Monday, February 26, 2018

Church, State and Trump


The Constitution says Congress has no power to legislate restrictively about religion.  By linking religion with speech, communication ("the press"), assembly and redress, the First Amendment creates what the Supreme Court has come to refer to as "Expressive Association."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Religious organizations have come to rely on the powerful language of the First Amendment to assure their independence from political authority in America. 

The prohibition against Congress making any law prohibiting "free exercise" combined with our first Supreme Court's admonition that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" is the basis for the tax exemptions of churches. I wrote about this in 1998:

“Yeshua the Nazarite taught his followers to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's". He was adroitly avoiding, as the incident in the Bible makes clear, expressing an opinion regarding the Roman Empire's taxes. Jesus continued, "...and render unto God the things which are God's". Ever since, the question of the State's authority and Religion's right has been of central concern in Western religious and legal philosophy. We have seen how this conflict has been resolved, at present, in America. The tax (and other laws) we have discussed are part of that resolution, for, as our first Supreme Court said, "the power to tax is the power to destroy," and Congress has made it the law that the government may never use this power to destroy the independence and capacity to act of American churches. This is the Law of the Land and should be defended by all freedom-loving and religiously oriented people.” [1]

There have been few attempts to restrict religious speech in US history and all but one, the infamous 1954 Johnson Amendment, have fallen away.  That clause, imposed by LBJ while still a member of Congress, attempts to prevent churches from engaging in political speech. That is old law unlikely to be fully enforceable.

Congress adopted the RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141). In this enactment Congress determined that "governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification..." and that "laws 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise..." Therefore Congress determined to protect the free exercise of religion as follows:

"Sect. 3. Free Exercise of Religion Protected. (a) In General. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) Exception. -- Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person -- (1) is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial Relief. -- A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government..."

Under that law the courts have allowed churches great leeway. Examples include sponsoring peyote rituals and even asserting exemptions from certain Obamacare insurance requirements.

Recently people have been more strongly asserting their right to have their religious beliefs accommodated in reference to government and employer vaccine mandates. I’ve written about that and helped develop a form Demand for Religious Accommodation. [2]   

This trend has been further strengthened by actions taken by the Attorney General and President Trump. [Let it be understood that I am not a particular fan of either, and consider their old-fashioned views regarding the health benefits of Hemp to be particularly egregious.]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had this to say on October 6, 2017: [3]

“Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place. It also encompasses religious observance and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law.”

The Attorney General Continues, in Point 2 of his Opinion

“2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs.

“The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s belief. Federal statues, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), supports that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, by a particular religious faith.”  [4]

Last May President Trump signed an Executive Order essentially nullifying the Johnson Amendment, except for actually endorsing political candidates.

"The order, which Trump inked during a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden, directs the IRS not to take "adverse action" against churches and other tax-exempt religious organizations participating in political activity that stops short of an endorsement of a candidate for office. But pastors are already free to deliver political speeches, and regularly do. Churches and other tax-exempt organizations are restricted from endorsing or explicitly opposing political candidates under the 1954 Johnson Amendment, but the executive order Trump signed Thursday makes clear that those activities would still not be permitted." [5]

The wording of the Order states:

"Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections." [6]

Subsequently, in January 2018, the President created a "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in HHS:

"Social conservatives and religious liberty leaders have anticipated conscience and religious freedom protections to come out of HHS, and the work of the new division, which will fall under the purview of the Office of Civil Rights, will likely pave the way for health care workers to refuse specific types of care, like birth control or abortion, based on their religious or conscience objections." [7]

Bottom Line:  restrictions on religious involvement in public affairs, which IMHO always violated the absolutist language of the First Amendment (or as Justice Hugo Black was accused of saying, "No law means no law."), are becoming unenforceable.  Similarly, the right to assert conscientious objections to acting contrary to one's religious beliefs is becoming more respected by the civil authorities.

This may apply not only to conscientious objection to decorating wedding cakes, but also to submitting to vaccination or other demands of an ever more intrusive bureaucracy. These are highly significant developments.

