40th (Now 42nd) Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision

2012 is the 42nd Anniversary of the 1st Earth Day but re-posting this article from 2010 has become my Earth Day Anniversary Tradition.  So when some indoctrinated college student or old hippie corners you with their Earth Day spiel, presentation or product over the weekend and into next week, get their email and send them the link to this post. Ask Marion~

This is a great article to use when contacting your Senator and Congressman: 40th Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision - We can solve two problems at once. If we stop illegal immigration and cut immigration in general... We will have no need for Cap and Trade and will solve our illegal alien (Hispanic and Muslim) problems, both groups that do not assimilate and reproduce in large numbers. Just by doing this one thing we will improve the quality of life of all Americans and legal aliens.

By Roy Beck, Sunday, April 18, 2010, 7:41 PM EDT – Originally Cross-Posted:  40th Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision by Ask Marion on 4.23.2010

THURSDAY IS THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST EARTH DAY -- AND A GRIM REMINDER OF HOW IMMIGRATION HAS UNDERCUT VIRTUALLY ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS.

Pres. Clinton's Task Force understood it. The Father of Earth Day understood it. You and I understand it. Why does Congress not understand that U.S. environmental sustainability is not possible unless we greatly reduce immigration numbers?

What does sustainability mean? That the way we live today will not prevent our grandchildren from enjoying the same things we enjoy. The Golden Rule is at the heart of it.

Sustainability was the big idea 40 years ago when much of the nation's attention was drawn to the events and news of the first Earth Day. I was a cub newspaper reporter covering the events. And I remember well that an important theme in 1970 was that sustainability required the U.S. to begin to stabilize its population after having added the SECOND 100 million in just 55 years.

Well, now we've added the THIRD 100 million in less than the 40 years since that first Earth Day and we're on pace to add the FOURTH 100 million even faster!

Because of this massive population explosion, progress on environmental quality in recent years has stalled. The Chesapeake Bay, for example, is just about as near death today as it was in 1970.

And around 1 MILLION acres of natural habitat and farmland are cleared, scraped and developed each year just to accommodate this rapid population growth.

Nearly all of the population growth is caused by the increases in immigration that Congress ordered or allowed since 1970. For every restriction and cost that the government has put on us since then to improve environmental quality, it has negated part or all of the benefits by forcing high population growth through radically increased immigration numbers.

That is why the Father of Earth Day, Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.), made U.S. population stabilization such an important part of the teaching back in 1970 and why he spent much of the last 20 years warning of the environmental dangers of continuing our high-immigration policies.

Even Pres. Clinton's Population and Consumption Task Force concluded in 1996 that the immigration increases since the first Earth Day had to be rolled back.

The Task Force was a bit nervous about taking on the immigration issues (just like most environmentalists are):

As a matter of public debate, immigration is a sensitive and explosive issue, and both legal and illegal immigration must be addressed with great sensitivity and care in order to advance the debate. We acknowledge these impediments to easy and informal dialogue, and we urge that participants take appropriate care so that a reasoned discussion of immigration and the American future can begin.

But then Pres. Clinton's Task Force stated forcefully:

We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.

Pres. Clinton had established the Task Force in 1993 to find ways "to bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future."

Have you noticed that I have been quoting only Democrats?

If you are represented by Democrats in Congress, this is an especially good time to call on them to be true to their Party's long-standing "stated" commitment to environmental sustainability.

Of course, most of them don't want to deal with the inconvenient truth that the Democratic Party's insistence on high immigration to drive massive U.S. population growth is at odds with decades of acknowledgments that these policies simply cannot continue if we hope to leave any kind of natural environmental legacy to our grandchildren.

President Carter in 1977 commissioned a Global 2000 Report <-- (the original seems to have been scrubbed) which eventually concluded that the "United States should: Develop a U.S. national population policy that includes attention to issues such as population stabilization ... just, consistent and workable immigration laws."

Without all the increases in immigration, our communities would have around 250 million inhabitants right now, with little likelihood of ever going over 265 million.

Instead, because of a quadrupling in legal immigration numbers, we have more than 310 million inhabitants and are on a trajectory to cross 600 million well before the end of this century!

Obviously, the first Earth Day vision was for an America greatly different than the one we occupy today. And congressional immigration policies are the main reason that bright vision is now so murky.

This 40th anniversary is not a time of celebration but of deep sadness for the promise that was lost.

As Sen. Nelson said on the 32nd anniversary just a few years before his death:

We are preparing to celebrate the 32nd Earth Day just after the Census Bureau has announced that far from winding down in the 1990s, U.S. population growth boomed at its highest level in the nation's history! Not even the peak of the Baby Boom in the 1950s added as many people!

"This new population boom represents a PROFOUND FAILURE in our nation's pursuit of environmental quality. Since 1970, another 80 million people have been added to the country.

"Every environmental goal has been delayed because of this failure.

And Sen. Nelson never flinched from naming who had caused the failure: Congress, because of its immigration policies.

