for a Heart Attack? Find Out Now

MEMORIAL DAY MESSAGE TO VETERANS: GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS YOU THE ENEMY

Veterans are props to be rolled out on Memorial Day as homage is paid to the state and its endless wars

Memorial Day Message to Veterans

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | MAY 26, 2014

Earlier today, Obama appeared at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery for a photo op. From The Washington Post:

Obama, aided by a soldier in uniform, rested the large wreath on a stand a few minutes after 11 a.m. Monday. The president adjusted the wreath, stepped back and bowed his head in silence for a few moments. Afterward, an Army bugler played taps.

Later he appeared at the cemetery’s Memorial Amphitheater to read from a script. “We’re in a pivotal moment. Our troops are coming home. By the end of this year, our war in Afghanistan will finally come to an end,” he recited.
“These Americans have done their duty. They ask nothing more than that our country does ours, for now and the decades to come,” Obama said.
But, as the VA scandal and countless other examples reveal, the government considers veterans as little more than third class citizens, props to be rolled out on Memorial Day as homage is ritually paid to the state and its endless wars.
The booboisie, as H. L. Mencken described the forever gullible and easily bamboozled American public, were practically knocking down the gates to get in to witness this annual worship of state violence:

Before the ceremony, a large number of people were turned away from the cemetery’s entrances by security personnel who said that the event was at capacity.

When the government is not praising veterans for their “service” in foreign wars of conquest and other illegal activity driven primarily by the financial elite – see Smedley Butler, below – it spends a lot of time demonizing veterans as enemies of the state:

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

Over 60% of US drone targets in Pakistan are homes – research

Published time: May 25, 2014 11:19
Edited time: May 26, 2014 08:30
Pakistan Houses Drone Targets

Northrop Grumman / Bob Brown / Handout via Reuters
Share on tumblr
Tags
Conflict, Drones, Human rights, Military,Pakistan, Politics, USA, Violence
The CIA has been bombing Pakistan’s domestic buildings more than any other targets over the past decade of the drone war launched by the US, says the latest research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Almost two thirds, or over 60 percent, of all US drone strikes in Pakistan targeted domestic buildings,says joint research conducted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ), a London-based non-profit news group, along with Forensic Architecture, a research unit based at Goldsmiths University, London, and Situ Research in New York.
The authors of the paper analyzed thousands of media reports, witness testimonies and field investigations to obtain the data on drone strikes in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).
According to the study, at least 132 houses have been destroyed in more than 380 strikes over the past decade with at least 222 civilians being among the 1,500 or more people killed.
“On average, 6.2 people and 0.9 reported civilians died per strike on domestic buildings,” says the paper, adding that these numbers may be conservative because the Bureau “has found the deaths of women are dramatically underreported.”
The seclusion of women and children in the country which orders them to spend more time indoors make them more vulnerable to drone strikes, according to the BIJ’s ‘Naming the Dead’ project.
Women and children are less likely to be seen “by [a] drone operator monitoring the structure,” says Susan Schuppli, senior research fellow at Forensic Architecture and the project coordinator.
The paper adds that domestic buildings are more likely to be attacked at night compared with in the afternoon.
“Strikes that took place in the evening, when families are likely to be at home and gathered together, were particularly deadly,” says the paper.
Civilians usually avoid going out at night as Pakistani Taliban militants do not allow them to leave their homes without reason, Mansur Mahsud, director of Islamabad-based organization the Fata Research Center, told BIJ.
The report says that when drones attack the target they usually call it a “compound,” and often a“militant compound.” However, they are often domestic spaces.
“One compound is used by many families, like brothers and first cousins, although every family has their own portion or space in the compound…Normally you will find 20-25 people living in one compound, and in some cases you will find more than 50,” adds Mahsud.
The study also showed that on average more civilians die when a building is hit by a drone than when a vehicle is targeted.
However, despite rising proportion of strikes on houses, there haven’t been any reports of civilian casualties in the past 18 months.
According to Mahsud, this is because the locals host militants as their guests less frequently.
Now, with the threats of drone attack, when militants come to stay, civilians usually leave, he adds.
Meanwhile, the study found that the highest number of casualties are reported after the attacks on mosques and madrassas (religious school or college for the study of the Islamic religion).
“At least eight strikes have hit mosques or madrassas …On average, at least 17 people and 12.4 civilians are reported killed for each religious building hit in the strikes,” says the report.
Overall, at least 417 civilians – and possibly as many as 957 – have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, adds BIJ’s data which was also presented in an interactive online map, titled Where the Drones Strike, showing the location and targets of each strike.
The report says that US drones have been hitting Pakistan since June, 2004, however, the attacks largely increased since 2010 when 128 strikes killed at least 751 people, of whom 84 were civilians.
Meanwhile, a US official told BIJ that “US counterterrorism operations are precise, lawful, and effective”and that the country only “targets terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people.”

