Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes “defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods”, recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).

In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom.

Some of the statements in the FDA’s filing are absolutely amazing. Can you say “food NAZI”?

The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only “allowed” to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.

This is no exaggeration. It’s exactly what the FDA said in its own words.

Don’t take MY word for it, or even the words from the posting about this. Consider the following statements taken from the FDA’s court filing:

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]

There’s a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.

The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons — even just political reasons — all at their whim…

This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?

NOTE:  The principles apply whether or not one chooses to partake of raw milk, any particular food product.

But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don’t drink it?

Follow the money…(surprise, surprise, surprise!)

The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.

What’s next? Will all farmer’s markets be outlawed because the veggies haven’t all been irradiated or pasteurized?

As usual, it’s all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won’t let anything get in their way… not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.

There is a lot more detailed argument in the posting; you get the picture…but wait! As a finale the FDA outdoes itself again:
On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.
HUH?

Buying clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying that people don’t actually have this right. To enter into such a private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of federal law, the FDA now claims.

You are just a subject of the King, you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have no rights, no protections and no freedoms….
The “substantive due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” And being able to make personal food choices without having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included under this clause.

But the FDA — aw, heck, all of Washington for that matter — doesn’t honor the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform into flying elephants.

The hits just keeps on coming! (Or are the letters of the second word in the previous sentence in the wrong order? Whatever!)

Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854, Redux

We are now beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of the socialist crisis of the Republic.

To get the significance of this, some history is in order:

At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery had been crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was enacted that prohibited the abomination north of 36/30 degrees latitude [southern boundary of Missouri, except for it’s SE “boot-heel”].

But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the “popular sovereignty” of each territory should decide whether they would be slave or free states. But then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle — with their bodily presence — for their respective causes. First there was politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then real violence ensued. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, most famously, applied unjustified, murderous violence for his righteous cause of ending slavery and was hanged, but the Civil War ensued…

NOT a pretty scene!

Now we enter our History’s second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly — and even in those programs (for the elderly) on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will later get (Medicare/ Social Security). Only the poor under Medicaid received benefit without premium payment.

But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 broke through the slave state limitation to the South, the Democratic Party’s 2010 health care law has broken socialism’s boundary of being so limited. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped on to the able-bodied middle class — not merely the already presumed helpless poor and old who have paid their insurance premiums.

An exaggeration you say? Not so fast, according to that (understatement alert!) not exactly right wing New York Times.

Even the New York Times — after the vote — admits what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday’s edition (“In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality” by David Leonhardt), they point out: ” Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. … Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would ‘mark a new season in America.’…. Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer — what is the proper balance between the market and the government? — remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.”

I thank The New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.

After citing some of the obnoxious aspects of what Congress and B.O. hath wrought, the piece goes on:
And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so, too, free middle-class America — if it still has its historic character — will not tolerate the yoke of socialism put upon our necks.

First, the unambiguous will of the majority has been defied by the vote of Congress last Sunday. Come November, we shall see whether the system can still turn the popular will into the constitutionally permissible legislative will of the majority. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period — people started migrating to Kansas to support their convictions.

But come November, if the majority still opposes the socializing of health care delivery and the other central government intrusions, and yet the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington deny that will its just expression — then, for the second time in our history, we enter that dangerous period where the House resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray –and commit to ourselves — that this time freedom shall be reacquired … peaceably.

…and then there’s THIS one to go along with the above:

Will America break up?
Abortion threatens to split the nation like slavery

President Obama is splintering America. The passage of Obamacare was a historic victory for liberal governance. Yet, its true cost may be that it triggers the eventual breakup of the country.

Mr. Obama has achieved what his liberal predecessor…could only dream of: nationalized health care. Obamacare signifies the government take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It has dealt a mortal blow to traditional America. We are now a European-style socialist welfare state. The inevitable permanent tax hikes, massive public bureaucracy and liberal ruling elites will stifle competition and initiative.

Republicans vow to repeal Obamacare. Their past record, however, leaves many conservatives rightly skeptical….The Republican Party has been unable to roll back the tide of statism. In fact, under Richard Nixon and both George Bushes, Great Society Republicans have been complicit in erecting a nanny state.

Socialism is the road to economic ruin and fiscal bankruptcy. It subverts democracy, threatening the very future of our constitutional republic. Socialist states degenerate into some form of autocracy or technocratic neo-feudalism, whereby the productive class is taxed and exploited to sustain a growing dependent class. Factions are pitted against each other; groups vie for handouts at the expense of their fellow citizens. The bonds of economic union and national solidarity slowly dissolve.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not,” warned Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was right: Redistributionist welfare policies are undermining our democracy. The resentments in America are growing. Tea Partiers believe that their government no longer represents their interests or values. The heartland is becoming dangerously alienated from the political class, whom it feels has betrayed them.

