. . .Your Informed Consent Right to choose healthcare, as stated in the Wilton Declaration: "The time has come for healers and those they seek to help to... assert our Right to Heal and Be Healed... we declare our independence from bureaucratic restrictions on our fundamental human rights ... to defend these basic human rights and the healers, physicians and other practitioners... who we freely choose to help us achieve and maintain health..."
Congress at the Crossroads http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplements Contact Your Representatives [Easily send messages to your Reps and other decision makers.]
Under increasing lobbying pressure from the drug industry and the Federal bureaucracy, Congress is considering bills to increase FDA and USDA power over foods yet again. In a series of laws over the past five years, starting with what I call the "FDA Enabling Act" in 2007 (Teddy Kennedy's dying gift to the bureaucracy) the power of the central government over local food production and distribution has dramatically increased. By 2010 the Federal agencies were empowered to enter into "contracts" with state food inspectors, effectively nationalizing local food inspection, just as the local police forces have been nationalized with Federal money and control.
These increases in Federal power are part of a general program emanating from the Administration to "seize the commanding heights" of the economy leading to what General Stubblebine has defined as "total government control" through various bills, regulations, treaties and executive orders. See: http://tinyurl.com/PushBackFree
At the same time these centralizing bills are working their way through Congress, patriot members are offering counter proposals to protect our Health and Food Freedom. The battle is joined; the Congress is at the Crossroads... as is our Health and Food Freedom!
UPDATE: 5.24.12 BOTH DURBIN and RAND AMENDMENTS DEFEATED FDA Bill S.3187 Passed and Sent to the House. The Action Moves to the House of Representatives.
Support
Sen. Paul's amendment, No. 2143 To S.3187 (the FDA bill) His
Amendment would disarm the FDA, put an end to raids on natural food
stores and Amish farmers, and stop FDA censorship of truthful claims of
dietary supplements.
"Mr. President, today [May 24, 2012] I'm offering an amendment to the FDA. I'm troubled
by images of armed agents raiding Amish farms and preventing them
selling milk directly from the cow. I think we have bigger problems in
our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers' land
and telling them they can't sell milk directly from the cow.My amendment has three parts. First, it attempts to stop the FDA's
overzealous regulations of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying
the first amendment prohibition on prior restraint... READ MORE: http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=529
Senators Hatch and Harkin Tell the FDA: "Don't Mess with Our Supplements!" "The Good, the Bad, the Ugly..." Senator Durbin's Unnecessary Amendment 2127 (Dietary Supplement Registration provision) May be added to the FDA bill, S.3187 Oppose that over-regulation too!
"Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) urged FDA to withdraw its New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Draft Guidance in a letter to FDA Commissioner Hamburg... Senators Hatch and Harkin, the principal authors of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), asked Dr. Hamburg to issue a new draft that, 'will provide needed clarification on what constitutes an NDI, but does not undermine the balance Congress struck in DSHEA to provide consumers with access to safe, affordable dietary supplement products.' ... The Senators said the draft guidance undermines DSHEA in a number of ways.." http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/news/2012/01/senators-hatch-harkin-call-for-ndi-guidance-redo.aspx
We now find Senator Durbin, this week, is seeking
to saddle dietary supplement companies with a new registration
requirement that is uneeded, since the 1994 DSHEA law already requires
companies to notify the FDA about their claims. The Homeland Security laws already require manufacturers to register.
The information the Senator wants collected by the Govt under this new Amendment is already collected!
The Durbin Amendment
2127 to S.3187 is over-regulation and will simply tend to drive small
companies out of business, thereby reducing consumer choice and
increasing cost!
Now addresses the FDA bill to be considered in the House Representatives.
What can we do about this?
We can educate our representatives About these latest Congressional andFDA assaults on our access to high potency, advanced nutrition!
Please let your representatives know how you feel. After you enter your zip code on the Action Item page, you can change or add to the suggested email that will come up on the next page. Then it's just a couple mouse-clicks and your representatives will get the message!
