I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for GMO Labeling Laws!

Spread the word

I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for GMO Labeling Laws!

Dear Organic Consumer,

Last week, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), who along with Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is suing the state of Vermont to overturn its GMO labeling law, served up ice cream and root beer floats to members of Congress.

It was all part of the IDFA’s 32nd annual Capitol Hill Ice Cream Party, carried out with help from IDFA and GMA members like Dean Foods, Nestle USA, Unilever, J.M. Smucker Co. and more.

But what it was really about, of course, was sweetening the backroom deals the Gene Giants, Big Food and Big Dairy are plotting with politicians. So they can overturn Vermont’s law and pass a sweeping federal law to preempt state GMO labeling laws.

We aren’t going to stoop to setting up an ice cream stand on Capitol Hill. But we do need your help to raise enough money to defend Vermont and pass a strong GMO labeling initiative in Oregon.

We’re still about $11,000 short of our summer fundraising goal. Can you help us reach the finish line by midnight June 30? Click here for details on how to donate online, by mail or by phone.

The IDFA’s Ice Cream Propaganda Party represents everything that’s wrong with politics today.

But the GMO labeling movement has come too far to let a little Rocky Road or Chunky Monkey stop us.

With your help, we’re going to do everything in our power to defend Vermont’s law, pass an equally strong labeling law in Oregon in November, and raise holy hell if Congress even thinks about passing the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) ACT.

Please help us fight back. Against the GMA, the IDFA and Big Food. Click here for details on how to donate online, by mail or by phone.

Thank you!

Ronnie Cummins

National Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund

P.S. Funds donated directly to campaigns must be raised through the Organic Consumers Fund, our allied 501(c)4 lobbying arm. If you need to make a tax-deductible donation, please donate to our 501(c)3 nonprofit. Your donation will indirectly support our GMO bans and labeling law campaigns by funding our ongoing education and media work.

Connect With OCA:
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization campaigning for health, justice, peace, sustainability and democracy. Donations to the OCA are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

All content © 2013 Organic Consumers Association, All Rights Reserved

67‌71 Sou‌th Silver Hill Dri‌ve
Fi‌nland, M‌N 556‌03
Phone: 21‌8-226-41‌64
Fax: 21‌8-353-76‌52
Privacy Policy

Sudan apostasy woman given US Sudan apostasy woman given US embassy refuge

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201462774531967564

California Border Patrol Seizes Nearly $1M Drugs in 2 Hours

California Border Patrol Seizes Nearly $1M Drugs in 2 Hours


CALIFORNIA BORDER PATROL SEIZES NEARLY $1M DRUGS IN 2 HOURS



by DANIEL NUSSBAUM 27 Jun 2014, 8:38 AM PDT 0POST A COMMENT

In three separate incidents on Wednesday, Border Patrol agents in Murrieta and Indio, California seized $964,530 worth of drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. All three seizures occurred in under two hours.

At 10:30 a.m., Murrieta sector Border Patrol agents stopped a 41-year-old U.S. woman in a Ford Expedition on I-10. After drug-sniffing dogs gave a "positive alert" to the agents, they searched her car and found 51.36 pounds of cocaine, according to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) press release. Authorities estimated the street value of the cocaine at $667,680.

Just 15 minutes later, at 10:45 a.m., the same agents stopped another Ford Expedition, driven by a 59-year-old U.S. woman. The agents got permission from the woman to search her car, where they found four packages of drugs hidden in an ice chest; 1.10 pounds of methamphetamine, 5.09 pounds of cocaine, and just under a pound of heroin. The combined estimated street value of all three drugs in that seizure is $87,650.

Both women were arrested and face drug smuggling charges. The cars were seized by Border Patrol.

A third incident occurred at 12:15 p.m., just an hour and a half later, according to a separate CBP press release. Border Patrol agents at the Indio Station in El Centro Sector stopped a 21-year-old man and 48-year-old woman, both Mexican nationals, when drug-sniffing dogs alerted agents to narcotics in their car. During the agents' search, they found a hidden compartment built into the frame of the car; inside were 18 packages of cocaine, weighing a combined 20.96 pounds. The estimated street value of the cocaine is $209,600.