image from TBIJ.com
“Any suggestion otherwise is flat wrong. Furthermore, before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set,” he added.
President Barack Obama’s drone program hit its five-year anniversary in January. Earlier in 2014 BIJ announced that, at least 2,400 people across the Middle East have been killed by drones.
Even critics admit that many of those may have been militants, although the strikes have unleashed unimaginable devastation on civilians and their families – particularly in Pakistan, where drones have greatly contributed to anti-American sentiment.
The civilian deaths from US drone attacks in Pakistan have become a significant stumbling block in bilateral relations. Pakistan recently asked Washington to limit the amount of drone attacks in the country as the government enters into negotiations with the Pakistani Taliban.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2014/may/26/walter-block%92s-libertarian-journey-booing-ayn-rand-and-playing-risk-with-murray-rothbard.aspx

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23885-dead-babies-and-utahs-carbon-bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBLxu3W8uaI&feature=share&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=5
via GOP House Affirms Military Detention, As Thai Military Shows How It Will Go Down For Politicians – YouTube.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIrH9HMXVd8
Global March: Protests around world against Monsanto – YouTube.

 
NJ Atty General; Taxpayers No Right To Vote in Primaries, Are Obligated To Pay For Them – YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz1Ap0u8FOI

The folks who labeled supporters of the Internet Sales Tax Mandate “champions of Main Street” could benefit from Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul’s 2013 column explaining how the Internet Sales Tax will harm small business and stop entrepreneurs from creating the next generation of Amazons and Overstock.com. Dr. Paul is particularly interested in this issue as one feature of the Ron Paul Home School Curriculum encourages students to start and manage their own online businesses. Under Dr. Paul’s leadership, Campaign for Liberty will continue to oppose all attempts to impose new taxes on Internet commerce.
Internet Sales Tax Could Crush Small Businesses

One unique aspect of my homeschool curriculum is that students can start and manage their own online business. Students will be responsible for deciding what products or services to offer, getting the business up and running, and marketing the business’s products. Students and their families will get to keep the profits made from the business. Hopefully, participants in this program will develop a business that can either provide them with a full-time career or a way to supplement their income.
Internet commerce is the most dynamic and rapidly growing sector of the American economy. Not surprisingly, the Internet is also relatively free of taxes and regulations, although many in Washington are working to change that. For example, earlier this year the Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act, more accurately referred to as the national Internet sales tax act. This bill, which passed the Senate earlier this year, would require Internet businesses to collect sales tax for all 10,000 American jurisdictions that assess sales taxes. Internet business would thus be subject to audits from 46 states, six territories, and over 500 Native American tribal nations.
Proponents of the bill deny it will hurt small business because the bill only applies to Internet business that make over a million dollars in out-of-state revenue. However, many small Internet businesses with over a million dollars in out-of-state revenues operate on extremely thin profit margins, so even the slightest increase in expenses could put them out of businesses.
Some businesses may even try to avoid increasing their sales so as to not have to comply with the Internet sales tax. It is amazing that some of the same conservatives who rightly worry over Obamacare’s effects on job creation and economic growth want to impose new taxes on the most dynamic sector of the economy.
Proponents of the law claim that there is software that can automatically apply sales taxes. However, anyone who has ever dealt with business software knows that no program is foolproof. Any mistakes made by the software, or even errors in installing it, could result in a small business being subject to expensive and time-consuming audits.
Some say that it is a legitimate exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power to give state governments the authority to force out-of-state businesses to collect sales taxes. But if that were the case, why shouldn’t state governments be able to force you to pay sales taxes where you physically cross state lines to make a purchase? The Commerce Clause was intended to facilitate the free flow of goods and services across state lines, not to help states impose new burdens on out of state businesses.
The main proponents of this bill are large retailers and established Internet business. Big business can more easily afford to comply with a national Internet sales tax. In many cases, they are large enough that they already have a “physical presence” in most states and thus already have to collect state sales taxes. These businesses are seeking to manipulate the political process to disadvantage their existing and future small competitors. The Internet sales tax is a bad idea for consumers, small Internet business, and perhaps most importantly, the next generation of online entrepreneurs.
For more information about the small business program well as all other aspects of the Homeschool curriculum please go here. And to purchase a copy of my new book, The School Revolution: A New Answer for Our Broken Education System please go here.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
The post Ron Paul Classic: Internet Sales Tax Could Crush Small Businesses appeared first on Campaign for Liberty.