HEALTH FREEDOM BILLS PENDING IN THE 112th CONGRESS
H. R. 3380
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Concerning safe dietary ingredients in dietary supplements.
[Changes the "grandfathering date" from 1994 to 2007, protecting additional nutrients.]
[Introduced by Dr. Ron Paul]
H. R. 2044
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, and for other purposes.
... In General- The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless a Federal court in a final order following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that--
(1) the claim is false and misleading in a material respect; and
(2) there is no less speech restrictive alternative to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading...
H. R. 2045
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning the burden of proof in false advertising cases involving dietary supplements and dietary ingredients.
...EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATION AS ADVERTISING- No content of any publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act unless the content is intended by the seller of a product to promote the sale of that product and the content includes--
`(A) the name of the product offered for sale;
`(B) an express offer to sell the named product; and
`(C) a purchase price for the product.
No content excerpted in whole or part from a peer-reviewed scientific publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act.
`(3) NO IMPLIED CLAIMS- In any investigation commenced by the Commission and in any adjudicative proceeding in which the Commission is a party, the Commission shall not attribute to an advertiser accused of false advertisement any advertising statement not actually made by that advertiser.
`(4) NOTICE, OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR INVESTIGATION- Before the Commission authorizes an investigation of false advertisement by an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient, the Commission shall send the advertiser a written `Notice of Suspected Violation and Opportunity to Cure' informing the advertiser ...
... (5) BURDEN OF PROOF FOR FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CASES- In every proceeding before a court or the Commission in which an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient is charged with false advertising, the burden of proof shall be on the Commission to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the advertisement is false, that the advertisement actually caused consumers to be misled into believing to be true that which is false, and that but for the false advertising content the consumer would not have made the purchase at the price paid. If a claimed health benefit of a dietary supplement or dietary ingredient is alleged to be false advertising, the Commission must additionally establish based on expert scientific opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the claim is false. No order adverse to the advertiser shall be entered except upon the Commission satisfying this burden of proof.'...
H. R. 2908
To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary supplements.
...Dissemination of Testimonials- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), and any other provision of law--
(1) no Federal official or employee may restrict dissemination of a testimonial containing a consumer's actual perception of the mitigative, preventive, or curative properties of any food or dietary supplement based on the consumer's experience with that food or dietary supplement; and
(2) if a person disseminating a testimonial reasonably believes that the dissemination is covered by paragraph (1), such dissemination shall not constitute a violation of any Federal law...
The propaganda of the vaccination industry is based on false commercial speech.
Among the unscientific statements made by the vaccine pushers are claims about "herd immunity" -- the disproven claim that somehow "all" people are protected from infectious diseases when "enough" of the population has received the touted vaccine. If vaccines work, then those who receive them are "protected;" those who reject them are not "protected." No herd involved at all. The uninsurable risks of vaccination do not provide any "herd immunity." The most recent studies show what vaccines provide is a foreseeable risk of immune system damage or worse adverse reactions, including, as a foreseeable result, autism spectrum disorders. See, for example: Infant Monkeys Given Standard Doses of Vaccines Develop Autism Symptoms - http://vran.org/in-the-news/infant-monkeys-given-standard-doses-of-vaccines-develop-autism-symptoms/
Based on false notions, various vaccine-profiteers (drug lobbyists and their allies, including physicians in state legislatures) have introduced bills to abolish traditional religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions. The first of those state legislative efforts to reach a vote, in Vermont, went down to a decisive defeat last week. See: http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=61280071
"Advocates for vaccine choice rights delivered a
humiliating defeat to the vaccine industry in Vermont this week with
the defeat of S 199, a bill that would have eliminated the right of
Vermont parents to refuse mandatory vaccines to attend school for
“philosophical” reasons. A coalition of citizens and health rights
organizations stopped the very well funded effort by the vaccine
industry in the first full-scale attempt to repeal a state’s
philosophical exemption law. And this victory is bound to resonate in
the statehouses were similar efforts are under way."
