Posts tagged South Carolina
31 Percent Of All Food In America Is Wasted – And Why That Is About To End
According to a stunning new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nearly a third of all food produced in the United States gets wasted. We are probably the most wasteful society in the history of the planet, and we are also one of the most gluttonous. More than 35 percent of all Americans are considered to be officially “obese” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unfortunately, this era of gluttony and taking food for granted will soon be coming to an end. Thanks to crippling drought in key growing areas and other extremely bizarre weather patterns, a massive food crisis is beginning to emerge all over the planet. If you don’t think that this is going to affect you, then you simply are not paying attention. Approximately half of all produce grown in the United States comes from the state of California, and right now California is suffering through the worst stretch of drought on record. Food prices are going to start soaring, and that is going to affect the household budget of every family in America.
Needless to say, a time is coming when Americans will not waste food so recklessly. But for the moment, we still have a tremendous amount of disrespect for the value of food. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we waste a staggering 133 billion pounds of food each year…
Nearly a third of the 430 billion pounds of food produced for Americans to eat is wasted, a potential catastrophe for landfills and a wake-up call to officials scrambling to feed the hungry, according to a stunning new report from the Department of Agriculture.
The just-issued report revealed that in 2010, 31 percent, or 133 billion pounds, of food produced for Americans to eat was wasted, either molded or improperly cooked, suffered “natural shrinkage” due to moisture loss, or because people became disinterested in what they purchased.
Not that we need to stuff any more food into our mouths. As I mentioned above, we have an epidemic of obesity in this nation. In fact, the CDC says that 35 percent of the entire population is “obese”…
Meanwhile, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one-third of US adults (35.7 percent) are obese, which is perhaps the best argument that Americans can offset a large part of the food waste problem by simply eating less. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the US was $147 billion in 2008; the costs of providing medical assistance for individuals who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight, thereby placing an enormous strain on healthcare costs.
Since we are such gluttons and we are so incredibly wasteful, we should have plenty of food to share with those in need, right?
Unfortunately, we are also extremely greedy and greatly lacking in compassion.
As I have written about previously, feeding the homeless has been banned in cities all over the nation, and other cities have passed regulations that greatly discourage the feeding of the homeless…
Feeding the homeless is about to get harder as a new policy is set to begin this Saturday, Feb. 15, in Columbia, SC. Charities and non-profits will be required to pay a fee and obtain a permit 15 days in advance in order to feed the homeless in parks.
One impacted charity that was interviewed by the Free Times, Food Not Bombs, has been serving food to the homeless in Finlay Park every Sunday for 12 years. The group’s organizer, Judith Turnipseed, noted that the group has an impeccable track record and always tidies up after the meal. But with the new crackdown, Food Not Bombs will have to pay at least $120 per week for the right to feed the homeless.
Since the Columbia City Council approved its exile plan in August, the city has been trying to herd its homeless people to a shelter on the outskirts of town and keep them away from downtown. If charities continue to provide food in downtown parks, the thinking goes, it will allow homeless people to continue to live downtown, rather than being forced to leave.
What is wrong with us?
While we stuff our faces with more french fries and chicken wings, we have an appalling lack of compassion for those that are not able to take care of themselves.
Perhaps we deserve what is coming.
The horrible drought that never seems to end is rapidly turning much of the western half of the country into a barren wasteland.
You can see some incredible before and after photos of the drought in California right here.
The water level in Folsom Lake has dropped 80 percent in just two years. In 2011, the lake was at 97 percent of capacity. Now it is just at 17 percent of capacity and it is still dropping.
If a miracle does not happen, the upcoming growing season is going to be absolutely disastrous. As I have written about previously, California farmers have already decided to allow half a million acres of farmland to sit idle this year because of the extremely dry conditions.
And it certainly does not help that the government has decided to cut off water supplies to many of the farmers. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Holly Deyo…
Government has lost its mind. It is no more evident than their decision last week to cut off water to America’s food basket. Squeezed by the worst-ever drought in the state’s history, California is dying of thirst. Crushing news was delivered to farmer’s that no water would be coming from the Federal government. This dreaded decision was compounded by the Sierra Mountains getting just 25% of normal snowpack. There is no water to replenish already dangerously low reservoirs, so no water for farmers.