Rev. Ralph Fucetola JD

Friday, February 23, 2018

Stop FDA Attack on Homeopathy

Short Link to this Message

Subscribe for Comment Link:

The UK's National Health "Service" used to run special homeopathic hospitals and herbal dispensaries. Not any more, now the "single payer" will no longer pay for either and they are now being closed. [1]

Unsurprisingly, the FDA is following suit, despite the fact that Homeopathy and the US Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia (USHP) are protected by specific statutes in the US.

Did Health Freedom end when 2017 made its exit? Yes, if the FDA has its way!

Bottom Line: If you are ready to take action to protect natural remedies, read on...

We have until March 20th to file formal comments with FDA.  Docket FDA-2017-D-6580 – scroll down to find the Comment Link.

This past year the DEA and the FDA came out publicly saying, for example, that Cannabidiol, CBD, a neurotransmitter produced by mammalian (including human) bodies, was not a lawful nutrient, although the agencies have stopped short of raiding health food stores [as FDA used to do in the 1990s, before the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA)] to enforce their dictate. [2] 

Right now, although there is a century of laws protecting homeopathy, FDA is attacking homeopathy to “protect” you. They are the government and they are here to "help" — Big Pharma.

On December 18th of this past year FDA issued new regulations that attack homeopathic oral and injectable remedies despite the fact that they are protected by long-standing law. This blatant attack on your health freedom choices is part of a long-term, well-financed conspiracy and, sadly, comes as no surprise. [3]
On your behalf we told FDA, when they started their “regulatory review” of homeopathy to let our natural remedies alone! The attack began “innocently enough” during the previous presidential administration.  

FDA asked for comments on how it should “modernize” homeopathy regulations. That’s the government’s first step toward ratcheting-up control.

That’s the step to which we had previously replied, telling them, among other things:

"FDA does not have authority from Congress to interfere with traditional homeopathy, nor does Congress have authority to permit such interference. Individuals have the right, under international humanitarian law binding on the United States, of Informed Consent to exercise their Freedom of Choice in health care without government burdening that fundamental right." [4]

These new regulations followed similar recent action in the UK by its “one payer” nationalized health care system. The UK National Health “Service” has ended its long-standing history of support for safe, gentle and effective homeopathy and herbalism (the UK even has special homeopathic hospitals and homeopathic/herbal dispensaries) in favor of dangerous, deadly and ineffective pharmaceuticals. This trend for medical tyranny has “crossed the pond” as the FDA has attacked legally protected homeopathy in the USA.

This was done in three steps that I have documented.

First in 2015, when the FDA asked for public comments about regulating homeopathy. That's when we submitted the comments referenced above. By the way, by submitting comments telling FDA they were acting illegally, we preserved the legal right to complain to the courts; we preserved "standing to sue."

Second, as noted in a blog entry I posted January 2017, FDA was toying with the idea of requiring "disclaimers" on homeopathic products, disclaimers not required by the statute that protects homeopathy in the USA [5].

Third, the most recent action, which illegally attempts to treat HPUS standard homeopathic remedies as unapproved pharmaceutical drugs, requiring a "risk/benefit analysis" which will effectively ban many, if not most, homeopathic remedies. This pseudo-scientific analysis starts with the false claim that homeopathic remedies have no benefit and alleges a "risk" that people using such remedies will fail to use Big Pharma's government approved, dangerous "side-effect" drugs.

What risk? Since government approved pharmaceutical drugs are the main cause of preventable death in the USA, what risk? [6]

The natural product industry has two choices: let Big Pharma and the globalists have their way or force them back, step by step.  I am sure that large producers of homeopathic remedies will realize they have no choice but to challenge the regulation. Strong public support for natural remedy freedom will encourage resistance to agency overkill.

Since we have preserved the right to object to this latest FDA action, cooperation between the industry and the health freedom movement during 2018 may be the only way to preserve our access to homeopathy, and, while dodging the FDA's left punch, we'll need to watch it's right arm for the next attack on herbs and other nutrients, like CBDs.

