NATIONAL — Smith’s Food and Drug Stores said today it is recalling select Smith’s Bakery Fresh Carrot Cake sold in 7 states because the product contains walnuts that may not be listed on the label.
Item Description:
Smith’s Bakery Fresh Carrot Cake, 1/4 sheet filled. Packaged on or before April 1, 2015. UPC Code: 41573-07058
Smith’s Bakery Fresh Carrot Cake Slice, 5 oz. Packaged on or before April 1, 2015. UPC Code: 750903-91714
Smith’s Bakery Fresh Carrot Cake, 1/8 Sheet. Packaged on or before April 1, 2015. UPC Code: 770118-22460
Customers should return the product to stores for a full refund.
People who are allergic to walnuts could have a serious or life-threatening reaction if they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to walnuts, there is no safety issue with the product.
No customer illnesses have been reported to date.
Store Locations:
Smith’s stores in the following states are included in this recall: Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
Smith’s removed items from store shelves and initiated a customer recall notification system that alerts customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products through register receipt tape messages and phone calls.
Customers who have questions about this recall may contact Smith’s Customer Connect toll-free at 800-576-4377. For more information, please visit www.smithsfoodanddrug.com/recall_alerts
WASHINGTON — The bipartisan Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015, H.R. 969, would include the territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam for the purpose of presuming exposure to “certain herbicide agents” while serving in Vietnam.
The bill, with 209 cosponsors, has not moved from the the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs since March 6. The list of cosponsors is apparently growing.
The bill is intended to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam, and for other purposes.
According to the Vets 101 web site, the presumption of exposure to certain environmental hazards may make a veteran entitled to certain VA disability compensation and more VA health care services. The Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes several diseases which have been linked to the use of the chemical known as Agent Orange.
Agent Orange was a chemical defoliant used indiscriminately in Vietnam. At the time it was believed to be safe. An Army medic who served in Vietnam told me that they had to wear wet weather gear when the chemical was sprayed in his area of operations.
Navy personnel could have been exposed when loading and unloading the chemical on transport ships.
Love your country, but never trust its government.—Robert A. Heinlein; Author, WWII US Navy Veteran
Metro Phoenix? No. This is an operation in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Sierra Vista, AZ — Though you may be tired of the NSA snooping through your emails and checking out your nude photos on the cloud, you now have the opportunity to get paid for surveillance.
EKS Group, LLC out of Brandon, Florida—with an office in Sierra Vista, Airzona—is looking for part-time Surveillance Role Players for some operation in Phoenix?
EKS Group is owned by a disabled American veteran that was established in Sierra Vista in December 2006 and is a member in the Chamber of Commerce. They provide both counter intelligence and human intelligence services to the DoD.
The applicant must be 21-years of age, a U.S. Citizen and be able to maintain a secret DoD clearance. The applicant must complete a 40-hour Surveillance Operations Course.
The job is physically demanding and applicants must have the ability to walk up to 18-miles per day up to twelve consecutive days. The applicant must be able to drive or ride in a vehicle for up to twelve hours per day.
The work environment includes exposure to temperatures over 100-degrees to cold conditions below 32-degrees. The applicants are required to perform in both rural and urban environments. There are no rural or urban environments in Phoenix that reaches a low of 32-degrees in the summer.
Jade Helm, although publicly announced, is unusual in its scope. Recently discharged veterans have said they participated in operations of this sort, but not on this scale and usually on Federal facilities. National Guard units conduct operations off of bases. This raises little concern since they do conduct rescue and humanitarian operations during disasters.
Most main-stream media in Texas are running stories that this is perfectly all right and everyone should remain calm. The operation is centered around a fictional invasion of Texas. The Washington Post agrees.
A Texas sheriff deputy pointed out that the military are, “…going to set up cells of people and test how well they’re able to move around without getting too noticed in the community. They’re testing their abilities to basically blend in with the local environment and not stand out and blow their cover.”
The title of this job sounds like the “cells of people” they are going to move and they may act in that capacity. The text of the job, however, appears as though they are setting up informers and drivers to move the “cells” in the region of the operations.
In February of last year, Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at the University of Hawaii lamenting the decision of the Supreme Court in the 1944 case of Korematsu v. United States (323 U.S. 214). He is quoted as saying:
“Well of course Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”
These factors have caused liberty advocates to vocally question the so-called National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. The NDAA is revised to authorize an Army which must be authorized every two-years. The Navy, and by extension the Marines, are the only authorized military forces in the Constitution unless the Congress declares every two-years that an Army is necessary.
The NDAA of 2012, signed by President Obama on December 31 of 2011, contained so-called “indefinite detention” clauses allowing the military to detain anyone at anytime for any reason without trial according to some claims.
According to Russia Today, the Congress re-affirmed indefinite detention this year. According to reports, Justice Scalia seems to have been correct.
In signing the 2012 NDAA, President Obama wrote:
“I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.”
There is no such assurance when he signed the recent NDAA with indefinite detention authority.