Needless to say, there are a lot of farmers that are going to be absolutely crippled by this. The following is from Fox News…
A federal agency’s recent announcement that the California’s Central Valley will get zero percent water allocation this year was devastating for farmers already dealing with the worst drought seen in decades.
One of the world’s most productive agricultural regions, the enormous valley is reeling after the driest year in more than a century. But last week, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, which supplies water to a third of the irrigated farmland in California through a 500-mile network of canals and tunnel, said it won’t be able to deliver any of the water sought by farmers.
“It goes beyond devastation, you’re going to see farms that have been in business 30 and 40 years, they do not have any water, they are out of business,” said Dennis Falaschi, general manager of the Panoche Water District.
If California produces much less food than it normally does, that means that food prices are going to start skyrocketing. Here is more from Holly Deyo…
As one Millennium-Ark reader pointed out in an email last week, after the jump in beef prices, people will look to chicken, pork, fish and turkey. Chicken is already up though not as much as beef. This will, in turn, drive up their costs and affect availability of these other meats. Keep in mind that California also produces all of these proteins plus lamb. Then consider this: Ag Specialists Warn of Higher Wheat Prices Due to Drought. It’s not just beef, weather is clobbering food from all angles.
And please keep in mind that the total size of the U.S. cattle herd has already been shrinking for seven years in a row, and that it is now the smallest that it has been since 1951.
But back in 1951, the size of the U.S. population was less than half of what it is today.
For much more on the emerging food crisis, please see this video.
Let us certainly hope and pray that the drought in California ends soon and that things get back to normal.
But I wouldn’t count on that.
According to National Geographic, the scientific experts that have studied these things tell us that it has been quite common throughout history for that region of North America to suffer through extended droughts that last for a decade or more.
One drought even lasted for about 200 years.
So the current drought in California might end next year.
Or it might last for the rest of our lifetimes.
We simply do not know.
But what does seem clear is that the days of taking our food for granted will soon be coming to an end.
This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse Blog. Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.
Image credit: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com
South Carolina is About to Pass a Bill to Nullify ObamaCare
While we all know that the disaster that is ObamaCare is extremely unpopular throughout the country, South Carolina is leading the charge to actually nullify the legislation. House Bill 3101 already passed the state House back in April by a wide margin, and is set to be voted on in the state Senate in January. It is widely expected to pass and then be signed into law by Governor Nikki Haley.
If that happens, it would set up a huge states rights victory and likely encourage other states to follow suit. It will be extremely interesting to see how the feds respond to this…
From the Daily Caller:
A bill set for fast-track passage in the South Carolina Senate in January aims to eliminate Obamacare in the state. The law could become a model for other states fed up with the federal health-care law.
House Bill 3101, titled the “South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act,” passed the state House of Representatives last April by a 65-34 vote. The bill now heads to the GOP-controlled Senate with special-order priority, setting up the likelihood that South Carolina will become the first state to exempt citizens and businesses from all participation in the Affordable Care Act.
The bill’s main component prohibits agencies, officers and employees of the state of South Carolina from implementing any provisions of the Affordable Care Act, leaving implementation of the national health-care law entirely in the hands of a federal government that lacks the resources or personnel to carry out the programs it mandates.
This provision, according to Davis, comes from the anti-commandeering doctrine established in case law that says feds can’t compel states to enforce federal laws.
Additional provisions of H3101 further neuter the Affordable Care Act by outlawing state exchanges, issuing tax deductions to individuals equal to the tax penalties levied by the federal government, and directing the state attorney general to sue over whimsical enforcement of the law. Taken together, the provisions effectively repeal the federal law for the people of South Carolina.
Given the sizable majority of Republicans in the South Carolina Senate — along with moderate Democrats who may support the bill out of fear of voter wrath — H3101 is likely to pass in short order and be signed into law by Gov. Nikki Haley, who has led the Palmetto State’s resistance against nationalized health care.
On the other side are opponents of H3101, whose main efforts consist of calling lawmakers racists and questioning the authority of states to oppose federal laws. Such attacks are likely to ring hollow in light of the dozens of state and local governments that have recently rejected federal marijuana laws, the Real ID Act, provisions of National Defense Authorization Act, federal gun control, and even U.S. immigration law. State and local governments governed from both sides of the political spectrum are increasingly flexing their Tenth Amendment muscles against perceived federal overreach.