Ron Paul Classic: Internet Sales Tax Could Crush Small Businesses
Norm Singleton
Fri, 23 May 2014 18:15:45 GMT

House Rejects Measure to End War on Terror

By: Ben Swann Staff May 24, 2014
Affirms Status Quo in $601 Billion Military Budget

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) with troops in Afghanistan (image: Facebook)
This article was written by guest contributor Jason Ditz.
Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D – CA) efforts to repeal the 2001 Authorization on the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the Bush and Obama Administrations have used as the legal cover for virtually all military operations since, failed today in a 191-233 vote.
The bill had initially been seen as having some administration support, but that myth evaporated after yesterday’s fiasco in the Senate, where officials argued the AUMF had nothing to do with anything, and that President Obama would attack whomever he pleased, whenever he pleased. The officials came out for vague, non-specific changes to AUMF, but not for repeal.
This led hawks to angrily condemn Rep. Schiff’s bill, with Rep. Mac Thornberry (R – TX) accusing him of having “forgotten” 9/11. The Senate’s AUMF efforts don’t look promising either, with some now arguing in favor of “revisions” that would greatly expand the war powers to authorize President Obama’s attacks on groups not even cursorily linked to al-Qaeda.
Underscoring just how little appetite there is for even the illusion of change, Rep. Adam Smith (D – WA) introduced an amendment to allow transfer of Gitmo detainees, something President Obama demanded, and that too was rejected. The White House had threatened a veto if they didn’t get this, but where they stand now is unclear.
In the end, the $601 billion military spending bill, which was bigger than even the Pentagon sought, passed easily in a 325-98 vote, and is now just waiting for the Senate to come up with their version, so they can reconcile the two.
Read Other Stories

• Campaign For Liberty Rejects IRS Demands For Donor List
• In a very House of Cards-like move, SC House Bill will strip Attorney General’s Power
• NH House Passes Marijuana Decriminalization Bill
• White House Exploiting Control Of Agency Websites To Push Its Own Agenda?
• Israeli-American Scholar: Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

Read more: http://benswann.com/house-rejects-measure-to-end-war-on-terror/#ixzz32hb9ks6d
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

Nathan Williams of Forbes is the latest writer to praise Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul’s 2009 New York Times bestseller End the Fed. Williams is particularly impressed with how Dr. Paul condenses his lifetime of study and experience with monetary policy and Dr. Paul’s account of the young people chanting End the Fed at college campuses in 2008:

“[After a Republican primary debate in 2007,] I was able to speak to more than 4,000 students in the quad at Ann Arbor. …
When I mentioned monetary policy, the kids started cheering. Then a small group chanted, ‘End the Fed! End the Fed!’ The whole crowd took up the call. Many held up burning dollar bills, as if to say to the central bank, you have done enough damage to the American people, our future, and to the world: your time is up.”
People know. Even people aged 18-21. But, they need someone to put it into words.
I’ve talked about the need for a “shelf of books,” that are contemporary and correct, and which can serve as the conceptual foundation for whatever monetary system may eventually replace our present arrangements. No old books and no books that are so full of fallacy as to be unusable, no matter how well-meaning the authors may have been. People actually understand these things significantly better today than was the case in the 1960s and 1970s, although unfortunately that improvement has not been well documented in print.
One reason why we still have floating currencies today is that people just didn’t understand these things at all in the 1970s. You would think that after twenty years of extraordinary prosperity during the 1950s and 1960s with the Bretton Woods gold standard arrangement, and a decade of inflationary disaster in the 1970s with floating fiat currencies, that people in the U.S. might have been a little favorable toward the Classical (gold-based) monetary approach that the U.S. had pursued for the previous 182 years. Nope. Paul recounts his experience at the 1981 Congressional Gold Commission:
“Henry Reuss, chairman of the House Banking Committee, attended one meeting and left in a rage. He couldn’t stand one minute of serious consideration of the importance of gold.”
That was a typical response from other supposedly knowledgeable people at that time. The ignorance of that era is breathtaking — especially considering that the U.S.’s gold standard era had ended only ten years previous.

