Poopcorn

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods for human use that present no health hazard. These "Food Defect Action Levels" listed here are set on this premise--that they pose no inherent hazard to health.

Here are the hazardous levels;

Allspice: Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 10 grams, Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 10 grams

Berries: Average of 4 or more larvae per 500 grams or Average of 10 or more whole insects or equivalent per 500 grams (excluding thrips, aphids and mites)

Frozen Broccoli: Average of 60 or more aphids and/or thrips and/or mites per 100 grams

Ground Paprika: Average mold count is more than 20%, Average of more than 75 insect fragments per 25 grams, Average of more than 11 rodent hairs per 25 grams

Ground Cinnamon: Average of 400 or more insect fragments per 50 gram, Average of 11 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams

Chocolate: Average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined or

Any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments, Average is 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams in 6 100-gram subsamples examined or Any 1 subsample contains 3 or more rodent hairs

Canned Citrus Juice: Average mold count is 10% or more, 5 or more Drosophila and other fly eggs per 250 ml or 1 or more maggots per 250 ml

Red Fish and Ocean Perch: 3 % of the fillets examined contain 1 or more copepods accompanied by pus pockets

Hops: Average of more than 2,500 aphids per 10 grams

Macaroni and Noodle Products: Average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples, Average of 4.5 rodent hairs or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples

Popcorn: 1 or more rodent excreta pellets are found in 1 or more subsamples, and 1 or more rodent hairs are found in 2 or more other subsamples or 2 or more rodent hairs per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples or 20 or more gnawed grains per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples

There are more items listed, these are just a few. We have been ingesting these things for some time, but the thought of rodent poop in our popcorn is just a bit much.

Genetically modified corn makes up for 86% of the US supply

It may very well shock you to know just how prevalent GMOs are within the food supply. It’s truly amazing that modified products continue to go unlabeled despite being linked to organ damage — among a barrage of other conditions — in a prominent review of 19 studies.

In fact, nearly 93-95% of US soybeans are genetically modified in order to resist powerful weed-killers that were found to be killing the actual soybeans as well as the weeds. Following current trends, genetically modified food products will make up the majority of the future food supply if a change is not made. For now, that change has been shot down by the FDA — the very organization tasked to defend public health. Just recently, the agency deleted around 1 million signatures from the GMO labeling campaign ‘Just Label It.’

Statistics show how GMO crops and ingredients have skyrocketed in even the past few years. Here are statistics as of 2009-2010:

·         Genetically modified soybeans currently make up for 93-95% of the US soybean supply.

·         Genetically modified corn currently makes up for 86% of the US corn supply.

·         Genetically modified cotton currently makes up for 93% of the US cotton supply.

·         Genetically modified canola currently makes up for 93% of the soybean supply.

·         Genetically modified Hawaiian papaya currently makes up for 93% of the Hawaiian papaya supply.

When viewing these statistics, it is easy to see how many consumers are being tricked into consuming genetically modified foods. Amazingly, in a poll conducted by ABC, more than 93% of Americans feel that products containing GMOs should be labeled – meanwhile, these individuals are actually unknowingly consuming GMOs on a daily basis. What it comes down to is that as long as the threat is not visible, many consumers will simply purchase commercial products without thinking about the consequences. This is exactly why Monsanto and others have been squelching attempts to label products that contain GMOs.

A bipartisan group of 55 members of Congress urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

The 45 House members and 10 senators joined in supporting a legal petition filed last year by the nonpartisan Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of the “Just Label It” campaign that foods with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be labeled accordingly.

Such a requirement would “protect consumer rights and prevent consumer deception” in the marketplace, said the letter led by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.).

“FDA’s regulatory regime for food labeling is inadequate and uses 19th century concepts to regulate 21st century food technologies,” reads the bicameral letter sent Tuesday to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg

A 1992 policy statement the FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling provided they were not “materially” different from other foods in such a way that could be recognized by taste, smell or other senses.

“The outdated standard has no legal basis in the statute and was adopted by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not materially different from conventional foods,” CFS said in a statement.

A copy of the letter from members of Congress is available at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Final-Signed-GE-Labeling-Letter.pdf.

Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs

Polls on Immigration Reform

Government estimates put the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States at more than 10 million. Debates over immigration reform commonly involve disputes over the costs and benefits of these immigrants to the society at large.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 60% of Likely Voters think when it comes to immigration reform, gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers who are already in the United States.

Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely Voters say the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.

The CBO Report

A 2011 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs” (PDF), analyzed the scope of criminal activity by undocumented immigrants, their nationality and the estimated costs of such criminality to the United States.

The number of criminal aliens in U.S. federal prisons in 2010 was estimated to be 55,000, a 7 percent increase since 2005. In the 2005 criminal alien population in federal prisons was around 27 percent. The total inmate population, and from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 remained consistently around 25 percent.

Key findings of the report include:

·         The number of criminal aliens in U.S. federal prisons in 2010 was estimated to be 55,000, a 7% increase since 2005.

·         The total number of criminal aliens estimated to be in state and local prisons in 2009 was 296,000.

·         The number of criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems increased by about 25 percent and the number in local jails increased by about 40 percent.

·         Between 2005 and 2009, the total annual cost of housing this population at all levels was between $1.5 and $1.6 billion.

·         The average criminal alien has been arrested seven times. Approximately 50% have been arrested for a drug-related offense, 65% for an immigration-related offense, 35% for assault, 19% for weapons violations and 8% for homicide.

·         Mexico is the country of origin for 68% of criminal aliens. Columbia and the Dominican Republic are the next most likely countries of origin, representing 5% each of the alien incarcerated population.

·         States with more than 10,000 criminal alien incarcerations are California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Illinois and New York. 74% of total incarcerations took place in California, Arizona and Texas.

The number of criminal alien apprehensions by ICE, removal proceedings, and removals ordered increased significantly from calendar years 2007 through 2010. The number of criminal alien apprehensions increased by about 85 percent, removal proceedings increased by 71 percent, and removals ordered increased more than seven fold from about 9,000 in 2007 to about 79,000 in 2010.

The number of criminal alien removals from the United States in which ICE later recorded an individual was apprehended for reentering the country illegally increased about 42 percent (to 27,337) from calendar years 2007 through 2009, but declined 35 percent (to 17,797) from 2009 to 2010.

Conclusion

This article is not an attack on the people who come to this country to make a life for themselves or their families. There are many people who come to the United States each year following the legal procedures. Most of our families immigrated to the US at some point.

This does highlight the need, as the government’s own report shows here, to shore our borders and increase security on those borders. This report and article do not even cover the human costs of trafficking, (which will be covered later), for those seeking to enter the USA.  This report only includes the criminal acts of some that is not representative of all people from any other country. It also is not meant to include social costs (such as Medicare, Medicaid, or other welfare programs) spent by US taxpayers on folks here illegally.

The purpose of this article with the information taken from the CBO report suggests that the need to secure our borders is a national security concern.

Obama’s 2008 Promise to “bankrupt” the Coal Industry

The Obama administration proposed on Tuesday the first ever standards to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants, a move likely to be hotly contested by Republicans and industry in an election year,  reports Reuters.

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal would effectively stop the building of most new coal-fired plants in an industry that is moving rapidly to more natural gas.

Republicans say a slew of EPA clean air measures will drive up power costs but have had little success in trying to stop them in Congress. Industries have turned to the courts to slow down the EPA's program.

Some Democrats from energy-intensive states also complained. "The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.

The enforcement of the new measures, which will force new plants to cut CO2 emissions by 50 per cent and also mandate investment in unaffordable technologies to bury carbon emissions underground, marks the realization of Obama’s 2008 promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry.

During an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008 when he was still a Senator, Obama stated, “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Since Congress successfully defeated Obama’s disastrous climate bill in 2010, which would have imposed similar measures, the EPA has simply declared CO2, the life-giving gas that plants breathe, to be a deadly poison, and will impose the limits by dictatorial fiat.

Groups like the Edison Electric Institute have previously warned that the new rules eventually “cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity,” prompting a wave of coal plant shutdowns. Americans will be hit with more energy rate hikes even as they struggle to pay the bills now.

FBI explanation of missing Oklahoma City bombing tapes not credible, judge says

A federal judge on Wednesday continued to question the FBI's explanation for not producing videotapes associated with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that a Salt Lake lawyer has sought for nearly six years.

"It's quite astounding that documents as important as these went missing and the FBI says, 'Well, they're gone,'" U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said during a motion hearing.