The new President, failing to keep his promise to "drain the swamp" seems to be appointing swamp-creatures to run the FDA and empower it to further attacks!

We must choose to force them back. I know you will want to do so, too.

FIRST -- Subscribe here: to be linked directly to the web page for comments. This is where you can tell the FDA “NO!”
Share this link on social media!

SECOND -- Contact me directly if you or your company want to be part of the advocacy and litigation that will likely be needed to stop this latest FDA outrage. Our half century of health freedom advocacy positions us to coordinate this urgent action.  We need your support -- email me here:
File your comments prior to March 20, 2018

When you Subscribe you will be sent to a link that you can click to file your comment to the FDA.

It is simply bad science to apply the "risk/benefit" analysis that may be appropriate for the dangerous drugs and interventions of modern medicine to traditional nutritional, herbal and homeopathic approaches to achieving and maintaining health.  

Biological individuality suggests that the "risk/benefit" analysis will miss the benefits of these natural modalities, giving the governing authorities an excuse to ban the natural competition to treatments that are known to cause harm. Let us remember that a large portion of the FDA's budget comes from large pharmaceutical companies. [7]  The risk of systemic corruption is so high that the agency should refrain from interfering with freedom of choice in health care. [8]

Ralph Fucetola JD
Institute for Health Research

Thursday, February 15, 2018

The Meme Wars

With Memes the Medium is the Message

We know from 20th Century media guru Marshall McLuhan that "the medium is the message..." [1] The medium that carries the information is its own message. That seems especially true of our 21st Century hyper-connected Internet virtual reality.

I recently read Josh Weltman's book Seducing Strangers, which I highly recommend. [2] In it he makes a fascinating observation, one of many, starting with a term from Aristotle's Rhetoric, "Enthymeme." [3]

He connects the term to Internet "memes" - a word that was originally a play on the term "gene." [4]  A meme is an idea (embodied as a catchphrase, image or the like) which spreads throughout a society in a fashion not unlike the way genes spread through a population.

The point he makes, and the reason for this blog entry, is that there is a certain pattern to the use of Internet Memes that makes them powerful persuasive tools.  "If the first part... confuses, the second part must explain. And if the first part explains, the second part should confuse." [5]

Aristotle's Enthymeme is a logical construct where the "first term" of the syllogism is assumed to be understood by the listener.  The the second and third terms of the argument are more persuasive since the first is already in the minds of the listener.

For Internet image memes this can be generalized to: If the image confuses (or shocks, or astounds or amuses = surprises) then the words should explain; if the image explains, the words should surprise.

To a degree the image above is an example of the process. The retro-image is typical '60s California and carries with it the whole meme complex of California Living.  The words pull it into the present, starting with the current year date and become a warning to those doing business in California that the changing rules will impact them and require attention.

The average attention span of the average Internet user is very short. Just seconds. [6] Notice mainstream TV, for example. The editing cuts (especially for ads) are often the length of a heartbeat, sometimes two or three. Hardly ever more.

Thus the Internet Meme, with its rhetorical tension between image and word, is an ideal tool to get the message through the medium and into the minds of your audience.

Internet communication is becoming a battleground of memes.  My Millennial Connections tell me they call it The Meme Wars. Some of the most popular Facebook groups are built around what are called "Dank Memes" [7] The more dissonance between the image and the words, the better. And so it goes.

If the image astounds, the words explain. If the image explains, the words astound...


[1] - "The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in any message it would transmit or convey, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

[2] Workman Publishing, 2015 - ISBN 978-0-7611-8495-9 (Co-producer of the TV series, Mad Men)

[3] - "An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma) is a rhetorical syllogism ... used in oratorical practice."

[4] - "In 2013 Dawkins characterized an Internet meme as being a meme deliberately altered by human creativity—distinguished from biological genes and Dawkins' pre-Internet concept of a meme which involved mutation by random change and spreading through accurate replication as in Darwinian selection."

[5] Weltman, - see page 25.