Strong argument. Someone disagrees with you and all you can yell back is “racist!” Sad.
Full article here.
Follow Mike on Twitter.
Image added to original post.
The Associated Press | Posted: Feb 27, 2013 4:49 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 27, 2013 5:25 PM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices voiced deep skepticism Wednesday about a section of a landmark civil rights law that has helped millions of Americans exercise their right to vote.
In an ominous note for supporters of the key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy both acknowledged the measure’s vital role in fighting discrimination and suggested that other important laws in U.S. history had run their course. “Times change,” Kennedy said during the fast-paced, 70-minute argument.
Kennedy’s views are likely to prevail on the closely divided court, and he tends to side with his more conservative colleagues on matters of race.
The court’s liberals and conservatives engaged in a sometimes tense back-and-forth over whether there is still a need in 2013 for the part of the voting rights law that requires states with a history of discrimination against blacks, mainly in the Deep South, to get approval before making changes in the way elections are held.
Justice Antonin Scalia called the law a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, a vocal skeptic of the use of race in all areas of public life, cited a variety of statistics that showed starker racial disparities in some aspects of voting in the northeastern state of Massachusetts than in the southern state of Mississippi. Then he asked the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer whether the Obama administration thinks “the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?”
The answer from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was no.
Location of law
The question, and others like it from the conservative justices, largely echoed the doubts they first expressed four years ago in a similar case that ended without resolving the constitutionality of the latest renewal of the voting rights law, in 2006. They questioned whether there remain appreciable differences between the locations covered by the law and those that are not.
They also wondered whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states’ rights to conduct elections and which was regarded as an emergency response to decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the U.S Constitution’s Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of the vote for black Americans.
The provision shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Another part of the voting rights law, not being challenged, allows for traditional, after-the-fact claims of discrimination in voting and applies across the country.
As his administration was defending the voting rights law, U.S. President Barack Obama was across the street at the Capitol unveiling a statue of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, who in 1955 famously refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, to a white man. The court will have to decide whether the conditions that gave rise to that seminal event are, like the statue, a part of history, or whether they persist in parts of the nation.
The court’s four liberal justices, including Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, appeared uniformly to be willing to defer to the decision by Congress that more progress needs to be made before freeing states from the special federal monitoring.
Those justices aggressively questioned Bert Rein, the lawyer representing Shelby County, Alabama, a southern state, in its challenge to the law.
Sotomayor acknowledged some parts of the South had changed, but she asserted that recent voting rights lawsuits in Alabama suggested that Shelby County, near Birmingham, has not made sufficient progress.
“Why would we vote in favour of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” Sotomayor asked.
Kagan chimed in that any formula devised by Congress “would capture Alabama,” where she said certain discriminatory voting practices have persisted.
But Rein said the issue was whether the formula in place, using statistics that are at least 40 years old, remains a valid way to determine which locations have to ask for permission to make voting changes.
Protection of minorities
Debo Adegbile, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund, argued to the court on behalf of local Alabama elected officials and civil rights leaders. He sought to show the justices that there is a current need for the law, an effort to counter the court’s admonition four years ago that current conditions, not history alone, must justify the continuing application of the law. The NAACP is a leading civil rights organization.
In 2011, Adegbile said, a judge in Alabama cited state lawmakers’ derogatory references to African-Americans as a reason to continue to protect minority voters through the Voting Rights Act.
But Roberts challenged the lawyer. “Have there been episodes, egregious episodes of the kind you are talking about in states that are not covered?” the chief justice asked.
Absolutely, Adegbile replied.
“Well, then it doesn’t seem to help you make the point that the differential between covered and noncovered continues to be justified,” Roberts said.
The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.
Among the covered states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas are siding with Shelby County, while California, Mississippi, New York and North Carolina argue that the law should be upheld.
Nearly 250 of the 12,000 state, county and local governments covered by the law have used an escape hatch to get out from under the special oversight by demonstrating that they and smaller places within their borders no longer discriminate in voting. The 10 covered towns in New Hampshire are poised to exit as they await federal court approval for an agreement between the state and the Justice Department.
A decision is expected by late June.
Up to 76 truckloads of radioactive waste could soon be crossing into the US from Canada, local media reveal. Relocating the weapons-grade uranium (HEU) in liquid form would be the first operation of its kind, and is set to cost $60 million.