Obamacare may be the last straw. It strips away fundamental economic liberties, empowering the federal government to de facto nationalize everyone’s body by controlling our health. Americans are compelled – upon pain of penalty and eventual imprisonment – to purchase insurance.

Moreover, the law codifies the federal funding of abortion. Taxpayer dollars will be used to subsidize the murder of innocent life. Hence, Mr. Obama has violated the social compact: He has abrogated the conscience of pro-lifers, making them tacitly complicit in the slaughter of the unborn. Obamacare is a radical assault upon fundamental religious freedoms.

The Obama revolution threatens to tear America apart. This has happened before. Slavery eventually triggered the Civil War between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Abortion is the slavery of our time – the denying of basic human rights to an entire category of people.

You may well not like this. I don’t get a warm fuzzy from it myself…but I’m not at all sure it isn’t happening anyway.

…we are going the way our Founding Fathers warned us against: increasing balkanization and sectionalism. A constitutional republic – unlike an empire – is only as strong as its national cohesion. It is based not on imperial coercion but civic consent. Mr. Obama is recklessly pulling at the strings of unity, further polarizing us.

In confronting Obamacare, state sovereignty, states’ rights and state nullification of federal laws are being asserted. This is what happened in the 1830s and 1840s. They are the signs of growing political anarchy and social frustration – people can only be pushed so far. Mr. Obama’s drive for a socialist super-state threatens America’s very existence. As Jefferson warned about slavery, it is time we start ringing the “fire bell in the night.”

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold,” wrote William Butler Yeats. “Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

Conservatives will not be passive in this onslaught on all our core values. Mr. Obama’s true legacy may be that he divides us deeper than ever before – unless he abandons his revolutionary project.

Once again, that most usable Warren Zevon lyric: “It ain’t that pretty at all!”

Leaders of major conservative groups on Wednesday signed a manifesto vowing to push the country to return to constitutional principles, saying they’ve grown tired of having to accept government expansion at the hands of liberals.

“It’s our turn. We’ve had about enough of you. We’re going to take you on, and it’s time to defeat you,” said Mark Levin, a talk-radio host and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.

Hoo-rah!

…the manifesto – labeled “the Mount Vernon Statement” because it was signed near the first president’s home – is designed to update a 1960 declaration issued by conservatives that heralded the rise of 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater and, eventually, President Reagan.

The new statement, signed by dozens of leaders of conservative lobby groups, is more a declaration of battle than a list of ideas. It says the ideas of the Founding Fathers are under attack and must be defended, and says calls for change are “an empty promise or even a dangerous deception.”

For the full text of the statement itself, go here.

DISCLOSURE: The Chief has already signed on via the web site.

It is the first major statement of conservatives’ goals since 1960, when conservative intellectuals gathered in Sharon, Conn., at the home of William F. Buckley Jr. to write down the principles that became the founding document of Young Americans for Freedom. That effort provided the seed that led to the conservative movements twin peaks of political success: the Barry Goldwater factions overthrow of the liberal Republican establishment in the early 1960s and Ronald Reagans political triumphs of the 1980s.

Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, said he would sign the statement and said politicians who can’t agree to the basic precepts “are part of the problem and should be replaced.”

One would presume that fellow-Carolinian Lindsey Grahamnesty and the rest of the McCainiac wing of the GOP is not exactly enthused by this. Oh well.

The Grateful Dead was famous for letting their fans tape their live shows….

The Dead recognized that allowing fans to record for free widened their audience and the band became one of the most profitable groups in history. The band’s lyricist, John Perry Barlow, went on to become an Internet guru.

Barlow wrote in Wired in 1994 that in the information economy, “the best way to raise demand for your product is to give it away.” He explained to Joshua Green of the Atlantic: “What people today are beginning to realize is what became obvious to us back then–the important correlation is the one between familiarity and value, not scarcity and value. Adam Smith taught that the scarcer you make something, the more valuable it becomes. In the physical world, that works beautifully. But we couldn’t regulate [taping at] our shows, and you can’t online. The Internet doesn’t behave that way. But here’s the thing: if I give my song away to 20 people, and they give it to 20 people, pretty soon everybody knows me, and my value as a creator is dramatically enhanced. That was the value proposition with the Dead.”