[6] - You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish

[7] - Gary Johnson's Dank Meme Stash

Monday, December 4, 2017

Asserting Your Vaccine Right to Religious Informed Consent

School children in California are not the only victims of the Mad Vaxxers. Health Care Workers are being told they "must" receive vaccines, usually especially the failed Flu Vax, [1] or they will lose their jobs. Children, especially in California, are being faced with the unlawful choice of a "free public education" or vaccine freedom of choice.

That is not the law.  Rather, the individual right to Informed Consent overrides any employer mandates. This was acknowledged just a couple years ago in my home state, New Jersey, by an Administrative Law Judge in a unemployment insurance case, where a nurse, refusing vaccines for philosophic as opposed to religious reasons, was held to have been unlawfully fired. [2]

A similar argument can be made with regard to childhood vaccine mandates. This blog entry focuses on employment issues, but many of the same concerns should invalidate any vaccine mandate, no matter who may proclaim it or against whom it may be directed.

We must acknowledge that the national political authority (in the USA, the FDA) seeks to "privatize tyranny" [3] by having heavily conflicted (in the USA, CDC) approval committees "recommend" vaccines which then become mandated by local government, school and work authorities. As such, this nominally private actors are acting "under color of law" and must abide by all constitutional restrictions.

It is the nature of the universal right to Informed Consent that you must assert the right or it may be deemed waived. However, if asserted, the right is viable, as the US Supreme Court stated in 2013 [4]

Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…”

It is further the case that US Federal Law requires employers to reasonably accommodate workers' religious beliefs (so, for example, it has long been illegal to make Jews work on the Sabbath).

With these circumstances in mind, and with wonderful information posted at the Living Whole blog [5] I drafted the following suggested language for workers to include in their request to an employer to honor their exemption from vaccination.

You can further assert your right to Informed Consent with the Advance Vaccine Directive Card, available through Natural Solutions Foundation. [6]

When employers, school administrators and others are "acting under color of law" to enforce government or private regulations, they are bound by the civil rights laws to accommodate sincere, personal religious (or equivalent philosophical) scruples.

Here is the language I suggest:

I am seeking a Religious Accommodation in the form of a Religious Exemption from Immunization because of my strongly held personal religious belief that Immunization is against my single most sincere religious belief. That belief is that I am free to worship my God as I see fit as without prejudice as afforded to me by the Laws of the United States of America. 
You will accommodate me in the workplace with a Religious Exemption From Immunization. 
The Law supports my position on the matter, including: 
1st Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” - 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII section 201- 203.
201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 
SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof. 
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202. 
Forcing me to defend my Religious Conviction for a Religious Exemption or that I do not meet some imaginary preconceived religious threshold is proof that you are being prejudiced against me and you are thus seeking to segregate from public access and from gainful employment. 
Any attempt to force me to believe as you do is to proselytize me from my religion into your belief system. May I remind you that it is illegal for you to force your religion on me in as much as I can not force mine on you. 
James Madison wrote The Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments [ca. 20 June] 1785 
“The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.” 
In closing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said this on June 6, 2017 
“Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place. It also encompasses religious observance and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law.” 
The Attorney General Continues, in Point 2 
“2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs. 
“The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s belief. Federal statues, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), supports that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, by a particular religious faith.” 
To Allow a Religious Exemption for one religion and not for my religion is to show you are prejudiced against me. 
Whether or not Immunization is central to, or required by any religious group with which I may be associated is irrelevant in this matter because for me to go against my religious belief is a sin. 
To deny any and all religions (or philosophies that hold the same position in a person's life as a religion) of a Religious Accommodation, or to allow one religion or philosophy an exemption over another is a violation of my civil rights protected by the Constitution, statutory and case law, and is tyranny! 
This is a total Violation of my Inalienable Right to be free to worship, and abstain from the physical act of Immunizations. Employers are required by Federal and State law to accommodate my religious belief. 
I am choosing to abstain from Immunizations because it is against my Strongly Held Personal Religious Belief. 
I do not give Informed Consent to any vaccination. 
The correct ICD-10-CM Code that applies is Z28.1 “Vaccination not carried out for religious reasons.” 
I certify that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. 