Meanwhile, more videos of concern are surfacing on the Internet. A YouTube video from DAHBOO777 showed a marshal-law type exercise in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He apparently received another video, recently, purported to be from Canada showing trains moving military equipment toward the west coast. Canada and the United States signed an agreement to assist one another in times of civil disobedience. According to the video, Facebook has been taking it down from Canadian sites.
So if a clean-shaven soldier in a well-pressed uniform approaches you and politely asks you to step into the back of a van with no threat of force, he is not mental. He’s Canadian.
The Federalist Papers course concentrates on the government-approved arguments to ratify the Constitution of the United States. These papers are considered to have been written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and the Father of the Constitution James Madison.
The courses run 10-weeks with an examination at the end of each week. The course has already started so a couple of weeks of courses may be available. It is recommended, however, that you take your time and read all of the course material.
Once you sign up, you can find a list of their older courses including a course on great historic literature. You will, of course, receive the inevitable emails asking for donations and a subscription to their Imprimis Magazine. They even give you a certificate suitable for framing when you complete each course.
The course should inspire you to look at all of the arguments surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. I believe they are incorrect in their premise that the anti-Federalist, those opposed to the Constitution, wanted slavery, for example. If you read the anti-Federalist arguments you will find that many of them were written in the North—very much against slavery. Still the online video lectures and reading material provided are all free and give you a good basis for further research on your own.
The biggest contribution by the anti-Federalists was to convince James Madison—formerly against a Bill of Rights in the Federalist Papers—to change his mind and lobby for an inalienable Bill of Rights.
WASHINGTON — It seems that Eric Holder may leave a legacy in Washington after all. In honor of his testimony and the testimony of the likes of Lois Lerner, Representative Mo Brooks [R-AL-5] has submitted H.R. 1535. It is referred to as the Safeguarding America’s Congressional Oversight Act or the SACO Act and the purpose of the act is to terminate any Federal employee who refuses to answer questions or gives false testimony in a congressional hearing.
Apparently perjury and contempt of Congress is insufficient.
The legislation, if passed, would allow Congress to terminate a federal employee if three-fourths of the congressional body receiving the testimony finds that they received false testimony from the witness.
The termination can occur if the witness refuses to answer a question at a congressional hearing after being granted immunity. The bill also allows termination if the witness does not “…answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to his or her official duties,…”
WASHINGTON — The Keeping our Promises to Veterans Act of 2015, H.R. 1532, was introduced by Tom Emmer [R-MN-6] on March 23 and has moved through the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs to the Subcommittee on Health yesterday. The bill would expand the ability of veterans to get access under the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act passed last year.
The Veterans Access Act (38 U.S.C. 1701, PDF) allows veterans to seek outside VA assistance if they live a certain distance from a VA facility. The act did not account for those who might not have or have difficulty in transportation.
This brief bill would reduce the 40-mile radius requirement to 20-miles and require access to the closest medical facility that could treat the need of the veteran. The bill reduces the wait time goal from 30-days to 15. It also requires VA to set up prompt payment system to non-VA facilities which provide care to veterans.
H.R. 1603 submitted by Andy Barr [R-KY-6] would improve treatment for victims of military sexual assault under the Veterans Access Act.
Another bill in Congress, H.R. 1302 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that VA Form 9 appeals are resolved within one year of submission. The bill was introduced by Ohio Representative Robert Latta [R-OH-5].
Representative Ron Kind [D-WI-3] has submitted H.R. 1628, the Veterans Pain Management Improvement Act which would require VA facilities to set up a Pain Management Board for veteran victims of chronic pain whether out- or in-patient.
The board would provide treatment recommendations for patients with complex clinical pain who are being treated at a medical facility of the Department located in the Veterans Integrated Service Network covered by the Board.
The membership in the board would require a certan number of medical pain specialists, clinical patients or the family members of clinical patients.
DETROIT — According to a report by FOX Dertroit, a Dr. Vesna Roi apparently “prayed” and decided that she could not act as the pediatrician for the baby of a lesbian couple in Detroit in February.
Apparently, when the gay couple arrived at the pediatrician’s office, they claim:
“The first thing Dr. Karam said was ‘I’ll be your doctor, I’ll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won’t be able to care for Bay,” Jami said.
This is an example of someone who has not studied their Bible. The question here is who is the sinner?
It is perfectly Constitutional and legitimate to refuse service to homosexual couples for a Christian. To not participate in so-called “marriage” ceremonies between such couples by providing photographic, bakery, flowers and other such services and the use of true Christian property is perfectly in compliance with the First Amendment. It should be noted that it does not matter if man calls this “marriage.” It is not. Only God sanctifies marriage and he has clearly defined the conditions.
The child of a homosexual couple is another matter entirely. Would you refuse to treat the baby of a couple who engages in identity theft? Would you, as a doctor, refuse to treat the brother, sister, mother or father of a homosexual couple? Yes, it is exactly the same thing.