I know from past experiences that many NumbersUSA members, especially in the West, do not think so kindly toward Sen. Nelson because he was the father of the Wilderness Act which they believe unfairly took huge swaths of land out of private control and use.

Our membership is divided about a lot of environmental matters. NumbersUSA does not take a position on any environmental issue other than immigration's role. Whatever your stance on various governmental efforts to combat environmental problems, we all can be united in the understanding that immigration is creating the double whammy of creating great pressures for more and more regulation to control environmental consequences while negating any positive effects.

Let's require our Members of Congress to promise not to force the FOURTH 100 million on us and our children and grandchildren.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

Originally Posted by Knowledge_Is_Power at 4:36 PM -  Thursday, April 22, 2010 

An Earth Day Tradition… George Carlin on Saving the Planet

An Earth Day tradition: George Carlin on the intellectual bankruptcy of "saving the planet"

Video: George Carlin on Saving the Planet – a few questionable words but worth the listen!

Source: Washington Examiner (link no longer active) - www.washingtonexaminer.com

Most of us do believe that it is the right thing to do to be better stewards of our Earth and to be kinder to the animals we share it with. We need to do a better job of protecting our supplies of clean water, stop massive deforestation which includes the saving species of plants that may hold huge medicinal secrets, and to move toward cleaner and a bigger tool box of energy sources. But especially after Climategate most of us do believe that turning these matter over to the government or worse yet global control is not the way to do and will devastate us financially as well as ultimately turning over huge control over our country to the UN.

A lot of what George says makes sense!!

Today’s Earth Day announcement is that Al Gore’s movie, an Inconvenient Truth, based on very questionable science is going to be shown to our children in all public schools without the opposite point of view being offered.

These kids, your kids, are being programmed daily that they are smarter than you are and that it is their job to teach their parents. Can’t get to the adults… get to the kids. Do you remember the last time these methods were used??

Please stand up, as individuals, and in your parent groups… form some if you haven’t already and stop this concept as well as the pushing of the theory of Global Warming !

40 years of predicting the planet’s imminent demise

Earth Day Predictions, from the first one in 1970….

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” -George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” -New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” -Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” -Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.” -Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” -Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

It was also announced that Congress is in the process of taking over control of all water in the US. – from Rivers, Lakes, Ponds down to Puddles… our drinking water and irrigation supplies. The existing law gives then control of all navigable water ways… they are now seeking to take out the word ‘navigable’. Ask the citizens of the San Joaquin Valley in CA, who used to be the bread basket of America, how that can work out. They now live in a Federally created Dust Bowl. This is a bad thing America!!

Related:

First they Shut off Water to CA Farmers, Now the Feds Attempting to Annex ALL Water in the U.S.

Please educate yourself… Pick up a copy of: Power Grab

A21 are changing name to Millennium Development Goals: GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

Wow! Awesome article that tells us everything we need to know about their master plan.  It's more than a name change; this article describes their blueprint to achieve world domination. Everything they're doing (NDAA included) appears to me to fit their blueprint.

go to http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom208.htm ....you will see that the evildoers at the A21 (Agenda 21) are changing their name to Millennium Development Goals.  Just be on the lookout for the new terms.  Remember:  these people are changelings... and evil to the very core.

GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

by Tom DeWeese  -  January 11, 2012  -  NewsWithViews.com  - h/t to AJ

He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works.

He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.”

Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses.

Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom.

In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world.

Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate.

The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous?

First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

• Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.

• Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.

• Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.

• Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.

• Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.

• Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.

• Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.

• Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.

• Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”

• Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court

• Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.

• Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam.

Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act.

And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report.

Clearly, Obama needs to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offers the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provide the knot, and Obama gets to pretend to be a “world” leader.

© 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Related Articles:

1- Tea Party Candidate Warns of UN and Obama's Agenda 21

Terror Alert: HR 1505!

By: Syver Alton Larsen and MJ

Voting on HR 1505, the inspiration of Rob Bishop of Utah, is ominously imminent. The simply stated purpose of the bill is to allow Border Patrol agents to access public lands in the interest of securing the border. In actuality, HR 1505 wipes out our Constitution, overrides the jurisdiction of other agencies, negates over one hundred years of law and policy, infringes on state’s rights… without congressional oversight and without recourse.

As Chuck Baldwin inscribes:

“Let’s first acknowledge that the federal government has absolutely no natural right or constitutional jurisdiction to claim (much less seize) land and territory outside of the District of Columbia. In many of the western states of the US, for example, the vast majority of land in any given State is now regarded as “federal” land. Ask yourself, where is the constitutional authorization for this federal land grab? When did the various State legislatures vote to give these properties to the federal government? When did the various State governors sign the State laws giving these properties to the federal government? When did the citizens of the various states vote to give these properties to the federal government? The answer is, nowhere, and they didn’t!”

Please look at the red area below… 80% of the United States is a massive amount of land that will be removed from individual and state authority. It includes ten entire states including Florida and Hawaii!

Map Source

What does HR 1505 do?

One will notice in the text of HR 1505, that it doesn’t seek to alleviate jurisdictional conflict, but rather completely decimate all other authority. Note the word “prohibit.”