However, the victory is not as decisive as is needed to secure our right to religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination. There is a worm in the works...
"A bill still called S199 emerged from the
legislature, but it left the philosophical exemption intact. Parents
will now have to submit letters on any annual basis and must sign a
statement that inaccurately states that they acknowledge not vaccinating
puts others at risk..."
This provision of the new law violates the First Amendment. Under our Constitution, no government may require particular speech, especially false speech!
Said the Supreme court in Thompson v Western States, 535 U.S. 357, 2002 -
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort... We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an
interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial
information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad
decisions with the information."
An assault on truth similar to that attempted in Vermont is occurring in California where the legislature is poised to require a Doctor's Letter with each claim of exemption wherein the physician will make the legislatively required false statements regarding alleged risks to the child not being vaccinated, and other children (again, the false "herd immunity" claim) but, the physician will not be permitted to explain to the parents the uninsurable, foreseeable harm that vaccination will cause to an unknown number of children... perhaps even yours...
Please go to the Health Freedom Declaration, read about these issues, and use the included Petition Form to easily send a message to your state and federal representatives that you reject official vaccine ideology and insist that your Freedom of Speech not be perverted to the profit of the vaccine drug pushers!
State Bills with Official Speech Requirements Violate the First Amendment
New Vax Religious Exemption Attacks in Several States
This is of enormous concern to us all, whether we have children or not.
If parents do not have the right to make health decisions for their minor children, how long will it be before you no longer have the right to make these same decisions for yourself?
We all know there are serious risks from vaccination. That is why it is an uninsurable risk, imposed on people by law. A certain percent of children who are vaccinated will be harmed, even killed.
As such, questions of privacy, personal liberty, and religious belief are deeply involved.
Right now, in several States of these United States, very similar bills are being introduced by the vaccine drug pushers and their political friends. These bills are like the bill just passed in California, but not yet signed by Gov. Brown, who is hearing from many opposed parents.
These new laws impose Official State-Sponsored Speech, the very anathema of the First Amendment with its absolute injunction, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...".
How they do that is described later in this article.
The battle being waged on the bodies of little children is an essential health freedom battle. We simply cannot afford to lose the right of each individual to assert religious or philosophical exception to vaccination. To many people the administration of these toxins violates their fundamental religious beliefs in the sanctity of the body.
Concerned parents and all who value liberty must call for an end to all mandated vaccination and the propaganda of vaccination benefit lies, as well as all other forms of forced medical treatment. The unnecessary scourge of autism spectrum disorders will not cease until the evil of vaccination is ended. This must happen now!
In particular, with reference to the State of California, we note with alarm the introduction in the State Legislature during February 2012 of AB 2109, "An act to amend Section 120365 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to communicable disease." WHICH HAS NOW PASSED THE LEGISLATURE!
THAT BILL IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL BY GOV. BROWN!
The bill interferes with religious liberty and philosophical opposition to mandated vaccines by requiring parents to obtain a propaganda letter from licensed physicians or registered nurses as agents of state-mandated medicine that they had been told of the alleged “benefits” of vaccination and the alleged “risks” of not being vaccinated (but the law does not mention the foreseeable harms which we know will be caused by uninsurable vaccination).
We call for an end to all such schemes aimed at perpetuating the official lies denying the evident risks of vaccination. We demand that the uninsurable vaccine industry, legislatively exempted from tort responsibility for the foreseeable harms vaccines inevitably cause, be finally held fully accountable.
It is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights (speech, redress and association) of the parents and the licensees. Mandated vaccines are now coupled with mandated speech to create official science which is the antithesis of real science.
Like the horror stories that came from state-sponsored "medicine" and "psychiatry" in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the lies of official vaccines "science" condemn, if not millions, certainly at least thousands, to untimely maiming and even death.