At issue is whether the FBI adequately responded to Jesse Trentadue's Freedom of Information Act request for footage of Timothy McVeigh parking a truckload of explosives at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. Specifically, the Salt Lake attorney is after a building surveillance tape and dashcam video from the Oklahoma state trooper who stopped McVeigh 90 minutes after the explosion that killed 168 people.

The FBI has submitted several declarations from its top records manager to show the agency has searched electronic databases and evidence warehouses without success. But Waddoups said the declarations lack credibility because they do not include firsthand knowledge or details about who, when, where or how the searches were conducted.

"That's not good evidence," he said.

Waddoups delayed ruling on the FBI's motion to dismiss the case and allowed the agency until June 15 to provide a more complete explanation of the searches.

"This is a matter of significant public interest," the judge said, adding it's time for it to be resolved.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Kathryn Wyer argued the FBI has conducted a search in this case using procedures other courts have recently upheld as reasonable.  Trentadue essentially wants to use his FOIA request as a search warrant, which goes beyond the scope of the law, she said.

Trentadue contends the FBI has acted in bad faith by not providing the videotapes he has sought since December 2006."Their response has been, 'We looked for it. We can't find it,'" he said.

Wyer said Trentadue has not produced any evidence that the tapes exist. Trentadue counters that the FBI hasn't shown that they don't exist.

Trentadue began looking into the bombing after his brother, Kenneth Trentadue, died at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August 1995. Kenneth Trentadue was a convicted bank robber who was taken to the federal prison after violating probation in San Diego in June 1995.

Jesse Trentadue alleges guards mistook his brother for a bombing suspect and beat him to death during an interrogation.

He said after all these years he thought public interest in the case would wane. "But that doesn't appear to be the case. It grows and grows."

Christian Persecution Not Newsworthy

Saudi fatwa against Gulf churches

In an article published by the Middle East Forum, Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, cites several Arabic language web publications that quoted Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declaring it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.”

Ibrahim reported the Muslim leader’s comment was in response to a question by a delegation from Kuwait, where a member of parliament recently also called for churches to be removed.

“Accordingly, the grand mufti ‘stressed that Kuwait was a part of the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore it is necessary to destroy all churches in it,’” Ibrahim reported.

“As with many grand muftis before him, the sheik based his proclamation on the famous tradition, or hadith, wherein the prophet of Islam declared on his deathbed that, ‘There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula,’ which has always been interpreted to mean that only Islam can be practiced in the region,” Ibrahim wrote.

In the Middle East, Christians already are facing increased persecution, including death, in countries where militant Islamic factions have stepped into the vacuum of power created by “Arab Spring” revolutions.

For example, Coptic Christians who have worshiped in Egypt for millennia are reporting higher levels of persecution from Muslims. In North Africa, Muslims have promised to eradicate Christianity in some parts of the region. In Iraq, where Christians did not flourish but were given some accommodation under strongman Saddam Hussein, entire Christian populations have fled.

Wrote Ibrahim, “Considering the hysteria that besets the West whenever non-authoritative individuals offend Islam – for instance, a fringe, unknown pastor – imagine what would happen if a Christian counterpart to the grand mufti, say the pope, were to declare that all mosques in Italy must be destroyed; imagine the nonstop Western media frenzy that would erupt, all the shrill screams of ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigot,’ demands for apologies if not resignation, nonstop handwringing by sensitive politicians, and worse.”

As noted by Ibrahim, there were outcries of hatred and bigotry when Terry Jones burned a Quran at his church in Florida last year. There have been no denouncements of the Muslim Leader saying that churches in the Arabian Peninsula be destroyed.

"The desecration of any holy text, including the Quran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry," President Obama said of Terry Jones burning the Quran. He has made no statements on the destruction of churches in the gulf or on the Christian persecutions in the area.

David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the Afghanistan war, issued a similar statement."We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Quran. We also offer condolences to the families of all those injured and killed in violence which occurred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Quran."

Christian bishops in Germany, Austria and Russia have sharply criticized Saudi Arabia's top religious official after reports that he issued a fatwa saying all churches on the Arabian Peninsula should be destroyed.

Attacks on Christians

In Iran authorities have begun sweeping through towns arresting Christians suspected of holding worship meetings in an effort to stamp out the house church movement.