The Chief has always liked the Grateful Dead from the time of his first acquaintance with them at the time he first entered active Naval service at the (then) Treasure Island Naval Station in the middle of the ‘Frisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1967. This is one more reason to appreciate how they operated.

SciFi publishing house Baen Books has gone in the same direction, with a “free library” on many titles available for free download in Mobipocket and other handy e-book formats, with no DRM or restriction on free distribution. On their site they explain their reasoning which runs much the same as Barlows. They also noted that after they put books by an author into the free download library, there was inevitably an distinct increase in sales for that author. They also have very reasonable prices on titles for paid download ($5-$6 typical), especially compared to other sources of e-titles. The Chief uses them on his PDA…who needs a Kindle?

Slobs and the American Civilization

Had George Washington joined me outside a Chili’s at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport recently, he would have shuddered at the sight. There, a nation of slobs paraded through the crossroads of America. Frayed denim hems swept the filthy floor. Cleavage poured out of T-shirts bearing vulgar messages. Big bellies flowed over the waists of jeans. Mature women waddled in stained sweat suits. Some passersby stuffed their mouths with pizza as they walked.

Another quote from a Warren Zevon lyric also fits quite well: “It ain’t that pretty at all!”

Washington was a stickler for good manners, and that included dignified dress. As a youth, he hand-copied a text called “Rules of Civility&Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” They included: “Wear not your Cloths, foul … or Dusty but See they be Brush’d once every day at least and take heed that you approach not to any Uncleaness.”

At the cost of betraying age, the Chief recalls when he flew on airlines for the first time…in the mid 60’s. Wearing a “coat and tie” was considered de rigueur.

Some observers suspect that a collapse in grooming and attention to dress has contributed to the decline in civility on our streets and in our politics. People don’t care what they look like in public because they don’t care about the public. They have little notion of, or interest in, playing a supportive role in their civilization.

Attire, like anything else that humans do, can become an abusive obsession…whether carried to excess, or it’s opposite. But this certainly goes along with the premise that “The barbarians are through the gates.”

We must concede that this is a big country with different expectations for proper attire. One person’s ostentation may be another’s good manners. But a modicum of care in dress and grooming would seem a basic minimum just about everywhere — or it used to be. Cowboys might get muddy on the job, but they were clean and pressed for the Saturday night dance.

The nation isn’t going to fall because of this. That being said…it DOES give a clear indication of the Obamaniacal state of mind, which in spite of Michelle’s vaporings has little connection to vast majority

Mao Zedong is in the White House, hanging out with the drag queen. Not far away, Barack Obama is making a play to have his head etched in stone.

Critics of President Obama are setting their sights this week on the official White House Christmas tree, which features controversial ornaments including an orb depicting the late Chinese dictator, another that shows drag queen Hedda Lettuce, and yet another that shows a picture of Mount Rushmore — with Obama’s head pasted to the side of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt’s.

“Jesus wept.”

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Mao Tse Tung, the Communist dictator responsible for the death of millions of people, and she explained why his philosophy was important for achieving personal and political goals.

When questioned last week after a video of her speech surfaced, however, Dunn said she was using “irony” in reference to Mao. A leading expert on China told CNSNews.com that Dunn’s remarks were “pathetic,” given the human rights atrocities committed under Mao’s reign.

Yeah – Mao is cool.  Never mind about those 65,000,000 dead people…they were only Chinese, anyway.

According to the MSM this is nothing worth commenting on.  Could you imagine their outcry if a Republican said something like this about Hitler?

These people in the White House are truly bereft of reason.

“The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, … opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects,” the petition said.

Outspoken celebrities have been caught up in their own skirmishes as the Polanski case has escalated. Comedian and actress Whoopi Goldberg – who remarked on ABC’s “The View” that the incident was not ” ‘rape’ rape” – now has her own critics.

“Just for the record, rape is rape. This is one Hollywood star who does not celebrate or defend Roman Polanski. His art did not rape her,” countered actress Kirstie Alley in a Twitter message to her fans.

Who or rather what is this thing that asserts that an individual who drugs a 13-year-old girl, and then “has sex” with her should take a pass and escape from the consequences of his act, just because he has managed to evade capture for so long?

There is (or at least was…we haven’t found out which yet) a principle of equal justice. If some poor schlub had done this, he would have been in jail doin’ the time. Just because someone is in the Hollywood glitterati, the Chief doesn’t know of any legal exemption from the laws and consequences that the rest of us are subject to.

A growing number of critics do not appear ready to forgive Polanski.

Carol Jenkins, president of the Womens Media Center, an activist group originally founded by Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda, called on the media “to focus their coverage of Roman Polanskis recent arrest where it belongs: on the crime he committed, the rape of a child.”