Under Dr. Paul’s leadership, Campaign for Liberty continues to work to free the American people from the harm down to their freedom and prosperity by the Federal Reserve. The first step is to Audit the Fed.
You can purchase an autographed copy of End the Fed here.
The post Ron Paul’s wisdom on display in End the Fed appeared first on Campaign for Liberty.

Ron Paul’s wisdom on display in End the Fed
Norm Singleton
Thu, 22 May 2014 21:47:16 GMT

IRS Employees Conducting Union Activity Costs Taxpayers $23.5 Million in FY 2013

Posted by Charleston Voice
Look Ma over here – – another Republican congressional oversight fraud! Let’s head over to Social Security afterwards where the plunder picking is great too!

The 571,725 hours stolen at the IRS equates to over 13,043 weeks paid, but not worked. Why not cut the equivalent number of employees on the payroll since we obviously have no need of them? Besides an additional savings could be achieved at Social Security, let’s keep going from agency to agency.
And these are just annual numbers – do your own math to extrapolate the savings to us taxpayers!

by Trey Kovacs
Union “official time” is a massive taxpayer subsidy to government unions, which releases federal employees from their regular public duty, without suffering loss of pay, to conduct union work.
Worse, the Obama administration is years late in releasing a report, published by the Office of Personnel Management, on the cost and use of official time across the federal government. The last available official time numbers are from FY 2011.
And its not a situation where nobody is asking for the data. Most recently, in March, Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL) sent a letter to OPM Director Katherine Archuleta requesting the official time report.
She has yet to respond.
However, other federal government agencies send reports to certain committees annually revealing its official time costs. Paul Bedard, a columnist at The Washington Examiner, has the latest:

The Treasury Department has revealed to the House Ways and Means Committee that Internal Revenue Service employees spent over 500,000 hours on union activities last year. They estimated the cost to taxpayers at $23.5 million in salary and benefits.

Officials told Secrets that the exact hours IRS members of the National Treasury Employees Union dedicated to labor activities was 521,725 in fiscal 2013, which ran from October 2012 to September 2013. That was slightly less than the 573,319 hours in fiscal 2012, according to the IRS, but the spending was significantly above that year’s total of $16 million.

The Social Security Administration is another agency that annually reports its official time costs to the House Appropriation Committee. SSA employees spent 244,290 hours on official time at a cost of  $14.6 million in FY 2013.
To learn more about union official time see, here, here, and here.
via workplacechoice

Related Posts

• IRS Employees Conducting Union Activity Costs Taxpayers $23.5 Million in FY 2013
• Sheriffs opt to free suspected undocumented immigrants
• Government corruption: VA hospitals out of control
• EXPOSED: Israel deploys proven tactics to blunt U.S. backlash over spying
• Poll: Most Americans View Feds as Threat to Liberty

MUST READ: Ted Cruz Lays Out 10 Questions About Benghazi [VIDEO]

 
After the House of Representatives announced the formation of a specialBenghazi Select Committee, Senator Ted Cruz renewed his call for a Senate select committee on Benghazi that would work jointly with the House committee.
Senator Cruz has long been critical of the lack of action on the part of the Obama administration in dealing with the aftermath and coverup of Benghazi, and has even introduced a bill that would offer a $5 million reward for information leading to the death or capture of the terrorists that carried out the attack.
Ted Cruz has also been highly critical of the unresponsiveness and lack of cooperativeness of the Obama administration in answering a number of basic questions about what happened before, during and after the Benghazi attack.  Rep. Trey Gowdy has similar questions about Benghazi, and recently challenged the media as to why they haven’t been asking these questions.
Follow Conservative Tribune
When Cruz took to the Senate floor to speak about his reintroduced resolution calling for a select committee, he spoke about how “chilling” the roles of Obama and Hillary Clinton appear to be in the Benghazi coverup.
(H/T TPNN)

“Twenty months after the Benghazi attack, we have four dead Americans and no dead terrorists,” Sen. Cruz said. “It is chilling to think our President had better things to do than personally attend to an ongoing terrorist attack on our people. It is chilling to imagine we could have mounted a rescue attempt of our people but did not even bother to try. It is chilling to think our Secretary of State would not insist on giving an interview for the ARB report. It is chilling to think we have an administration that is reluctant to utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ let alone fight against it. The clock is ticking.  Memories are fading. It is beyond time to get the full resources of both houses of Congress behind this investigation.”