The trips may kick off in August, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) documents suggest. Up to 76 trucks will be utilized in the operation, the Ottawa Citizen estimated. Each cask would carry up to 257 liters and contain approximately 175kg of HEU, which would be enough to produce nearly seven nuclear bombs.
The potential transfer of the weapons-grade uranium liquid (HEU) was first revealed in documents from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) a week ago, with more details emerging on Thursday.
The wide-scale operation would see decades’ worth of high-class nuclear waste being taken under armed guard along the Trans-Canada Highway over the course of four years and transferred from Chalk River, Ontario, to a South Carolina reprocessing site, a few hundreds liters at a time.
The waste is thought to come from Chalk River’s controversial 24,000-liter Fissile Solution Storage Tank (FISST) which contains some 17 years’ worth of radioactive waste. It is the first time such an operation to transport the substance in liquid form has taken place, prompting concern from both sides of the border.
Upon arrival in South Carolina, the solution will be converted to low enriched uranium (LEU) to be used as fuel in US commercial power reactors.
The federally-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd will pay the $60-million cost of the operation.
Non-proliferation advocates have voiced fears that terrorists might strike and successfully obtain the liquid, possibly using it to build a weapon or undertake an act of sabotage could be carried out, according to Canada’s British-Columbia based Province news agency.
“This does seem to be an unprecedented, cross-border shipment of liquid high-level waste and, for that reason alone, it needs the highest order of environmental review on both sides of the border,” Tom Clements, a South Carolina campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth, told Canada’s National Post.
Although the plans are still awaiting final approval from Canadian and US nuclear safety regulators, a strong initial agreement has been reached. Designs are already being reviewed to create a secure storage and transportation unit for the highly-enriched bomb-grade uranium. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is currently reviewing the cask design approval application.
Canada is the world’s leading producer of medical isotopes, and has faced heavy criticism over the last few years for stockpiling HEU from the US, to be used in isotope production at the Chalk River site.
By News Desk
Rio Queen Citrus is recalling 840 cartons of Dry Pints of Mexican cherry tomatoes in “Karol” brand boxes due to possible Salmonella contamination.
According to Rio Queen, the tomatoes were distributed through retail stores in Texas and South Carolina. According to local news station WOWT, however, the tomatoes were also distributed to Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The product was originally distributed in a bulk container of 12/1 Dry Pints in boxes labeled “Karol” with the Lot No. “01W45” stamped in the upper, right-hand corner on the face of the box. The box states “Distributed by Interstate Fruit & Vegetable”, which is an affiliated business of Rio Queen Citrus, Inc.
The tomatoes were distributed to stores between November 10 and November 19 and may have been repackaged by individual retailers.
No illnesses have yet been connected to this recall. The contamination was discovered through routine testing by the U.S. Food and Dug Administration.
Consumers who have purchased Mexican cherry tomatoes in the listed states are asked to contact their retail store or place of purchase to determine if they were among the facilities to receive this product.
To no one’s surprise, the Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division have objected to the voter ID law passed by the Texas legislature. The DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder claims that it is discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for Texas to require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polling place, because it will supposedly hurt Hispanic voters—even though any Texan can get a photo ID for free.
Never mind that if you want to exercise your First Amendment right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” by talking to anyone at the Justice Department, you have to present a government-issued photo ID if you want to get into their headquarters in Washington. How discriminatory!
The March 12 objection letter from Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights—a former staffer for Senator Ted Kennedy (D–MA) and president of Casa de Maryland, an illegal immigrant rights group—is a study in statistical manipulation and deceit. Perez makes no mention, for example, of DOJ’s approval of Georgia’s voter ID law, nor does he explain how the Texas law is so different from Georgia’s law that an objection is justified.
DOJ precleared Georgia’s law in 2005 because it was not discriminatory. That judgment has proven to be correct, since the turnout of minority voters in Georgia has gone up dramatically since the implementation of the law. And a lawsuit filed under the Voting Rights Act by the ACLU and the NAACP was also thrown out because a federal judge found that the law was not discriminatory. According to official figures from the Georgia Secretary of State, in the 2008 election, Hispanic voter turnout increased 140 percent over 2004 (when there was no photo ID law in place), while the turnout of black voters went up 42 percent. In the 2010 midterm election, the turnout of Hispanic voters went up 66.5 percent over 2006, while the turnout of black voters increased 44.7 percent. By contrast, the turnout of white voters only increased 8 percent in 2008 and 11.7 percent in 2010.