“Too often, the media is complicit in misrepresenting or silencing the victims of sexual assault,” she said.

“The rape of a child is at the heart of the case,” Ms. Jenkins added. “That is not disputed, and should not be represented as subjective.”

Dang! Must be pretty cold today down in hell…the Chief agrees with Ms. Steinem’s group?

Even the Frogs have figured this one out:

The French government, which initially expressed outrage over the arrest, has since adopted a more neutral line. “Roman Polanski is neither above nor beneath the law,” government spokesman Luc Chatel said at a press conference on Wednesday.

Prison cell, perv H’wood director:  some assembly required.

The president said he is “happy to look at” bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

Oh joy! Not only would we be subjected to the prevailing MSM tilt to the left, they would add injury to the insult by forcing us to pay for media crap that we don’t want!

They would LOVE the chance to be able to continue to indulge their political whims independent of the market pressure that is currently going through the process of rejecting their unashamedly biased stance as indicated my massive losses in advertising and subscription income.

“I haven’t seen detailed proposals yet, but I’ll be happy to look at them,” Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sure he would – for the same reasons.

Obama said that good journalism is “critical to the health of our democracy,” but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting — especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.

Right – good journalism IS critical…but to assert that the MSM is good journalism is laughably surreal.

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” he said.

Fact checking? Hmmmm. Like CBS & Dan Rather CONTINUING to insist that a blatantly forged document provides valid information about President Bush? Or like maybe NBC using incendiary devices to set vehicles on fire in an “investigative report” on auto engineering safety?  Or how about most recently…with virtually ALL of the so-called “mainstream media” ignoring the exposure of widespread promotion of criminality by B.O.’s favorite ACORN, until the stench got so great that they were literally FORCED to take notice?

THIS is “fact checking”? This is supposed to be journalism worthy of being supported by tax dollars?

There IS a part of the Constitution that addresses free press…but it does NOT contain a clause that GUARANTEES that just because you print a newspaper that anyone will bother to read it…or, for that matter, that one is guaranteed the right to make a living at writing and publishing crap that is inaccurate, incomplete, and often offensive and directly opposed to the values and interests of the POTENTIAL readership or audience.

Let ’em join the fate of the buggy-whip manufacturers if they can’t make it on their own!

The alternative is to turn the media icons of the liberal establishment into the American equivalent of the old Soviet Isvestia and Pravda, or the Nazi Volkishcher Beobachter – dedicated solely to the service of the state.

Hello Friends and Happy Labor Day!

Our wonderful country seems to stand on the edge of a knife. If we lean one way we could wind up free falling into a terrible predicament. If we lean the other we can save the country and all that it was founded for, namely freedom and liberty. Far too many of us have become motivated by greed. The poor want the rich to pay their way. The middle class are clawing to keep up with the Joneses using debt to get what they want. And the rich want more, more, more and are willing to use unseemly means to get it. This has left us all vulnerable to forces darker and more real then many of us know.

Remember how you felt in the days and weeks after the tragic events of September 11, 2001? There was universal love toward all mankind. We flew our flags as a symbol of unity and patriotism. We put up signs stating “united we stand”. In the words of a country song writer, we collectively “turned off those violent old movies we were watching and turned on ‘I Love Lucy’ reruns”. I don’t recall feeling much anger toward the evil doers but rather a peaceful harmony and love toward my fellow Americans. We wanted to serve and help. There was an underlying feeling of the greatness of America that had perhaps occurred only a few times in the past century such as after the bombing of Pearl Harbor or after the assignation of John F. Kennedy.

Now is the time for those who believe in liberty and freedom to stand up for what is right. We need to oppose the seen and unseen forces that would drag us down and enslave us. We should think deeply about every decision before us. We still have the right to speak out. We still have the right to vote for those we believe represent truth and good. We should not cower in fear worrying that standing tall for that which is right might offend one group or another or bring down wrath or scorn upon our heads. Rather we should turn to our God and stand for what we know He would have us do.

Those who stand for good are stronger then those who are sneakily looking for ways to take away our freedom and liberty. Our voices are the voices of truth and they cannot be stifled if we will use them. In all we do we must be kind, but we must be resolute and firm for truth and right.

 We may stand on the edge of a knife, but I believe we will choose the right and save this country for our children and grandchildren. Let’s put our personal greed aside and think of others as we did after 9-11. We are AMERICANS, the greatest nation on the earth. Others are counting on us. If we fail, the world fails. But we WILL NOT fail!

Couldn’t have said it better myself!