Cruz also took the time to lay out 10 questions that he feels have not been sufficiently answered.

• Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi in the summer of 2012?
• Did President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings in the run-up to September 11, 2012 support the assertion that there was no credible threat of a coordinated terrorist attack on Benghazi during this time? And if so, why does the White House not declassify and release the briefings, as President George Bush did his pre-September 11, 2001 briefings?
• Why did we not anticipate the need to have military assets at the ready in the region on the anniversary of September 11, of all days?
• Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton? When was President Obama told about the murder of our ambassador?
• If the secretary of defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an internet video?
• Why did former deputy CIA director Mike Morell edit the intelligence community talking points to delete the references to “Islamic extremists” and “al-Quaeda”?
• Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack only eight months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective after the Boston bombing?
• Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report? And if all relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, why did the State Department’s own inspector-general office open a probe into the methods of that very report?
• Why have none of the terrorists who attacked in Benghazi been captured or killed?
• What additional evidence that the White House engaged in a political campaign to blame the Benghazi attack on the internet video is contained in the additional emails requested by JudicialWatch but withheld by the White House on the grounds that it would put a “chill” on internal deliberations?

 
These questions must be answered satisfactorily as soon as possible, and Trey Gowdy will likely get answers to these, and other questions, once he has subpoenaed Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and all relevant documents that pertain to Benghazi, unredacted of course.
The Democrats know that Gowdy will eventually get to the truth, which is why they threatened to boycott the select committee.  They have now agreed to take part, but will likely try to obstruct and provide cover for Hillary, because she is scared of what Gowdy’s investigation will uncover.  Obama is also afraid of Gowdy, because he knows that the already crumbling coverup will be blown wide open.

No Water For You: Obama Administration Moves To Cut Off Water To Pot Growers In Washington and Oregon

written by jonathan turley
saturday may 24, 2014

For months, the Obama Administration has been dealing with the growing revolt among the states over federal marijuana laws. Twenty states and the District of Columbia legalized medical marijuana use over the opposition of the federal government and medical use. Two states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized the sale and possession of marijuana. It is a classic conflict between states and the federal government under federalism. Some of us view the states as asserting a classic police power in an area that was left to the states under our federalism principles.
Now the Obama Administration has said that it will withhold water from state-licensed pot growers in Washington state and Colorado. The decision by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is particularly problematic given the fact that the federal government has stepped in to take effective control of the water resources in these states and now appears to be using that control to try to coerce states to change their laws to satisfy the federal government.
Dan DuBray, the agency’s chief of public affairs, insists that “[a] a federal agency, Reclamation is obligated to adhere to federal law in the conduct of its responsibilities to the American people.” However, that position is inconsistent with the actions of the Obama Administration in other years. I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. The Obama Administration has no qualms about rewriting laws like the ACA or ordering the non enforcement of other laws like the controversy over the DREAM Act. However, when administering a water resource, the Administration insists that it has to actively cut off water in order to indirectly support federal marijuana.
This argument is even less plausible when one considers that the Justice Department has altered its enforcement of the actual drug laws in light of these two state changes. So, the Administration is directly altering enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act but a water agency is actively changing its operations “in a manner that is consistent with the Controlled Substances Act.” Note this policy is not a refusal to make a change of accommodation but a decision to take action in a way to punish growers.
The decision of the federal government to take control of the water resources out West has long been controversial. Many warned that the control of water could result in an attempt to control a state’s internal policies or laws. The Bureau of Reclamation, the nation’s largest wholesaler of water, was created in 1902 to cover 17 states due to the building of federal dams and canals that took control of what was once free flowing surface waters. Part of the Department of Interior, it now delivers water to more than 31 million people and one out of every five Western farmers. In Washington state, that translates to 1.2 million acres of land — much of which is coming from the Columbia and Yakima rivers which once were under state control.
This is the first time in recent memory that the government is using the control as a weapon to punish errant states over its laws. The agency controls two-thirds of the water of Washington state’s irrigated land. Washington is most at risk for that reason (Oregon’s pot farms are only allowed for indoor growing).
Reprinted with author’s permission.