• H.R. 1505 (R. Bishop), To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes. “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”

o Press Release – Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands (7/8/2011)

Related Hearing – Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1505 and H.R. 587 (7/8/2011)

“To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”

HR 1505 hands total control to DHS in the interests of ‘border security.’ Here’s a sampling:

“(b) Authorized Activities – The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).”

This states very emphatically that HS can do what they want, not just in violation of authority of other departments, it also gives HS a waiver to violate Congressional statute, which directs the actions of those other departments. An explanation of those waivers is given in section (c), the clarifications.

Please take your time as you read all the laws HR 1505 wipes off the books:

“(c)(2) DESCRIPTION OF LAWS WAIVED – The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are:

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.),
• National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.),
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.),
• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.),
• Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.),
• Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
• Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.),
• Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the `Antiquities Act of 1906′) (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.),
• Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.),
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.),
• Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.),
• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.),
• Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.),
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.),
• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.),
• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.),
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.),
• Subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act’),
• Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-145, 113 Stat. 1711),
• Sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.),
• National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),
• Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.),
• Sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467),
• Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101-628),
• Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403),
• Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.),
• Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996),
• Public Law 103-141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.),
• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.),
• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.)

Is this a monumental bill or what? Has there ever been another bill that has sought to remove so many of the laws of our land and seek complete and uncontested jurisdiction for over 80% of our physical territory? From an opinion piece by Scott Nicol:

Would complying with our nation’s laws really prevent CBP (Customs Border Patrol) from securing our borders?

Not according to the Border Patrol.

The irony is that the Border Patrol has not asked for the power to ignore environmental laws, but instead has sent officials to testify against Bishop’s bill in Congress. Last spring, the Government Accountability Office said, “Most agents reported that land management laws have had no effect on Border Patrol’s overall measure of border security.”

Source: http://njtoday.net/2011/11/03/an-environmental-assault-disguised-as-border-security/

Quote:

“Let’s say someone wants to close an access road across land for an oil lease project? Appeal to Homeland Security— no problem. You want a cell phone tap station deep in the boonies? Appeal to Homeland security— no problem. You want a pipeline transfer station and can’t get the appropriate environmental review? Oil supply is a matter of national security. Appeal to the DHS—no problem.

In short, if this bill passes (which it won’t), the laws of the US will apply, until they don’t based on the whims of whatever administration is in the White House. Does that truly sound like ‘small government’ to you?”

Even as amended, the bill allows Department of Homeland Security to build roads, fences, patrol vehicles, install surveillance equipment and deploy tactical infrastructure called “forward operating bases.” The bill waves 36 conservation management laws, including the Fish and Wildlife Act and the National Parks and Recreation Act.

http://www.norehberglandgrab.org/issues_nationalsecurity.html”>Quote:

John Leshy, a University of California-Hastings law professor and a former House committee staffer stated, “under the bill, Homeland Security’s actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.” The Great Falls Tribune further states, “Supporters of the measure say that’s exactly the point.” See “House measure would expand Homeland Security powers, waive environmental laws,” by John S. Adams, Great Falls Tribune, September 19, 2011.

What are other possible purposes of HR 1505?

In order for us to understand the full implications of HR 1505, one needs only to look at what the highly qualified professional, Dr. Ed Berry wrote in his article “Fatal betrayal: HR 1505.” Dr. Ed Berry described our Department of Homeland Security as a beast with “seven heads.” DHS is seven agencies wrapped into one:

1. TSA—Transportation Security Administration
2. CBP—US Customs and Border Protection
3. CIS—US Citizenship and Immigration Services
4. ICE—US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
5. SS—US Secret Service
6. FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency
7. USCG—US Coast Guard

Organizational Chart of the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0644.shtm”>

Daily news is constantly referring to the excessive outreach and abuses of DHS, especially that of the Transportation Security Administration. As one can see from the chart above, there are six other “heads” coming from the main body of the DHS. In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

If this past year is an indication of the power grab the DHS is attempting, we can logically postulate that they have plans to continue their strangle hold in the following areas:

• DHS will eventually control travel
• DHS will eventually control food
• DHS will eventually control water
• DHS will control the land
• DHS will be building fortresses (underground fuel tanks, horse facilities)
• DHS will serve as Obama’s “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful (as our military) and fully funded”
• DHS will destroy the Tenth Amendment and State Rights
• DHS will enforce UN Agenda 21

So basically, it gives the federal government permission to ignore their own laws on public land.

A reader wrote an interesting observation regarding DHS’s power reach.

I said then that the SFA (Secure Fence Act) was only the beginning of a federal land grab that would not end until the federal government, under DHS / FEMA, had complete authority over the population. We wanted to feel safe from terror and we wanted to control illegal immigration. Well, that’s what happens when we look to the Feds to save us. Please note that the fence turned out to be a complete waste of money. Why? Because it was never about a fence. Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I am confident that part of The Secure Fence Act was to create an intra-governmental conflict between DHS, other federal department that would have to be resolved by further legislation. Enter H.R. 1505. The ultimate goal has always been DHS control over as much land and as many citizens as possible. Bush failed us badly with DHS. He used our fear of terrorism to create a monster in DHS and that monster is now roaming the countryside looking to constitutional rights to stomp on.