In Kerala state, India, a pastor and his children were attacked on Feb. 21. Pastor Titus Ignatius Kapan and his family were eating dinner at the house of a Hindu convert when Hindu extremists entered the house. They abused the pastor and his children before dropping huge boulders on the pastor’s car.

In Nigeria terrorist group Boko Haram claimed responsibility for suicide bombers who set off a car bomb at a church in Jos, Nigeria, killing a church member and a baby.

The execute branch of our government have consistently shown a lack of interest in the plight of Christians being persecuted domestically and in the eastern hemisphere. While U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary Daniel Baer was hailing the U.N. passage of a resolution endorsing the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender people, nothing was said of the nearly 900 dead or wounded Christians in attacks on 40 Churches where the victims were hacked and burned to death in Nigeria just two months earlier.

A few weeks later the Arab Spring kicked of unleashing a slew of attacks resulting in the murder of hundreds of Christians in Africa and throughout Europe and the Middle East. While our government was touting the Arab spring as a “victory” for the Islamic people, Christians were losing their lives for simply “not being Muslims.” Still with all of these blatant human rights violations taking place and the media’s refusal to report these attacks, we have heard virtually nothing from our government on this extermination of Christians.

Half of Iraq's indigenous Christians are gone due to the unleashed forces of jihad, many of them fleeing to nearby Syria; yet, as the Assad regime comes under attack by al-Qaeda and others, the jihad now seeps into Syria, where Christians are experiencing a level of persecution unprecedented in the nation's modern history. Likewise, some 100,000 Christian Copts have fled their native Egypt since the overthrow of the Mubarak regime; and in northern regions of Nigeria, where the jihadi group Boko Haram has been slaughtering Christians; up to 95 % of the Christian population has fled.

Meanwhile, the "big news" concerning the Muslim world in the month of February—the news that flooded the mainstream media and had U.S. politicians, beginning with President Obama, flustered, angry, and full of regret—was that copies of the Koran in Afghanistan were burned by U.S. soldiers because imprisoned Muslim inmates were using them "to facilitate extremist communications."

President Obama thanked the Muslim community for their help in dealing with the September 11 tragedy, which caused nearly 3,000 deaths.

The president honored the Muslims for their help on home soil a decade ago, and also thanked them for their contributions to the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama noted that American Muslims serve as firefighters, police officers and counterterrorism specialists. “Make no mistake,” Obama said. “Muslim Americans help to keep us safe.”

Obama said "I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.

"And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.  And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples."

Don Surber crunches the numbers and points out that Obama's claim is highly dubious. According to Surber, the US has an estimated three to eight million Muslims, less than one per cent of the world's total and less than at least 23 other countries.

What does he have to say about Christianity?

The president did say  'It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.'

Conclusion

The media and many in our government clearly have antipathy towards Christians. It is no wonder there is no mention, no outcry for the assaults on Christians around the world other than from other Christians. Will there be silence as the assaults continue to grow here in the US?

Matthew 5:10-12 Blessed are they who have been persecuted for righteousness sake! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for your reward in Heaven is great. For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Panetta Claims International Permission Needed for Military Action, Not Congress

It is no surprise that the Obama administration believes that they do not need congressional approval to use the military. We seen and discussed this when the Libyan attacks commenced. This time under questioning from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing March 7, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that “international permission,” rather than Congressional approval, provides a ‘legal basis’ for military action by the United States.

Sen. Jeff Sessions:  Do you think that you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, without Congressional approval?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta : Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this.  Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.

Sen. Jeff Sessions:  Well, I’m almost breathless about that.  Because what I heard you say is, “we are going to seek international approval, and then we will come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we ‘might’ seek Congressional approval.”

Panetta then goes on to explicitly state that the President has the authority to “act in the defense of the nation” without Congressional approval and that a NATO resolution would be all the legal justification the administration needs in order to wage yet another foreign war.

The War Powers Act prohibits the US President from engaging in war unless the Congress authorizes:

1. A declaration of war,

2. Specific statutory authorization, or

3. A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

This makes it illegal for the US President to wage a foreign war of aggression without Congressional authorization.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution remands the power to declare war specifically to the Congress.  This power is distinct from raising and funding an army, which is also a separate declared power of Congress.  The US Constitution and the War Powers Act make it clear that President may not initiate an undeclared war without the consent of Congress.

Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives which reads:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Remember a year ago we reported that in a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011, President Obama cited the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and his "constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."

However, as a candidate the president held a different view. The Boston Globe interviewed then-Senator Obama in 2007 on the use of unilateral military action:

Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

Rep. Burton of Indiana said regarding the calls for strikes in Syria and Panetta’s admission that congress and the constitution are subservient to the UN, “I would respectfully remind Senator McCain and the President that they do not have the power to unilaterally start a war. The authority to initiate war is vested by the Constitution exclusively in Congress. The War Powers Act was enacted into law over a Presidential veto--not an easy thing to accomplish--to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States in requiring that the President has to seek the consent of Congress before the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostile action.

“Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act provides that no attempt by the President to introduce the United States Armed Forces into hostile action may be made under the War Powers Act unless, number one, there is a declaration of war; number two, a specific authorization; or, number three, a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possession, or its Armed Forces.

“The Constitution and the War Powers Act are not a list of suggestions; they are the law of the land, the law the President of the United States and every Member of Congress swears to protect and defend. Contrary to Defense Secretary Panetta's assertion before the Senate Armed Services Committee the other day, international permission does not trump congressional permission”

Hoi Polloi Pay down, Congress Pay Up

The median household income in January was $50,020, or 5.4% lower than it was in June 2009, the beginning of the economic recovery, according to a new estimate from Sentier Research, based on Census data.

This decline in income comes despite improvements in the job market. The unemployment rate stood to 8.3% in January, down from 9.5% when the recovery started.

The longer-term view is even more depressing. Median income is down 7.8% since the recession began in December 2007 and 8.7% since January 2000.

Though jobs are coming back, many of them are lower-wage positions in retail stores, restaurants and temporary help. A report released Monday by Intuit showed that small businesses continued to add positions in February, but they were mainly on the lower end of the pay scale.

During this 2007 – preset period congressional pay increased by 5%. In fairness, the average pay for a rank and file congressional member has not changed from $174,000 since 2009.

After all, the number of voters who give Congress favorable marks for its job performance has reached double digits for the first time in nearly a year.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 10% of Likely U.S. Voters now rate Congress' performance as good or excellent. That's up from five percent (5%) last month and the highest positive finding since last March. But 63% still think Congress is doing a poor job, although that down from 70% a month ago.

We Can’t Wait- The Keystone XL pipeline

Senate Pro Tem Bingman Statement on TransCanada Gulf Coast Project

Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman issued the following statement Monday following TransCanada’s announcement of reapplication for a Presidential Permit application to complete the Keystone XL pipeline project as well as TransCanada’s intent to proceed with construction of a pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. This section of pipeline is projected to create more than one thousand direct jobs in Oklahoma alone.

“Gas prices have more than doubled since President Obama’s first day in office. Meanwhile, we’ve got plenty of oil just sitting in a terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma, waiting to be refined,” said Bingman, R-Sapulpa. “President Obama continues to stonewall a common-sense business plan in the Keystone XL pipeline—one that would create thousands of jobs and put us on the path to an energy future powered by American resources and ingenuity.”

“I applaud TransCanada for proceeding with construction of the southern portion of Keystone XL. Thousands of Oklahomans will see the benefit in jobs and dollars flowing into our economy, and our country will be more secure for it.”

Background Studies

In August 2011, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was released, kicking off a 30-day public comment period and 90-day federal agency comment period. The FEIS addressed all concerns raised by EPA in previous iterations, and was in fact largely supportive of the project. After weighing all options and outcomes, the State Department identified its “preferred alternative,” which was to build the pipeline as currently proposed. Just as the federal agency comment period neared completion and the State Department appeared ready to issue a National Interest Determination, on November 10, 2011, the Obama administration changed course and announced it would seek a new route and a new environmental study, which would take another 15 to 18 months.

The State Department itself has details about the extensive review process that has already been undertaken for the Keystone XL pipeline. Ironically, at least as late as December 31, 2011 (and perhaps still), the State Department website still says a final decision is expected by the end of the year. This shows that the full and comprehensive review was on track for completion until the political decision to delay the project yet again, this time for more than a year, until after the next election. Unfortunately a delay of this length could very well jeopardize the entire project.