Some point to Deuteronomy 5:9 which reads:
You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
You see, they say. God punishes the generations of sinners.
The observant of you may notice the comma at the end of this making it clause taken out of a greater thought. It continues in Deuteronomy 5:10:
And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
God is not the author of confusion. The second clause means that if a child of a sinner turns to God, he—or she—will certainly be accepted. A child can break the curse of the parents. Indeed, even the parents can be saved should they chose to be.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Dr. Roi might well believe that she is following the dictates of God, but I believe it not to be so. The Bible is as clear on this matter as it is on the sin of homosexuality. Particularly with children who have not reached the age of discernment.
I still am against crime and a strong advocate for law enforcement. But there is no bigger miscarriage of justice than when those who are charged to protect us abuse that duty and cause harm to innocent and sometimes helpless citizens.
By Hal Stratton
Guest column
Posted: 04/02/2015 10:30:07 AM MDT
For those New Mexicans who believe in bipartisan government, reaching across the aisle and the political spectrum — there is good news. The New Mexico Legislature has just unanimously passed HB 560, without a single dissenting vote in either house. HB 560 revises the procedure involved in the forfeiting of citizens’ assets by government agencies, a practice referred to as “asset forfeiture.” Every year, federal and state law enforcement agents seize billions of dollars during traffic stops, simply by alleging the money is connected to some illegal activity. Under federal and New Mexico’s laws, these agencies are entitled to keep most (and sometimes all) of the money and property, even if the property owner is never convicted and, in some cases, never charged with a crime.
Why would law enforcement agencies, whose mission is to protect citizens and their property, engage in forfeiture? That question was candidly answered last November by the city attorney from Las Cruces who said that forfeiture could be a “gold mine” for city law enforcement agencies. “We could be czars. We could own the city. We could be in the real estate business” he stated further noting that the Las Cruces law enforcement agency collected about $1 million from residents through forfeiture since 2006. And these funds that are forfeited go directly into the law enforcement agencies coffers outside of the appropriations process and legislative oversight.
WASHINGTON — The Bloomers are at it again. After the failed attempt by the BATFE to unconstitutionally outlaw ammunition, the Representative of New York have taken up the gauntlet. Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-NY-16) submitted H.R.1358—the Armor-Piercing Bullets Act of 2015.
This bill would actually increase the types of ammunition considered “armor-piercing” and include shotgun “slugs.” The kicker in the bill is that it would change 921(a)(17) of title 18 to allow:
“…the Attorney General may treat a projectile as not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes if substantial evidence exists that the projectile is not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes”
Who determines what is intended for “sporting purposes” is the Attorney General.
H.R. 1358 was submitted on March 13, but the Republicans have not remained silent. On March 16, Representative Patrick McHenry [R-NC-10] has submitted the Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act, H.R.1365. The Republican bill would change Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, to read:
“(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the term ‘armor piercing ammunition’ does not include—
“(i) any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type ammunition; or
“(ii) any ammunition designed, intended, and marketed for use in a rifle.”.
H.R. 1358 is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary while the Republican bill has moved to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. If co-sponsors are any indication, the ammo ban bill has nine while the Republican bill sports 41.
Representative Michael Honda [D-CA-17] submitted H.R.378 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act in January. This bill with five co-sponsors has been in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations since February. This euphemistically titled bill actually states that private citizens are not responsible enough to possess body armor.
The problem is that the Second Amendment does not protect hunters and sport shooting. The amendment does not read “A well-regulated hunters, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Hunting and hunters are protected by the Ninth Amendment.
The Second Amendment does not protect “firearms” and ammunition specifically. The Second Amendment provides that,
…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The ban on any arms is technically unconstitutional. According to Federalist Paper No. 29. This was so that local militias could protect the rights of themselves and their communities.
STOCKTON, CA [March 30]— According to CBS 13 in Stockton, California, more than 8,000 customers were left without power when their SMART meters exploded after a truck crashed into a utility pole.
Leigh Martinez reported that residents of South Stockton:
…described it as a large pop, a bomb going off, and strong enough to shake a house.
She said that more than 100 PG&E workers were working to restore power. The amount of time to restore power to a home depended on how bad the meters were damaged.
SMART meter caused fires have been suspected for some time, but utility companies are obviously reticent to reveal just how many. The California Public Utilities Commission has proposed an opt-out plan for customers who do not want the wireless technology. It would require the customer to pay additional charges.
Utility companies are allowed to sell the personal information they gain from SMART meter technology to other companies without your permission. SMART meters collect data on how you use electricity including what appliances and how you use the Internet.
SEE ALSO: Wireless Smart Meters and Potential for Electrical Fires (PDF)
NATIONAL — Smith’s Food and Drug Stores said today it is recalling select Smith’s Bakery Fresh Carrot Cake sold in 7 states because the product contains walnuts that may not be listed on the label.
Customers should return the product to stores for a full refund.