H.R. 1505 is the next logical step to the SFA; give DHS control of ‘public’ land. Once we get used to the impact of H.R. 1505, the step will be introduce legislation to redefine ‘public’ land. Imagine a law that expands DHS jurisdiction to include the ‘inspections’ of privately owned but state and/or federally subsidized housing, manufacturing, transportation, communication, utility, warehousing and storage facilities under the ubiquitous ‘security’ label.

Both The Secure Fence Act and H.R. 1505 seek to expand “Operational Control” over federal land. To the Feds, Operational Control is defined as: “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

Instruments of terrorism and other contraband are so broad in scope as to allow the federal government the right to access virtually any property at any time for any reason with or without a search warrant so long as the goal is the prevention of contraband into the U.S. Notice the lack of definitions for instruments of terrorism and contraband.

Also, notice that the DHS definition of extremists include: people who are antagonistic toward the Obama Administration, people who stockpile food, people who oppose illegal immigration, people who oppose global governance, those who oppose the loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations, those who criticize free trade programs and those who consider themselves Patriots!

If DHS has failed to control our southern border, why should we trust them with even more power? To date, DHS has prosecuted three Border Patrol agents for doing their jobs. The Border agents’ sentences were for far greater time than the drug dealers. What makes DHS think that they will do any better on our northern border? DHS has even stopped routine Visa checks on our Canadian border!

What sane United States Citizen would want to give total control of 80% of our country’s territory to an organization that is currently field testing equipment to detect pre-crime? If the DHS is field-testing a thought crime device now, it means this technology is being considered for use. Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programme designed to spot people who are intending to commit a terrorist act, has in the past few months completed its first round of field tests at an undisclosed location in the northeast.

As one reader composed:

The antithesis of U.S. law is the presumption of guilt. Guilt, then, necessarily hinges upon the actual commission or provable conspiracy to commit a criminal act. Even if an individual contemplates a crime but does nothing to carry it out that person is innocent under the law. Who hasn’t considered doing something unwise or illegal but changed their mind after having thought it through? Should they be arrested or surveilled (sic. Surveillanced) based upon the objective speculation of a machine? What psychological conditions produce the physical responses detectable by such a machine? Perhaps anger at a spouse, anxiety of travel to an important, time sensitive event, a wedding, a funeral or injury of a loved one might do it.

This is why lie detector (polygraph) tests are inadmissible as evidence in court. We already treat allegedly innocent people as criminal suspects every time we illegally search travelers at airports on the assumption that treating everyone as a potential terrorist is somehow preferable to proper police work. This mindset probably stems from the failure of said police work to prevent 9/11 and the resulting embarrassment of the various agencies involved. So, rather than correcting their mistakes, they simply oppress everyone.

There is, of course, the underlying agenda of complete social control by those in power. That, ultimately is what we all must resist. This Orwellian approach must be stopped.

From this evidence proving that DHS is experimenting with thought crime detection, we can only see that DHS has big plans for our future. If HR 1505 passes, it would give the seven-headed monster total control of 80% of our country’s land and even more tools to control our liberty, wipe out our Constitution and become an inescapable controlling force in our lives.  Alert: HR1505 is the real terrorist.

What you can do:

Contact your senators and representatives.

Communicate with others the dangers of HR 1505.

Contest the spread of Communism.

Sources:

Rob Bishop

Chuck Baldwin:
HR 1505: GIANT LAND GRAB FOR THE POLICE STATE

Map Source

H.R. 1505

Press Release:
Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Scott Nicol:
An Environmental Assault Disguised As Border Security

Quote:
A Leader and A Panderer: Bullock and Rehberg on HR 1505

Amended:
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 1505
OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF UTAH

Quote:
Oppose H.R. 1505, the Rehberg Land Grab

Fatal betrayal: HR 1505

DHS Organizational Chart

In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

A reader wrote:
Republican Sponsored H.R. 1505 Would give DHS Police State Powers over 80% of the U.S.

DHS definition of extremists:
Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Those who consider themselves Patriots:
New SPLC Report: “Patriot” Groups, Militias Surge in Number in Past Year

DHS has even stopped routine Visa checks on our Canadian border!
US immigration checks eased on Canadian border

Future Attribute Screening Technology:
Terrorist ‘pre-crime’ detector field tested in United States

As one reader composed:
Terrorist ‘pre-crime’ detector field tested in United States

Contact your senators and representatives.

Obama’s Choice: Dirty Oil (Keystone XL Oil Pipeline) or Clean Water and Land?

By Syver Alton Larsen and MJ

One big decision looms ominously on Obama’s horizon and he will not be able to blame anyone but himself for the consequences.  Obama must render the momentous verdict by November 1 to give or not to give approval for the historical Keystone XL Pipeline Project.  This pipeline will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels… tar sand oil which is vastly different from regular oil being ten times heavier than water and very corrosive.