Expert Vaccination Exemption Attorney Alan J. Philips JD explains why California AB 2109 is unconstitutional here: http://www.vaccinerights.com/pdf/3-10-12_CA_AB_2109_Memorandum.pdf -
"California’s statutory construction rules applied to § 120365 make clear that § 120365 encompasses personal religious beliefs as a basis for the exercise of the exemption. Federal courts have held that First Amendment protection for religious objections to immunizations requires only that the applicant hold a sincere belief that is religious in nature. Thus, AB 2109’s additional requirements involving healthcare providers, as they pertain to those persons exercising the exemption due to personal religious beliefs opposed to immunizations, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
California residents should also CALL THEIR GOVERNOR TODAY!
If you are not a California Resident, you can make your voice heard by sending an email message here: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php -- California Residents, please use the form below to help educate decision makers! Please do so every day... they need to be reminded... until the bill is defeated or repealed!
New Jersey Residents: S.1759 similarly burdens religious expressive association. Please use the Action Item to contact your state legislators! Washington State and other states following suit. We need a tsunami of emails to PUSH BACK against this well-funded and well-planned state-by-state assault on parental choice and free speech.
ACT NOW! YOUR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS AT RISK!
We all understand the power of PUSH BACK. If enough of us educate enough legislators about this matter, the carefully constructed plan to restrict religious and philosophical objections to the foreseeable and uninsurable risks of vaccination will fail!
Yours in health and freedom, Counsel Ralph
Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Foundation
PS -- Vaccine Truth Crusader, Gary Krasner has this to say about these bills:
> One thing the activists in CA complained about was that failure of a physician to make himself available and willing to write a statement for a parent would be an undue hardship.
>
>A court might find flaws in the law persuasive. So try exposing the flaw in the reasoning behind subsection 2.
>
> The proponents probably cited as their rationale (more like "pretext") that their concern was that parents inclined to forgo vaccination are not receiving "competent" background information on vaccination, and that they should, before making this "drastic" decision.
>
> FLAW 1:
>
> What is competent information? Proponents would reply, anything citied by an MD. But there is no uniform consensus among MDs. Most support vaccination. A small number do not. Many limit the amount of doses in their own children, from concern about toxic load.
>
> If there is no uniform consensus, then there's no ONE competent view on the matter. If proponents claim there is ONE competent view, then the statute as written would have some parents receiving incompetent or less than competent information.
>
> FLAW 2:
>
> If the DoH decides to draft the language for standard vaccine info that physicians should furnish parents, then physicians are placed in a conflict of interest by Subsection 2.
>
> The amendment wants them to dispense standardized information issued by public health agencies. But that information is broadly determined for the population as a whole. The mandate of the DoH is also to maximize vaccine compliance rates. So their "standard" information may also be biased, to boot.
>
> But pediatricians and all clinicians defined in sub 2 have a professional oath to serve the best interests of their patients. Their clinical judgment for particular patients might require that they depart from the standard vaccination information issued by DoH.
A Note to Health & Food Freedom & Justice advocates:
Today witnessed another Supreme Court unanimous victory for the individual's right to petition for redress when Federal agencies merely threaten enforcement action. The application of this case to various matters regarding health & food freedom & justice issues is very significant.
Standing to sue has been the key issue in cases such as the CoMeD mercury cases, the Ear Candlers Case and the "stop the shot" vax mandates cases.
"The Sacketts, petitioners here, received a compliance order from the EPA, which stated that their residential lot contained navigable waters and that their construction project violated the Act. The Sacketts sought declarative and injunctive relief in the Federal District Court, contending that the compliance order was “arbitrary[and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that it deprived them of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Clean Water Act precluded pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders and that such preclusion did not violate due process.
"Held: The Sacketts may bring a civil action under the APA to challenge the issuance of the EPA’s order. Pp. 4–10. ...
"The APA creates a “presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349.