[4] Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US _ (2013) – 

Friday, December 1, 2017

Is the Liberty Movement Succeeding?

Short Link to this Blog Entry:

The recent trend in Libertarian Party [ ] Presidential Vote Results is clearly upward: [1]
Note that the 2016 total was substantially larger than the 2.9 million vote difference between the two tax-eater parties. [2] 
I can hear Prof. Rothbard chortling!

As a result (and maybe also as an interrelated cause) the libertarian presence on social media continues to grow.  The number of people posting, for example, on the Libertarianism Facebook page escalates, as do the number of trolls. It seems that libertarian successes are being noticed and the trollocracy is on the roll. One of the recent pseudo memes has been "The LP has done nothing..." to advance liberty and, indeed, the very idea of liberty is waning in the new world order.

This is an example of a propaganda technique that attempts, in big-lie style, to ascribe to libertarians, a growing movement, the very failures of our chief opponents, the totalitarians of various stripes. 

This in the very same year that the world commemorated the 100th Anniversary of the Red Coup in Russia (the "November Revolution"*), initiating a century in which various versions of Socialism (Communist and Nazi alike) killed over a hundred million disarmed folk. 

That anniversary was not celebrated with joy anywhere on earth and happily the Red Menace of old was finally swept "into the dustbin of history." Yes, libertarians had hand in that most momentous event in 20th Century history. 

It was then young libertarians (like Prof. Jack Wheeler and then libertarian troubadour, later Reagan speechwriter, now congressperson Dana Rohrbacher) among many others interacting with anti-communists around the world (during the '68 - '89 period) which encouraged the Collapse of Communism -- that, and of course, the utter failure of central planning in the face of market innovation, and the extraordinary bravery of ordinary Eastern Europeans and Russians who finally faced down the freedom-destroying mega-state!  

It is worthy of note that about a half decade before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Red Army doctrine had loudly proclaimed that the "correlation of forces" had decidedly turned in the favor of the USSR.[3]

The liberty movement includes many organizations and advocates. NGOs such as the Mises Institute [ ] make the literature and commentary of liberty widely available. Others advocate for specific reforms to enhance liberty. They are an enduring source of deserved annoyance to the trollish army nipping at our heels.
Ama-gi -- Freedom

So, here was my response to the trollish claim that the LP has accomplished "nothing" --
The LP is just one of the more recent manifestations of a Liberty Movement that reaches back into American history, to before the Federal Republic. Read Murray Rothbard's 4 volume "Conceived in Liberty" [4] which covers our history to the time of the Constitution of 1787. 
Lysander Spooner identified 4 great monopolies that the Liberty Movement had to abolish to give us the opportunity for developing in freedom. They were: Chattel Slavery, the "Legal infirmities of women," the King's economic monopolies and State Churches. 
The Liberty Movement did quite well on those. It was up to succeeding generations to protect and extend freedom. We've done that in many ways, overthrowing all sorts of cultural limitations on personal expression.  
For example, recognition since the leading case on the matter in 1914 of the importance of the universal right to Informed Consent. [5] Or, for further example, the developing law built on the First Amendment, the Most Libertarian Clause in the Constitution. 
I would say that Libertarians, as inheritors of the tradition of Liggett, Warren, Thoreau [6], Spooner, Mencken, Taft, Goldwater and Ron Paul, are doing just fine as the only real opposition to the American Empire, and as the only true heirs of the Old Republic.
While the LP leadership does not always act as though it understood that the party is part of a larger Liberty Movement, it remains true that its success depends on that larger movement. 

Those who fear liberty seek to attack the voluntary associations that promote the ideas of liberty. This should not surprise us. The marketplace of ideas remains a free market, where the old state and corporate monopolies over "the press" have ended and each of us can express our commitment to liberty. How could the actualization of the goal of full personal liberty not succeed in such conditions?