The two suspects, the drugs, and the car were all turned over to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further investigation.

DAVE DEFEATED: Cameron Proves British EU Influence Is Worthless as Juncker Gets the Nod

DAVE DEFEATED: Cameron Proves British EU Influence Is Worthless as Juncker Gets the Nod



DAVE DEFEATED: CAMERON PROVES BRITISH EU INFLUENCE IS WORTHLESS AS JUNCKER GETS THE NOD

European Union leaders gathered in Brussels have nominated Jean-Claude Juncker to be the next president of the European Commission, dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron’s warnings that putting the euro-zealot Juncker in the top job in Brussels would push Britain further towards an exit from the EU.

Cameron said Juncker is “a face from the 80s” and is not the man to lead the reform Britain says the EU needs. The prime minister is reported to have warned German Chancellor Angela Merkel that if Juncker were to become the president of the commission, which is the EU’s executive branch, he may be forced to bring forward the referendum on EU membership he has promised the British.

Cameron admitted before the meeting of the European Council, made up of the heads of government of member states, that “the odds are stacked against me” but he would continue to fight Juncker’s nomination.

In fact, Cameron’s style of personal attack on Juncker may have swayed some former allies to back Juncker.

One argument by the prime minister, that the European Parliament has seized control of the selection by insisting their candidate Juncker be chosen, could have swayed support among some reform-minded prime ministers who are uneasy about a “coup” by forces at the parliament.

However, Cameron’s insistence that Juncker was too much of a “federalist” for the job and a “has been” sounded like a personal attack, when the other prime ministers knew that any other candidate for the job at the commission would be bound to be as much a euro-enthusiast as Juncker, if perhaps rather more diplomatic in style.

Also, Continental politicians are likely to have found the British newspaper accounts on Juncker’s alleged heavy drinking, though not officially connected with Number 10 or any British diplomats, to have been intrusive and extreme, and may well have reacted against a debate that degenerated into a British personal smear campaign.

So now what the appointment of Juncker may be, besides a humiliation for Cameron and a display of British diplomatic impotence in the EU institutions, is a subtle victory for Merkel.

The nomination of Juncker to the top post at the commission, delivered by Merkel despite widespread doubts about his abilities, ensures that the Chancellor now has a half-lamed president who can be pushed into following the Berlin line.

What has often been overlook in Britain is that in the years following the banking crash and the euro crisis, the European Commission under Barroso has become less of an independent executive arm of the EU and more the servant of the European Council. Merkel has shown herself to be the strongest force on the council, leaving Germany’s former equal partner France long behind, doing intergovernmental deals when it suited her to control events without the agreement or cooperation of the elite eurocrats at the commission.

Now the (perhaps) wine-sodden and bruised (but triumphant) Juncker knows to whom he owes his new €321,000 (£257,000) a year job, his private plane, his 24-hour personal television camera crew, his entertainment allowance, his fabulous pension, his staff of flunkies, his thousands of euros in allowances. He owes it all to Merkel.

And he owes Cameron less than zilch.

BREAKING: SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULES OBAMA RECESS APPOINTMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB - 12160

BREAKING: SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULES OBAMA RECESS APPOINTMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB - 12160


Posted by H●ȴȴɣwͼͽd on June 26, 2014 at 12:16pm in Current News/Events

BREAKING: SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULES OBAMA RECESS APPOINTMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB



by KEN KLUKOWSKI 26 Jun 2014, 7:48 AM PDT

Today the Supreme Court unanimously held that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he made several appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other agencies without Senate approval.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires that all high-level executive branch positions (called "principal officers") and all federal judges be nominated by the president, then must be confirmed by the Senate. The Recess Appointments Clause provides that if the Senate is in recess, the president can make appointments that can continue up to two years.

Not able to get several controversial nominees confirmed, Obama waited until the Senate adjourned for several days, then declared the Senate to be in recess, and unilaterally filled all those positions.