In this case, the circumstances are similar to what happened to the Ear Candlers, who all received "cease and desist" orders from FDA declaring that ear candles were "unapproved medical devices..." that had "no medical use" and could therefore never be approved. The District Court denied the Ear Candlers relief because the FDA only threatened enforcement but did not actually enforce (this, despite the FDA's own web site claiming it was enforcing and had forced companies to stop selling).
Here is what happened to the Sacketts:
"The Sacketts, who do not believe that their property is subject to the Act, asked the EPA for a hearing, but thatrequest was denied. They then brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Their complaint contended that the EPA’s issuance of the compliance order was “arbitrary [and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that it deprived them of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
"The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 622 F. 3d 1139(2010). It concluded that the Act “preclude[s] pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders,” id., at 1144, and that such preclusion does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, id., at 1147. ...
"We conclude that the compliance order in this case is final agency action for which there is no adequate remedy other than APA review, and that the Clean Water Act does not preclude that review. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
In recent years the FDA has responded to strong citizen "push back" by backing off some of its most extreme assertions of power. For example, when Natural Solutions Foundation led over a half million people to object to the FDA 'CAM' Guidance in 2007, that draconian regulation was never finalized. When we pushed hard against the Swine Flu Vax, the mandates collapsed. When we pushed against the recent New Dietary Ingredient Guidance, the comment period was extended. When the Raw Milk Freedom Riders publicly disobeyed the FDA interstate raw milk prohibition, the FDA backed off its claimed power to stop such shipments when for personal use, at least.
BUT, but, but... while backing off, the agency continues to act as though it had adopted these onerous rules. The Ear Candler Case shows that they are enforcing their illegal 'CAM' category (never adopted by Congress) anyway. The banning of a certain form of B-6 shows how they intend to enforce the NDI regulation.
Through intimidation and innuendo...
But now, with the Sackett case, it is clear the potential victims of agency-less-than-final-enforcement can have their day in court; they have standing to sue, to seek redress of grievances, when threatened by the consequences of enforcement even when the agency plays sly and tries to intimidate instead of directly enforce.
Ralph Fucetola JD Natural Solutions Foundation www.FreeWorldNetwork.org
I am re-posting this article which links fracking and health freedom. I find it particularly outrageous that physicians should be required by law to maintain proprietary secrecy when human health and life might be at risk. Once more, the health keepers are being conscripted to maintain a status quo that seeks to hide foreseeable harm. Another factor to note is that some in the natural gas industry assert that fracking is never needed and that there is a huge amount of natural gas available that can be brought to market without these extreme and dangerous means.
---------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania gas law fails to protect public health
Our legislators punted when it was time to protect us... Say Pitt experts Bernard Goldstein and Jill Kriesky
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Gov. Tom Corbett recently signed a bill that goes beyond just ignoring concerns about the potential human health effects of Marcellus Shale drilling, it retains some of the worst aspects of industry secrecy about proprietary hydrofracking chemicals while making unethical demands on physicians.
Imagine a physician caring for a child whose illness might have been caused by long-term exposure to a proprietary fracking chemical while playing near a drill site. Assume that after signing a legally binding nondisclosure agreement, the physician is given the identity of the chemical and comes to believe it caused the illness. What can the physician tell the families of other neighborhood children who play in the same field?
Under the newly enacted law, copied almost verbatim from a controversial Colorado law, a physician may receive information about a proprietary chemical used in the fracking process, but the physician must agree to not reveal this information to the public.
The law also allows the company to keep secret from physicians information about agents that come up from the ground during drilling, such as natural gas constituents -- which themselves can be toxic -- and naturally occurring toxic agents such as arsenic, barium, brine components and radioactive compounds dissolved in flowback water. Nor can public health authorities begin with knowledge of a secret chemical and ask whether there is an increase in an illness that the chemical is known to cause.
Drillers should have an affirmative duty to know what dangerous chemicals they are introducing into the environment. Instead, the bill is laced with excuses: "the vendor didn't tell us" or "it was unintentional" or "it must be due to a chemical reaction." But chemicals inherently react with each other -- that is their nature. By making ignorance an excuse, the law absolves drillers from doing their homework.