We the People have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to keep and bear arms.  Contrary to popular belief, that right was not granted by the Second Amendment, but instead is derived from English common law, the Enlightenment, and even ancient Roman philosophy.
When looking at the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, we see that the Second Amendment was actually devised as a way to prevent the federal government from infringing on our preexisting right to own and carry weapons.  In fact, any federal laws that limit or control guns in the hands of citizens would be viewed as tyranny by the Founders, and dealt with accordingly.
As such, it should come as no surprise that some states have responded to this tyranny by nullifying it in their states, exercising their Tenth Amendment right of state sovereignty.  Also unsurprisingly, people are increasingly supportive of these efforts by the states.
Follow Conservative Tribune
A poll last year by the prestigious Rasmussen showed that only about 4 in 10 people support the idea of federal gun control laws in their state, with about 50% of respondents saying that local and state gun laws should take precedence over federal laws.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 40% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the federal government should be chiefly responsible for setting policies about gun ownership. Forty-nine percent (49%) think it should be a state or local issue. That includes (34%) who think state governments should determine gun ownership rules and 15% who think local governments should have that responsibility. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided.

The poll also showed that nearly 4 in 10 people support their state nullifying federal gun laws within their borders.  This can be done by passing a piece of legislation modeled after the Tenth Amendment Center‘s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’.

Basically, the Second Amendment Preservation Act reasserts the right of a state to determine what is best for its own citizens when it comes to gun laws.  The Act declares that any and all federal laws that are viewed as unconstitutional or an infringement of the Second Amendment will be null and void within the state, and no agent or officer of the state may enforce, or cooperate with federal enforcement of, these gun control measures.  Some states have even addedcriminal penalties to this act.

A number of states have already passed or are currently working on legislation that would nullify federal gun control laws in their state.  But nullification is not strictly limited to gun control, nor is it only being pursued in conservative red states.
Numerous states are attempting to nullify Obamacare in their state, and while those states tend to be Republican states, liberal states like California and Michiganhave gotten in on the nullification act too, trying to ban the NSA and the NDAA ‘indefinite detention’ provision, respectively.
Back to the issue of gun control, several liberal states are seeing their populations rejecting not only federal gun control laws, but also strict new state laws.  People inColorado, Connecticut and New York are rebelling against their state government’s embrace and expansion of federal gun laws and the anti-gun agenda being pursued by President Obama’s administration.
Ultimately, the people will decide for themselves whether they will continue to let the federal government infringe on their gun rights by voting for change,moving to more gun rights friendly states, or actively rising up in rebellion against the feds.  Let’s hope that the government gets the message that people oppose their strict gun control and infringement on their natural rights, before drastic measures become necessary.

Published on Saturday, May 24, 2014 by Common Dreams

Dr. Vandana Shiva: “We did not choose to target Monsanto. Monsanto chose to target our seed and food freedom, our scientific and democratic institutions, our very lives.”

– Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Marchers in Durban, South Africa. (Photo: @Revonews/ Twitter)”It’s time to take back our food!” was the cry as people in 52 countries worldwide took to the streets in a global day of action on Saturday against chemical behemoth Monsanto.

The third annual March Against Monsanto (MAM) is slated to be the biggest yet, according to movement founder Tami Canal, with millions of people in over 400 cities expected to take part.

“From Agent Orange to Monsanto’s pending patents directly affiliated with weather modification to the gross government corruption, MAM has evolved to expose all the insidious tentacles that Monsanto possesses,” said Canal in an interview with Anti-Media.

Across social media, protesters shared images from demonstrations around the world where people called for the permanent boycott of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and other harmful agro-chemicals.

“People often ask me ‘Why Monsanto?'” wrote food justice advocate Dr. Vandana Shiva in a statement on the March. “My response is, we did not choose to target Monsanto. Monsanto chose to target our seed and food freedom, our scientific and democratic institutions, our very lives.”

“Monsanto wants superprofits through total control over nature and humanity,” Shiva continued.

“The greed and violence of one corporation cannot be allowed to destroy life on Earth, the lives of our farmers, the lives of our children,” Shiva added. “That is why we March Against Monsanto.”

Citing recent successes such as a ban on GMO cultivation in two Oregon counties and thepassage of a GMO labeling initiative in Vermont, Canal said the movement has already seen a number of “positives” this year, where people “truly battled the Goliath biotech industry and overcame the odds and financial power of companies like Monsanto.”

Though GMOs have been at least partially banned in over 15 countries and must be labelled in 62 countries, according to MAM organizers, food safety advocates face an uphill battle in the U.S.

“The revolving door between Monsanto employees, government positions, and regulatory authorities has led to key Monsanto figures occupying positions of power at the FDA and EPA,” the group writes in their call to action.

A list of all March Against Monsanto demonstrations can be found here.