Obama made the shocking claim that he can declare the Senate in recess anytime there are not enough senators present on the Senate floor to do business. Under that theory, almost any night after dinner the president would be able to appoint Cabinet secretaries and even Supreme Court justices for up to two years without a Senate vote.

The majority opinion in NLRB v. Noel Canning was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal appointed by Bill Clinton, writing for five justices. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion for the four conservative justices that took a very different view of the Recess Appointments Clause that would restrict presidential power more significantly, but agreeing Obama's actions were unconstitutional.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News and a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Obama Launched Border Crisis to Destroy America

Watch Trey Gowdy Shred the IRS Chief on National TV [VIDEO]

 

Watch Trey Gowdy Shred the IRS Chief on National TV [VIDEO]

There was a contentious hearing Monday night in the House Government Reform Committee, as new IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was called to testify about Lois Lerner’s “lost” emails.

This hearing was just days after Koskinen was reamed by Rep. Paul Ryan, who told him “nobody believes you” in a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

Trey Gowdy was in top form Monday night, giving Koskinen a lesson in the law, and no doubt added a few more lines to his growing list of already impressive quotes.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter right now:

Gowdy began his five minutes of questioning with an explanation of what “spoliation of evidence” means, and how in a courtroom a jury can infer wrongdoing on the part of a defendant if they “spoliate” or destroy/lose/hide evidence.  The IRS “losing” two years worth of Lois Lerner’s emails leads the American people to infer that such evidence may have hurt the IRS’s claim that no wrongdoing occurred.

Gowdy then asked Koskinen how he was so sure there was no criminal wrongdoing in the IRS, when he wasn’t familiar with the relevant criminal statutes. (H/T The Blaze)

“Spoliation of evidence is when a party fails to preserve evidence, there’s a negative inference that the jury can draw from their failure to preservethe evidence.  If you destroy documents, the jury can infer that those documents wouldn’t have been good for you.”

“If a taxpayer is being sued by the IRS, administratively, civilly, or prosecuted criminally, and they fail to keep documents, the jury can draw a negative inference from the fact that they failed to keep receipts, or emails, or documents.  So if it’s true and applies to a taxpayer, it oughtto apply to the IRS as well, agreed?”, said Gowdy.

“Is this a trial, is this a jury, is that what this is?” Koskinen asked.

“I said administrative, civil, or criminal, if you want to go down that road I’m happy to go down it with you Commissioner.”

“You have already said multiple times today that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing,” Gowdy said. “I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you’ve evaluated.”

“I have not looked at any,” Koskinen replied.

“Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there’s not criminal wrongdoing if you don’t even know what statutes to look at?” Gowdy shot back.

Koskinen repeated again that he had seen no evidence of wrongdoing, but was cut off by Gowdy.

“How would you know what elements of the crime existed?” Gowdy asked. “You don’t even know what statutes are in play.  I’m gonna ask you again, what statutes have you evaluated?”

Koskinen said he can rely on common sense, but was again cut off by an incredulous Gowdy.

“Common sense? Instead of the criminal code, you want to rely on common sense?” Gowdy said as Koskinen shook his head at the table.

“You can shake your head all you want to, Commissioner. You have said today that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and I’m asking you what criminal statutes you have reviewed to reach that conclusion.”

“I have reviewed no criminal statutes”, said Koskinen.

“Alright, so you don’t have any idea whether there was any criminal conduct or not because you don’t know the elements of the offense.”

“What did she (Lois Lerner) mean when she said we needed a project, but we need to be careful that it doesn’t appear to be per se political?  You don’t think that is a potential violation of 1842?  Because you haven’t looked at 1842, you don’t have any idea Commissioner.  You don’t have any idea whether there is any criminal wrongdoing or not.”

Koskinen then tried to spin it back to there being no evidence of involvement by the White House, calling it a conspiracy theory and made up by Republicans.

“No sir, you are wrong about that. You are repeating a talking point from my colleagues on the other side that we’re obsessed with the White House.”