Presidential permission is required because the 2,147-mile pipeline crosses the border between Canada and eight states of the United States.  The present route is scheduled to cross prime agriculture heartland, 19,000 square mile wetlands, and the world’s largest fresh water aquifer—the Ogallala. 

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads.

Originally proposed on February 9, 2005, it is still in the making.   It began supplying oil to Illinois and Missouri in 2010. Phase II of the project, launched in February 2011, would extend the pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska, to Cushing, Oklahoma — a pivotal crude oil refining and pipeline hub and then on to the Gulf of Mexico.

According to The New American, the new segment of this project is waiting for Obama’s approval, but the Keystone XL is facing fierce opposition from landowners and concerned citizens.

“Though the pipeline has been in operation for almost a year, a new segment of the project, the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion, also known as Keystone XL — which would originate in Hardisty, Alberta Canada, and run southeast through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, while incorporating Phase II of the pipeline to extend to Oklahoma markets and the Texas Gulf Coast ports of Houston and Port Arthur — is facing formidable hurdles. The Canadian government’s National Energy Board approved the expansion in 2010, but is awaiting final approval from the Obama administration”

According to the Nebraska Farmers Union, many landowners have been intimidated and threatened with the Right of Eminent Domain.  Does a foreign country owned business have that right?

In 2007, Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law Section 526 which disallows the U.S. purchase of tar sands oil.  Congressman Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Energy Committee, wrote to the Senate Commerce Committee in 2008, the law "applies to fuels derived from unconventional petroleum sources such as tar sands which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional sources." 

In the article it also states that the Canadian government and big oil are working  behind the scenes to get section 526 changed.

“Meanwhile, the Canadian government has been working behind the scenes to strike Section 526 from the books to clear the way for tar sands extraction. Using Freedom of Information requests, the Pembina Institute and Climate Action Network Canada uncovered a 2008 strategy memo by Canadian Embassy official Hélène Viau which urged U.S. oil lobbyists to send letters to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of State to show "concerns with regard to section 526 and argue that oil sands products should not be targeted by this provision," and to develop "a comprehensive oil sands advocacy strategy to focus on outreach to allies, influencers, legislators, etc."

And Big Oil lobbyists have taken Viau's suggestions to heart. Matt Fox, senior vice president of oil sands for ConocoPhillips warned U.S. legislators that Section 526 "could bring [oil sands] development to a screeching halt. You'd have to think twice about oil sands development if your intention was to deliver oil to the lower '48."

The debate regarding the Keystone XL involves the economic issues versus environmental issues. The final impact statement was released by the White House in August.

Video:  Why Oil Sands Pipeline Is Just Too Risky

Those who favor the pipeline list these benefits:

1. Making money for states tax revenues

2. Providing jobs

3. Advancing national security by less foreign oil dependence

Those who are against the pipeline submit:

1. Money cannot replace clean water and land

2. Jobs provided will be temporary

3. The U.S. already imports three-fourths of its oil from western sources

Quote from the Nebraska Senator Tony Fulton:

"I would be doing a bad job if I didn't step up and say that I have some concern about the proposed route of this pipeline. If that puts me on the same side as environmentalists, or folks that I don't typically see eye to eye with, so be it."

Narrator: Fulton wants TransCanada to re-route the pipeline. He is promoting legislation he hopes would give state government the power to force the company to by-pass the aquifer. He says building this pipeline without the Nebraska's input is a violation of state's rights. We ought to have some say as to how that pipeline makes its way through Nebraska. And at this point it has been President Obama, Secretary Clinton and TransCanada who have chosen this route.

Environmentalists site the Enbridge tragic tar sand oil leak in the Kalamazoo River occurring in July 2010, as an example of what will be repeated again.  Enbridge, competitor of TransCanada, says that there is no oil remaining in the river.  The EPA has estimated that over one million gallons of oil leaked into the Kalamazoo River and has still not been totally cleaned up.  Because the tar sand oil is heavier than water, it has sunk down into the river and the only way to remove it is through drudging. 

China has actively been investing in Canadian oil and many believe that the true intent of the oil pipeline is to make it easier to ship the oil from Texas ports to Asian markets.  The pipeline happens to follow part of the same route as the notorious North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) Super Highway.

The only thing Obama fears more than the Environmentalists are the Labor Unions.  The political reality is that Obama would risk losing the votes and campaign donations of ALL 1.8 million Nebraskans whose lives depend on the Ogallala for clean drinking water and even most of the Environmentalists, but he cannot afford to lose the support of ANY Labor Unions that want the pipeline built at any and all costs for the jobs and tax-base it will generate.

TransCanada has refused to reroute the Keystone from going over the Ogallala, so they are trying to save money with pipe line construction, and is choosing economic concerns over environmental concerns that relate to the aquifer. Does greed always win in this world? 

We will know for sure by November 1, which one Obama will choose… Dirty Oil or Clean Water and Land.

Related:

Obama Allies’ Interests Collide Over Keystone Pipeline

How Prolonged Ingestion of Fluoridated Drinking Water Damages The Brain

"The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system," concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia, reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

The research team reports, "It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride."

"Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident," they write.

Fluoride was first added to water in the United States in the 1940s to help prevent tooth decay in children 8 years and under. These assumptions were later dismissed by hundreds of scientific publications which showed that internal consumption of fluoridated water had no effect on tooth decay.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says dental fluorosis is highest among adolescents between the ages of 12 an 15. One reason for the increase in fluorosis: Americans are now exposed to fluoride from a variety of sources, including toothpaste, mouth rinses and prescription supplements, the Department of Health and Human Services says.

Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water. Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can't repair damaged cells, we get old fast.

Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage every system and function of the body.

"Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF. "We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children's teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can't see the harm it's doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking," says Beeber.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain's physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

"Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth," they write.

Animal studies show fluoride's toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer's disease, Valdez-Jimenez's team reports.

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that "A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ." (Biological Trace Element Research)

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council's (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." And, "Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease."

On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 and then was fired for doing so.

Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years -- the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska. This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.

Anti-fluoride activist Christina Welsh says the government should end all fluoridation everywhere. "It is a complete fraud to suggest that fluoride reduces dental caries when this has never been proven. The opposite is true, fluoride has been found to cause cancer, osteoporosis and DNA damage among dozens of other illnesses," she said.

L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association Robotry said that "no physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little of it as he wished ... And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that ... The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer, without regard to age or physical condition."

Source: PreventDisease.com  Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth

Related:

How to Detox Fluorides from Your Body

Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds

Video:  Fluoride Truth Hits the TV in Australia

Video: Caller Ask About Fluoride being Added to Food - Alex Jones Tv

Videos:  Food:  The Ultimate Secret Exposed

Senate Democrats Declare Water War

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2011  -  by NUNES STAFF

Last week, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing about the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. The bill, which is co-authored by valley Republicans Devin Nunes, Kevin McCarthy, and Jeff Denham, generated strong opposition from Democrat lawmakers but has the backing of a re-invigorated Republican Conference and its leadership.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy made a rare appearance at the subcommittee hearing in support of the bill and reminded his colleagues that Governor Brown had declared an end to California’s drought. He continued that California’s snow-pack had reached 165% this year but that farmers would not get 100% of their water. “That’s like a company having its best profits ever but telling its employees they will only get 80% of their paycheck,” said McCarthy. “That’s unacceptable.”

Nunes and his allies are seeking to achieve several major changes to the management of California’s water infrastructure. Their plan includes the restoration of a bipartisan agreement known as the Bay-Delta Accord. It also revamps the San Joaquin River restoration, replacing it with an economically responsible and environmentally feasible fishery— saving taxpayers a billion dollars.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), who had touted the Delta Accord as a model agreement in the 1990s, shifted position dramatically and equated it as a declaration of war with no hope of Senate passage. Shortly after the hearing, California’s Senior Senator Dianne Feinstein told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I strongly oppose this bill, which I believe is dramatic overkill."

During his opening statement, Garemendi decried the bill’s pre-emption of state law saying “this little piece of genius” would end collaboration between state and federal water projects. The bill “makes it virtually impossible,” he said. Westlands representative Tom Birmingham took aim at Garamendi’s interpretation of the bill and corrected him on historic and current operation of the projects. Federal law already pre-empts state law concerning project operations on the Trinity, he reminded the committee, and there was no similar outrage when that pre-emption occurred.

When asked about opposition from Senate Democrats, Nunes said he was disappointed but not surprised. “This is a declaration of war on the only meaningful plan before Congress to solve the San Joaquin Valley water crisis.” Nunes continued that if “California’s senators would change their tune if Congress imposed a 70% reduction on deliveries from Hetch Hetchy. Senator Feinstein would no doubt be happy to hand the City of San Francisco’s water over unconditionally since she thinks it will save the Delta.”

Feinstein transmitted her official opposition to the bill just days after attending a fundraiser at Harris Ranch, which is located in the San Joaquin Valley—only miles from water starved farmland. According to those in attendance, Feinstein committed to working on a solution. “I don’t see how anyone with valley interests in mind can trust them, which is why I have been talking to Senate Republicans,” said Nunes.

Nunes also sought to remind critics that there are many options on the table to gain passage of legislation and that he would be leveraging all of them to aid the San Joaquin Valley. This will undoubtedly keep the bill’s opponents on their toes. House Appropriators have already stripped funding for the San Joaquin River Settlement from the federal budget, a major blow to the plan which is already off schedule and underfunded.

Once lawmakers had completed their opening remarks, testimony was received from local water districts, as well as state and federal representatives. Obama and Brown Administration officials opposed the bill, maintaining their view that the Delta pumps were damaging the ecosystem, impacting a number of species including the smelt, salmon and killer whale. Administration officials also touted the importance of current policies, which they described as balanced, to protect the Delta ecosystem.

Advocates of H.R. 1837 were quick to note, however, that no new evidence was provided to support these conclusions. The disclosure of scientific evidence to support pumping restrictions was made necessary by a U.S. District Court ruling in May. The court determined that the government had failed to base its decisions on science and sent regulators back to the drawing table.