Links to Some Previous Blog Postings on Libertarian Political Philosophy

[A]   Libertarian Foreign Policy:  
[B]  The Prolegomena to any Future Politics:
[C]  Privatizing Tyranny:
[D] Americans Want a Third Major Party:

Follow-up Note [05 Feb 2018]:  Facebook controversy escalates over the claim that the LP leadership has intentionally excluded Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano from speaking at the upcoming party convention.

Here is my comment about that development:
What is wrong with LP excluding Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano is that it sends the wrong signal to the growing Liberty Movement. When the (G)OP excluded Ron Paul from their convention in 2012 it signaled an exit from the Old Party that gave Obama a second term. The LP is just one expression of the Liberty Movement and while important, it is not the controlling factor. The LP needs alliances with the broader movement to continue to grow and gain more votes. The LP's purpose is electoral politics, while the Movement's purpose is expanding Liberty. Not the same. As a Movement we need "celebrities" to popularize the the cause of Liberty so what the LP is doing is a mistake. I suspect there is an irrational element in the LP that wants to "control" the more consistently radical Rothbardian FMA views represented by and sees Ron Paul and Judge Nap as part of that more radical wing (although Paul is not AnCap he is a supporter of the Institute; Judge Nap is well-known at Mises University and is a consistent libertarian). I've written a bit more about the Movement here:

Notes for original blog entry:


[5]  My Brief on Informed Consent here:
[6] See the Essay on Civil Disobedience where Thoreau references "my friends the no government men..."

* Also known as the "October Revolution" due to a change in calendars.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Comments to FDA at -- Pre-DSHEA Ingredients List

Filed 26 September 2017
Filing Receipt No. 

In Re: Development of a List of           }
Pre-DSHEA Dietary Ingredients         }
Docket FDA-2017-N-4625 

Ralph Fucetola JD states as though under Oath:

1         1. This Statement is submitted as a Comment to FDA docket 2017-N-4625 in advance of the Noticed Public Meeting of October 3, 2017.

2     I am a retired Attorney-at-Law and hold a Juris Doctor Degree. I practiced law from 1971 through 2006 in New Jersey and am a Notary Public.

3     In determining regulatory standards for producing a List of Pre-Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) Dietary Ingredients (herein, the Pre-DSHEA List), the Food and Drug Administration should, among other factors, consider the relationship of the ingredient to the normal structure and function of the body.

4     Any substance or compound that was part of the food chain on the DSHEA “grandfather” date in 1994 (and not thereafter chemically changed) should be included by reference in any Pre-DSHEA List as such substances or compounds are “grandfathered” by the explicit terms of the Statute.

5     Such substances or compounds, at a minimum, should include all substances found naturally in mammalian, including human, bodies, including compounds produced by such bodies.

6     An example of a substance or compound actually produced by mammalian, including human, bodies and therefore part of the food chain to be considered “grandfathered” and part of any Pre-DSHEA List is Cannabidiol, or CBD.

7.     This substance or compound is also found in the hemp plant and other sources. It is not an intoxicant. It is a human neurotransmitter and a normal part of the cannabidiol neurotransmitter system in the human body.

8.     In 1995, while I was in practice as an Attorney-at-Law I was retained by the Life Extension Foundation to represent two of its members who had been arrested in New Jersey when importing DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone) a hormone which is a normal part of the human body.

9.     It was believed by the New Jersey authorities that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) had “scheduled” DHEA as a controlled substance. That belief was false. No such “scheduling” had occurred or could occur. Eventually the charges were dropped and an order was signed determining that DHEA was a normal part of the human body, not declared “contraband” by government authority. A copy of the Order closing the cases is posted here:

10. It is my professional opinion that a substance or compound, native to mammalian, including human, bodies, and not being an intoxicant, is a Pre-DSHEA Dietary Ingredient and should be included in any such Pre-DSHEA List.

11. It is my professional opinion that Cannabidiol (CBD) is such a substance or compound.

I certify that the statements made by me in this Comment are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I recognized that I am subject to punishment as for perjury if any are willfully false.

26 September 2017

Ralph Fucetola JD