“It was Jay Carney that perpetuated the myth that it was two rogue agents in Ohio, it wasn’t any of us. Was that accurate?” Gowdy asked.

“Not that I know of,” Koskinen replied.

“So that was inaccurate and that came from the White House. Who said there’s not a smidgen of corruption?”

“My understanding is that was the president,” the commissioner answered.

“So that’s Jay Carney and the president both inserting themselves into the IRS scandal,” Gowdy said. “And you want to blame us for bringing the White house into it?”

“I haven’t blamed you at all,” Koskinen said.

“You just did, commissioner. You just did.”

Trey Gowdy nailed Koskinen, and it is a shame that he only had five minutes.  Gowdy used his prosecutorial skills and knowledge of the law to prove that the IRS chief has absolutely no idea if anything criminal occurred or not.

There is little doubt that wrongdoing took place, and the convenience of the timeline on which everything occurred only raises more suspicions.

It is high time for a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation.  The Justice Department investigation is a sham, and the IRS seems content to wait for another ineffective Inspector General investigation to take place before making any changes or drawing any conclusions.

Hopefully, people will eventually be held accountable.  Perhaps that will occur under the next administration.  Maybe Trey Gowdy should be nominated as Attorney General under the next Republican administration, then turned loose to fully investigate and prosecute each and every criminal crony in the Obama administration.

Related posts:

1. VIDEO: Trey Gowdy Explains Why Lois Lerner Should Be Arrested
2. WATCH: Congressman Obliterates IRS Chief, “Nobody Believes You”
3. Trey Gowdy: Charge Lois Lerner “Contempt of Congress”

Watch Trey Gowdy Shred the IRS Chief on National TV [VIDEO]
Ben Marquis
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:48:25 GMT

Trey Gowdy OWNS Irs Commissioner John Koskinen. Trey Gowdy vs Irs Commis...

When is a spending increase a spending cut?

 

In the bizzaro world of Congress of course…

Two weeks ago Congress considered the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (T-HUD) Act.   The bill appropriated $52 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of $1.2 billion above what was appropriated last year.

However, the Appropriations Committee claims they actually reduced spending because part of the increase was intended to offset decreasing Federal Housing Administration receipts (which are usually used as an offset against spending). Got that? I guess it never occurred to the appropriators that one way to respond to reduced revenues is to actually cut spending.

In other budgetary news, last week the House considered the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. The bill spends $490.9 billion on “defenses”–a $4.1 billion increase above last year’s levels. However, this is not enough of an increase for our “fiscally conservative” Congress as the bill also included $79.4 in “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO) funding. Campaign for Liberty is working with a coalition to end OCO funding and continues to work to end all budget gimmicks and reduce spending as part of our push for Real Cuts, Right Now.

The post When is a spending increase a spending cut? appeared first on Campaign for Liberty.

When is a spending increase a spending cut?
Norm Singleton
Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:01:09 GMT

GOP leadership’s hysterical attacks on Massie Amendment

 

Not only did every member of the GOP leadership vote against the Massie amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill forbidding warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, they also distorted the amendment in their official summary and vote recommendation:

Massie Amdt- “Prohibits funds from being used to fully exploit lawfully collected foreign intelligence information collected under Sec. 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

The Massie Amendment actually forbid the collection of information on American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. While it does end the practice of using a US citizen’s contacts with a foreign target as a justification for warrantless surveillance of that citizen, it does nothing to stop the lawful collection of information on foreigners suspected of plotting terrorists’ acts against the US.

The GOP leadership’s summary may be the only piece of information many members and staffers will see on an amendment before voting on it. So the fact that the Massie Amendment received a majority of Republicans votes despite the GOP leadership’s distortions makes this victory even more significant. Even Congress now no longer falls for the hysterical argument that we must trade liberty for phantom promises of security.

The post GOP leadership’s hysterical attacks on Massie Amendment appeared first on Campaign for Liberty.

GOP leadership’s hysterical attacks on Massie Amendment
Norm Singleton
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:53:11 GMT