Kole Upton, a Madera farmer and former San Joaquin River Settlement negotiator, rejected Interior’s testimony that current policies were balanced and called for the replacement of the current river restoration plan as envisioned by H.R. 1837. Upton explained that farmers were being subject to a slow death due to water diversions and that broken promises related to the San Joaquin river deal convinced him to seek changes.

The Kern County Water Agency also offered testimony, indicating that H.R. 1837 would restore stability to the Delta and improve water supplies. The agency’s representative, James Beck, said that all water contractors, state and federal, would be protected under the proposed law— supporting Nunes’ contention that his goal is not to harm any water contractors. This testimony undermined one of the key arguments made by bill opponents, which suggest that a small minority would benefit under the bill.

When asked about the allegation that his bill would come at the expense of other water contractors and the environment, Nunes was dismissive. “They are attempting to deceive the public which is the only way they can survive. They think they can obstruct this legislation by dividing California’s embattled water districts and hiding their own financial interests. It won’t work.”

Nunes then described an alliance of convenience between environmental activists, a small number of Delta farmers and salmon fishermen, indicating that each will likely be represented at an additional hearing called by committee Democrats who are attempting to slow passage of the bill. “They have all benefited from the status quo. Delta farmers have been able to hide from reality on their islands, fishermen have filled their pockets with tax dollars, and radical environmentalists have assumed greater control over the state’s water,” said Nunes.

Delta farmers may fear the upending of current water management policies because those policies have to-date placed the financial and operational burdens for Delta restoration on others – primarily south of Delta water contractors. Under current law, little attention has been paid to this small but vocal group of farmers who enjoy unlimited access to the Delta’s fresh water supplies. During panel questioning, Rep. Jeff Denham underscored the uneven burden placed on water contractors by pointing out that San Francisco secures its water via pipeline from Hetch Hetchy, completely bypassing the Delta. This has allowed Bay Area activists to escape the consequences of their actions while forcing others to make sacrifices.

Similarly, elements of the west’s small sport and commercial salmon fishing industries have benefited from the status quo. The 1,722 permit holding fishermen collected hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars from 2007-2009. Nunes calls this money a payoff for their environmental activism, which was enacted under Democratic supermajorities. Several recipients made out with more than half a million dollars, with 213 fishermen walking away with six figure checks. And while some have claimed that the industry is 100% unemployed, regulators documented deliveries of sardine, mackerel, anchovy, squid and other species, effectively refuting the allegation that salmon fishermen are unable to work.

Nunes says that despite controversy generated by these groups, House leaders remain unfazed. A markup and full House consideration will likely follow this summer. Meanwhile, San Joaquin Valley residents have benefited from significant exposure beyond the greater Central Valley. The region’s water crisis has been highlighted nationally and is followed by the Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity and others. In 2009, the Wall Street Journal opined that Central Valley farmers are California’s new endangered species. This prognosis may change if House Republicans succeed.

POSTED BY CONGRESSMAN DEVIN NUNES AT WEDNESDAY, JUNE 08, 2011

Related:

Sean Hannity Travels to California’s Fields – From Country’s Bread Basket to Grapes of Wrath Dust Bowl Over 2” Minnow – Turn on the Water! (Sept 2009)

San Joaquin Valley CA Federally Created Dust Bowl Water Crisis Meeting 

Federally Created Dust Bowl in CA – Another Test Crisis??

Politics and Drought In California from NPR

Feed Me, Obama, Feed Me: The Plan for Food Dependency

What does any would-be tyrant need in order to gain control over the lives of citizens?  Three things come to mind: martial law, socialized medicine, and food dependency.

In at least two of these categories, President Obama has already succeeded.

Martial Law

By way of executive proclamation, President Obama has secured for himself the power to declare martial law in the event of a national "emergency," real or contrived, and without the accountability typically required by the Posse Comitatus Act and the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

This is the legacy of the "conservative" Bush administration.  National emergencies have now been transformed into power-grabbing devices thanks to the virtually unnoticed National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51.

NSPD 51 empowers the president to co-opt all state and local government authority in the event that he declares a national emergency.  This is a self-declared power not subjugated to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 as in previous directives.

President Obama quickly went beyond NSPD 51, signing an order creating a "Council of Governors" who would be put in charge of declaring martial law.  The directive is in direct violation of Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act.  This "Council of Governors" answers only to President Obama.

In October of last year, President Obama declared a national emergency in the midst of the much-hyped swine flu crisis.  This declaration was largely overlooked.  By combining his October declaration with the provisions of NSPD 51, President Obama can now be considered virtually uninhibited by Congress and free to flip the switch at any moment.

Socialized Medicine

Whether or not Republicans achieve repeal, a precedent has been set.  It is unlikely that the full damage of ObamaCare can be completely undone without Republican control of the White House.  The U.S. government can now dictate the coverage and benefits of most Americans -- i.e., those on Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP, which together account for thirty percent of the population.  In addition, government can punish Americans without insurance with unconstitutional fees and fine employers who refuse to provide every single employee with premium health benefits, making economic recovery unlikely.