Perez notes that Texas did not submit any evidence of impersonation fraud to justify the ID law. But there is no such requirement under Section 5. In fact, when it upheld Indiana’s photo ID law as constitutional, the Supreme Court already determined that states have a legitimate and rational interest in protecting the security of elections as well as upholding public confidence in the election process. Furthermore, Perez’s statement ignores the fact that ID requirements can also prevent voting under fictitious voter registrations, voting under the names of dead voters, or voting by noncitizens, individuals registered in other states, or those in the country illegally.
The 2012 GOP Primary: Unmasking the Vote Manipulation
This information is taken straight from the document linked at the top of this post, “The 2012 SC GOP Primary.docx” and I would encourage all to download this and analyze for yourself. Also, there is no telling how long this will be available so I would (as I have) download this today!
No matter who is your canidate of choice, the choice should be yours and your vote should reflect your choice.
My personal choice is Ron Paul. If you are of like mind and feel it is time we elect statesman, not another status quo politician, feel the need to return to the rule of law and adhearence to the Constitution, I would then hope you follow the link below and donate to the RonPaul2012 campaign.
Submitted by SC Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
I received an e-mail from our meet-up which I’m editing but for to include this statement:
I have some significant information that I need to share with all of you regarding vote fraud in the SCGOP Primary. I have met with SCGOP Chairman already and am meeting again next Wednesday in Columbia. You will want to hear what I have discovered.
I’ve have uploaded the SCGOP Primary Vote Analysis to Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2M…
and would like commentary any of you analytical gurus might like to add here or additional insights. This is very important to us in South Carolina! Thanks!
****Analyst Adds Update****
Hey guys. I just want you all to know that I have graphed in detail all of the counties in NH, SC and Fla that have the precinct information available on the Election Commissions’ website. I have amassed a couple of hundred graphs probably. The most difficult part of this is getting this information into a form that is brief but easy to understand. Please appreciate this.
There are surely exceptions to the following observations, but here are some generalities:
1. In any county where Ron Paul has more votes than Mitt Romney using the low vote total precincts, you get a ridiculous- looking curve like the one in Anderson County. (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Oconee Counties). Mitt ends up at a vote total that could have been Paul’s projected total and Paul crashes to the ground.
2. In the counties where Romney has more votes than Paul in the low vote total precincts, There is no ridiculous anomaly like the one in Anderson County.
3. In any race where Newt is ahead of Romney and Romney is anywhere close to Gingrich in vote total, Newt gets flipped by Romney (Richland, Charleston, and Beaufort Counties in SC) much like the maneuver in Anderson County where Mitt flips Paul. It appears to me that Newt actually won these counties as well as Polk and Duval Counties in Florida.
4. As I have laid out in my brief, fluctuations should occur in honest elections; however, these “flips” look to me like one candidate is suddenly losing his slope (established vote percentage) and another (Romney) is gaining at precisely the same percentage. My personal constitution screams to me “this phenomenon is not a normal occurrence!”
5. In almost all Counties, Mitt Romney gains hundreds- even more than a thousand- in the very largest precinct(s). Many instances this tail end gain appears to serve the purpose of draining Ron Paul just enough to be last place. (example: Charleston County SC). I’m not saying there isn’t an honest explanation, but I want to hear one… that makes sense. Maybe in every single county Romney supporters turned out in “droves” at the very largest precinct(s)?
6. Most graphs follow a disturbing trend: Mitt Romney’s vote percentage “line” looks more like a parabola curving upward and the other 3 candidates’ lines like a parabola curving in the negative. This might could be explained in some honest way, but it looks like algorithms in voting machines to me. I invite intelligent discussion.
7. Yes- demographics can play a part, of course. I am NOT a Demographics expert. I do like math though.
8. I will release a procedure that will show all of you math analysts how to do this on your own. You will see the same anomalies as I see.
For your consideration and thoughts…
Words of wisdom from the always lovely Mrs. Carol Paul after the rally in Myrtle Beach, SC on January 15th 2012.
By Ron Paul Films ©
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!