The Obama administration points to concerns in the state of Nebraska as its reason for delaying the entire Keystone XL pipeline project. However, there is no federal role – and no Presidential Permit required – for an intra-state pipeline like the re-route within the state of Nebraska. The legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama makes clear that the State Department’s existing Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline stands. The law states any environmental review of the modified route through Nebraska will be performed by the State of Nebraska.

Congress members Responses

John Hoeven (R. ND) The Keystone XL pipeline represents a big step toward true North American energy independence, reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and increasing our access to energy from our own nation and our closest ally, Canada, along with some oil from Mexico -- to 75% of our daily consumption, compared with 70% now.

That decades-long goal for our country is finally within reach, but we need to stay focused on the big picture, and we need to act. This $7 billion, 1,700-mile, high-tech transcontinental pipeline is a big-time, private-sector job creator, and it will also hold down the gas prices for consumers and reduce our energy dependence on an unstable part of the world. Finally, it will do so with good environmental stewardship.

That's why I, along with 44 of my colleagues from across the nation, introduced new legislation to move the project toward approval and construction after President Barack Obama's rejection of the project last month.

From an environmental perspective, the project has been under review since September 2008, more than three years, and the State Department's environmental review, completed in August 2011, found "no significant impacts on most resources" providing environmental restrictions are met. Further, our new legislation includes all federal and state safeguards and sets no time limit on Nebraska's ability to further review the pipeline's route through the state, the only portion of the route in contention. Additionally, 80% of the new Canadian oil sands development is being developed "in situ," meaning, it has a similar carbon footprint and emissions as conventional oil wells.

If the Keystone XL pipeline isn't built, Canadian oil will still be produced -- 700,000 barrels a day of it -- but instead of coming down to our refineries in the United States, instead of creating jobs for American workers, instead of reducing our dependence on a turbulent part of the world, that oil will be shipped to China.

It will have to be carried there on large oil tankers, creating more carbon emissions, and it will be processed at facilities with weaker environmental safeguards.

Frank Lucas, Oklahoma Representative said "This project would create 20,000 direct jobs and spur the creation of 118,000 spin-off jobs. Additionally, the pipeline will carry 100,000 barrels per day of oil from the U.S. Bakken to Oklahoma and Gulf Coast refineries, while in-turn easing our dependence on foreign countries for U.S. oil supply.

"This project is a huge opportunity to boost job creation in America. According to some estimates, construction of the pipeline would immediately create 13,000 American jobs including pipefitters, welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators etc. In addition, another 7,000 manufacturing jobs would be created at the onset of construction.

“According to Trans Canada, the constituents of Oklahoma’s Third Congressional District will see tremendous benefits from the Keystone Pipeline project. In Oklahoma alone, it is estimated that the project will bring $1.2 billion in new spending in Oklahoma’s economy, increase personal income by $874 million, add more than $25 million in state and local tax revenues, and more than $1 billion in increased gross state product.

“President Obama has said job creation is his top priority, so why is he delaying this shovel-ready project that will create tens of thousands of jobs in America? At a time when we are facing an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, I believe the President should make the decision to proceed with construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will put thousands of unemployed Americans back to work. The time to act is now. We cannot afford to ignore this opportunity to spur job creation and decrease our dependency on foreign oil.”

It is not just the Republicans who are disappointed in the stall tactics.

“As I said before, families in this country want elected officials to address the jobs crisis and restore economic growth. This project is estimated to create thousands of high-paying jobs and will provide access to an affordable, secure source of energy. The U.S. now relies on crude oil pipelines nationwide to move 71 percent of its oil and petroleum products.  The Obama Administration’s review of the project concludes that it presents no significant environmental impacts. This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security,” Jim Matheson D. Utah said in a press release.

U.S. Congressman Jason Altmire (D- PA) issued the following statement; "The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence. Make no mistake, this pipeline will be built, but now Canadian jobs will be created and China and its markets will benefit from the oil transported through this pipeline. At a time when American families and businesses are saving to cover rising fuel costs, a pipeline to the Gulf Coast could provide a savings to them. I strongly urge the president to reconsider his objection to this pipeline. The positive impact it can have on our country is too great to pass up."

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott "We need jobs and we need jobs now.  Building and opening this pipeline are commonsense, straightforward actions our government can take to create private-sector jobs, boost economic development and lower the price of fuel for all Americans."