In previous articles, I have explained the deadly dimension to ObamaCare as currently construed, demonstrating the serious potential for the mass destruction of human life on the basis of erroneous factors like "hospital readmission."  Who will challenge federal officials with health care at stake?  Who would seriously suggest that health care will not be used as a political weapon?  When the government has all power and no accountability, it has very little reason to use that power responsibly.  Accountability is what makes the American model work.  But accountability is removed with ObamaCare.

The one area where elites have been so far reluctant to venture is food.  Food is the stuff of life.  Control over food would mean direct control over the political decisions of average Americans.  The elites have slipped the slope, passing legislation that will give federal bureaucrats jurisdiction over food "production" -- i.e., who produces food, what kinds of food are produced, and in what quantities.  However, this is not a debate about food regulation or food inspection.  What is taking place is in fact a coup d'état, with dinner tables as the strategic weapons.

Food Dependency

The greatest tyrants in history have used food as a method of control.  To state the obvious, people must eat to live.  By controlling the flow of food to people who side with the political intelligentsia, rule is established.  People may challenge tyranny when they have meat on the table.  But who in their right mind would bite the hands of their benefactors (so called)?

Meet the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a new legislative proposal designed to centralize control over food stocks to protect Americans from "terror."

The motive may indeed be to protect the food supply from the actions of terrorists, but what about acts of government terror?  Can centralized control by the government protect the people against the whims of human nature?  This question is not being asked by those so in favor of surrendering control of food to an entity that cannot even manage a budget, much less an oil spill or other natural disaster.  Now we are to believe that this same inefficient, broken entity can guarantee the safety of our food?  Something stinks, and it smells like government cheese.  Usually when people ask for power, it is because they want power, regardless of the stated motive.

What good, for example, can be gained from removing the right of Americans to grow their own food, as several of the provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act do?  The Ninth Amendment arguably guarantees this and other unenumerated rights.  The Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To clarify, how can the rights to life, liberty, and property enshrined in the Constitution exist without the ability of citizens to attend to bodily needs -- i.e., sustenance?

The FSMA doesn't merely wrest control of the food supply from citizens.  Dangerously, the FSMA proceeds to transfer U.S. food sovereignty to the WTO, with one provision reading, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party."  This provision is significant, since the WTO draws all its food safety standards from the controversial Codex Alimentarius, which is thought by some to be a vast postwar scheme to control the world's population by means of food.  The bottom line vis-à-vis food is that Americans lose control, and foreign bureaucrats gain control.

Even if the alleged motive were legitimate, the FDA already inspects food imports, albeit quite poorly.  The federal government already possesses the necessary power to thwart terrorist contamination of the food supply.  This proposal, then, is not really about protecting food, but instead about controlling food -- and by extension, controlling Americans.  We must resist while the fruits of the field are still here for the picking.

President Obama is willing to shut off the water in a small town in the heart of America's agricultural center.  Might he be willing to stop shipments of food to politically opposed states?

By John Griffing 

Source:  American Thinker

h/t to Anglo

48 Comments on "Feed Me, Obama, Feed Me: The Plan for Food Dependency"

Related:

Federally  Created Dust Bowl in CA – Another Test Crisis??

San Joaquin Valley CA Federally Created Dust Bowl – Water Crisis Meeting

Austria in 1938

Iconic American vs. Reality

Senate Bill S510 Makes it Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food

In Sunday-evening surprise, Senate unanimously passed food safety bill… really?

" Is life so dear, or peace sweet, as to be purchased at the price of Chains and Slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"
…Patrick Henry

HHS Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water

This is news that normally would find those in the know jumping up and down for joy.  But as we are living in times where you constantly need to be questioning everything and always watching the other hand, we need to be asking ourselves why?!?

By William Kearney

January 10, 2011 - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a federal proposal to reduce the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water to prevent a discoloration and pitting of the teeth known as dental fluorosis. The proposal is based in part on EPA assessments that were prompted by a 2006 National Research Council report, which recommended that EPA reconsider its fluoride standards to take into account health effects such as dental fluorosis and consider all sources, including toothpaste and mouthwash, of fluoride exposure.

Copyright © 2008. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 500 Fifth St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement.

Related:

How to Detox Fluorides From Your Body

Dumbing Down Society Part 1:  Foods, Beverages and Meds

Fluoride TRUTH hits the TV in Australia – video

Food:The Ultimate Secret Exposed – Videos

Can These Household Chemicals Crush Your Son’s Masculinity?

Swine Flu – One of the Most Massive Cover-ups in American History

One of the side affects of fluoride is making people docile.  It was used by Stalin and Hitler to control the masses.  So why would the HHS reduce the fluoride in the water now; something that those in the know have been lobbying for, for years, to deaf ears and no avail?  Watch the other hand… just as many progressives in power are calling for revolution, clear out of the blue HHS decides to lower the levels of fluoride?!?  It is almost as if they want to incite unrest?

h/t to J. Stoner  & THITW