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY): “With conflicts overseas driving up prices at the pump and so many Americans out looking for work, I am deeply disappointed that the White House has formally rejected the Keystone XL pipeline permit," said Owens. "As we work toward a long-term renewable energy program, beginning construction on the Keystone pipeline is the right short-term solution for the nation’s energy concerns and putting Americans back to work.”

According to a recent Pew Poll there is strong public support for building the pipeline. About two-thirds (66%) think the government should approve the building of the pipeline, while 23% say it should not be approved.

President “We Can’t Wait” Obama says he just didn’t have enough time to make a decision. But “Keystone XL has been planned for years,” notes the Wall Street Journal. USA Today says the permit process “has been going on since 2008” and the rejection comes “more than three years into the approval process.” As Speaker Boehner put it, “The president expedited the approval of the Solyndra loan project, but won’t approve a project that’s been under review for over three years.”

Attorney General Pruitt Joins Six Attorneys General in Lawsuit Defending Religious Liberty

Seven states are asking a federal judge to block an Obama administration mandate that requires birth control coverage for employees of religious-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court of Nebraska alleges that the new rule violates the First Amendment rights of groups that object to the use of contraceptives. The suit argues, “The First Amendment has for centuries, served as a rampart against government interference with religious liberty.”

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement, “Any rule, regulation or law that forces faith-based institutions to provide for services that violate their free exercise of religion, or that penalizes them for failing to kneel at the altar of government, is a flat-out violation of the First Amendment.”

Attorney General Scott Pruitt was among seven attorneys general to file a lawsuit Thursday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the federal government’s requirement that religious employers offer health insurance coverage for sterilization services that conflict with their religious beliefs.

The complaint, filed today in U.S. District Court in Nebraska, challenges the constitutionality of the federal government’s impending mandate, claiming the requirement would be an unprecedented invasion of First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and free association.

“Any regulation that requires a religious group to violate their lawful beliefs and practices goes directly against the ideals that our Founding Fathers set in place to protect Americans from an overbearing and intrusive government,” Pruitt said. “It conflicts with the most basic elements of freedom provided to all Americans to practice their lawful religion wherever, whenever and however they choose. For that reason, we have filed a lawsuit asking the Court to find the regulation unconstitutional.”

Earlier this month, the AGs sent a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warning of a possible challenge in court if the mandate wasn’t withdrawn.

The states joining Nebraska are Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (S. 2043), which would block the requirement that religiously affiliated universities, hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions offer health plans that cover birth control — including abortion-causing “contraception” drugs such as RU-486 — without a co-pay or deductible. While churches, synagogues, and other places of worship have been exempted from the ObamaCare mandate, the President has decreed that religious employers must concur, giving them until August 2013 to comply.

“In effect, the President is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In announcing the bill, Senator Rubio said that President Obama’s “obsession with forcing mandates on the American people has now reached a new low by violating the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people. Under this President, we have a government that has grown too big, too costly, and now even more overbearing by forcing religious entities to abandon their beliefs.”

Rubio called his proposed measure a “common-sense bill that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so.” Under the legislation, language in Obama’s 2010 healthcare law would be amended to stipulate that “no guideline or regulation … shall require any individual or entity to offer, provide, or purchase coverage for a contraceptive or sterilization service, or related education or counseling, to which that individual or entity is opposed on the basis of religious belief.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) has introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3897, in the House; it has 8 cosponsors at present. In a similar vein, Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has introduced the Religious Freedom Protection Act of 2012, S. 2092.

Food Police Reject Homemade Lunch; Force Preschooler to Eat Cafeteria Nuggets

RAEFORD, N.C. — A Hoke County preschooler was fed chicken nuggets for lunch because a state worker felt that her homemade lunch did not have enough nutritional value, according to a report by the Carolina Journal.

The West Hoke Elementary School student was in her More at Four classroom when a U.S. Department of Agriculture agent who was inspecting lunch boxes decided that her packed lunch — which consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips — “did not meet USDA guidelines,” the Journal reports.

The decision was made under consideration of a regulation put in place by the the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs to meet USDA guidelines.

“When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones,” the Journal reports.

President’s rejection of Keystone project

“Media reports of the president's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline confirms what Oklahomans already know: Obama cares more about his re-election prospects than our nation's energy independence and the hundreds of thousands of jobs this project would create.

“Pandering to far-left environmentalists might please the president's friends at MoveOn.org, but it won't help relieve the glut of crude oil in Cushing, won't create jobs for Oklahomans, and certainly won't make America's energy future secure." Pro Tem Bingman said in a statement on the President’s rejection of Keystone project .

The Obama administration today formally rejected a bid by Canadian energy company TransCanada to build a $7 billion oil pipeline linking the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

The Keystone XL project, which was estimated to create thousands of U.S. jobs, became an election-year lightning rod, embroiling President Obama, congressional Republicans, labor unions and interest groups in a heated debate over jobs and the environment.

Flawed SOPA Bill Not Headed to House Floor

OGR hearing planned for Wednesday postponed following assurances, removal of DNS provisions

Washington, DC – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today announced that a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, which was to examine the impact of Domain Name Service (DNS) and search engine blocking on the Internet, has been postponed following assurances that anti-piracy legislation will not move to the House floor this Congress without a consensus.

"While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House.  Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote,” said Chairman Issa.  “The voice of the Internet community has been heard. Much more education for Members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential if anti-piracy legislation is to be workable and achieve broad appeal.”

"Earlier tonight, Chairman Smith announced that he will remove the DNS blocking provision from his legislation.  Although SOPA, despite the removal of this provision, is still a fundamentally flawed bill, I have decided that postponing the scheduled hearing on DNS blocking with technical experts is the best course of action at this time. Right now, the focus of protecting the Internet needs to be on the Senate where Majority Leader Reid has announced his intention to try to move similar legislation in less than two weeks."

Chairman Issa intends to continue to push for Congress to heed the advice of Internet experts on anti-piracy legislation and to push for the consideration and passage of the bipartisan OPEN Act, which provides an alternative means for protecting intellectual property rights without undermining the structure and entrepreneurialism of the Internet.  Learn more about Rep. Issa and Sen. Ron Wyden’s alternative the OPEN Act at www.keepthewebopen.com

Lamar Smith, Representative from Texas said “After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision. We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers.

“Current law protects the rights of American innovators by prohibiting the illegal sale and distribution of their products by domestic websites.  But there is no equivalent protection for American companies from foreign online criminals who steal and sell American goods to consumers around the world. Congress must address the widespread problem of online theft of America’s technology and products from foreign thieves."

He also stated that said that he expects the Committee to continue its markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act in February. “I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property."

Usurpation of the Constitution

On December 23, 2011 President Obama sent a letter to congress titled Statement by the President on H.R. 2055. In the letter he writes “The Congress has also included certain provisions in this bill that could interfere with my constitutional authorities in the areas of foreign relations and national security. Section 113 of Division H requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress 30 days in advance of "any proposed military exercise involving United States personnel" that is anticipated to involve expenditures of more than $100,000 on construction. Language in Division I, title I, under the headings International Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, disallows the expenditure of funds "for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national," unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress. In approving this bill, I reiterate the understanding, which I have communicated to the Congress, that I will apply these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”

According to the United States Constitution Article1 Section 8 Congress alone has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years".

With respect to authority as Commander in Chief, Article 2 Section 2 states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”.

The constitution is clear that the congress has the power to send the military to war and to make appropriations for the military, not the president. I fail to see how this could interfere with his constitutional authorities.

However, in 2001 John Yoo wrote an opinion titled "THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM". in it he concluded "In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. (32) In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make." This claim gives the president the power to use military force whenever he deems necessary. Is this what the constitution says?

John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

We have heard a lot lately about the president making statements about usurping congressional authority, including items on youtube. In recent remarks he said “Now, I’ve said I will continue to look for every opportunity during the course of this year to work with Congress to move this country forward and create jobs.  But we can’t wait. When Congress -- whenever this Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, I’ve got an obligation as President to do what we can without them. I’ve got an obligation to work on behalf of you and the American people. I’m not going to let members of Congress put party ideology ahead of the people that they were elected to serve -- not when there's this much at stake.”

Again at Shaker Heights High School in Ohio on January 4^th 2011 he said “But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. “ This is clearly in response to his appointment of Richard Cordray without the approval of congress.

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."

John Adams

"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."

President James Madison (1751-1836) speech, Virginia Convention, 1788