This legislation was under consideration when drilling in the commonwealth began in earnest, and it was intensely studied by the governor's Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission -- a commission charged with protecting the environment and citizens' health and welfare. Moreover, citizens testified at public hearings time and time again that they are concerned about possible health impacts on themselves and their families, neighbors and friends.
Yet the governor's 32-member commission included no health professionals, and the seven state agencies involved did not include the state Department of Health.
Not surprisingly, the commission's few health-related recommendations failed to make their way into the final legislation. Neither did the governor's recommendation to provide Marcellus Shale impact funding for the Department of Health; 19 other state agencies, subagencies and commissions received funding, including the Pennsylvania Boat and Fish Commission. It appears that our state politicians are concerned about the impact of shale gas drilling on boats and fish, but not on humans.
Rather than providing health personnel with direction on how to prepare for potential exposures to toxic chemicals in the air, water or soil, or to accidents similar to those that already have occurred, the law sets up an obstacle course that health care providers must navigate to secure information about proprietary chemicals -- information needed to diagnose and treat patients. This obstacle course also presents an ethical dilemma for a doctor who treats a child exposed by playing too close to a Marcellus Shale drilling site. It is a breach of a physician's responsibilities not to report a public health threat, as well as a contradiction of established public health practice and law.
This law would have looked different had public health officials been consulted. Legislators and industry lobbyists seeking streamlined and stable regulations to aid their companies' planning and pursuit of profits should recognize that it's in everyone's best interests to research and prepare for the public health risks that come with drilling. The statistically significant disease clusters that will inevitably arise in communities with Marcellus Shale drilling, whether caused by the drilling or not, will generate fear, media attention, declines in property values and lawsuits.
Industry is liable for any adverse effects caused by the millions of gallons of chemical-laden water that flows back to the surface after each frack. Perhaps individual companies are hoping that their particular mixtures will not cause noticeable harm or that they will make their money before tort liabilities catch up with them. But hydrofracking will likely go on in Pennsylvania for decades, and depending on toxic tort suits to protect the public presupposes that we must wait until people get sick.
The usual engineer's response to just about every technology problem that has resulted in environmental or human health problems is to say that had they only known there was a potential problem, they could have designed the technology to avoid the problem. For this discussion to take place in the case of the unconventional development of Marcellus Shale gas, we need health professionals at the table to prevent adverse health effects, and we need to put them there now.
Dr. Bernard Goldstein is emeritus professor in the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health's Department of Environmental and Occupational Health
( www.publichealth.pitt.edu ).
Jill Kriesky is senior project coordinator at the school's Center for Health Environments and Communities.
Dr. Ron Paul and several other members of Congress have introduced several health freedom bills into the 112th Congress. I summarize them here, quoting from Thomas.gov.
The relevant Action Item, where citizens can express their views about these bills, and help educate decision makers, is here: http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplements
All of Health Freedom USA's Current Action items are here:
Updates DSHEA "Grandfather" Clause H. R. 3380 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning safe dietary ingredients in dietary supplements.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Improving the health status of United States citizens ranks at the top of the national priorities of the Federal Government. The importance of nutrition and the benefits of dietary supplements to health promotion and disease prevention are well known and have been documented in scientific studies.
(2) Since enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), dietary supplements have had an exemplary public health safety record. Based on national surveys, in 1994, 50 percent of the 260,000,000 Americans regularly consumed dietary supplements. In 2006, 232,000,000 adults over the age of 18 alone consumed dietary supplements, 53 percent of the United States adult population.
(3) There were 4,000 dietary supplements in the marketplace in 1994, and in 2006 an estimated 29,000 dietary supplements were being consumed daily by Americans. Since the enactment of DSHEA, there has been 17 years of additional historical use-safety experience conducted by millions of Americans. Over 17 years, approximately 25,000 new supplements with new dietary ingredients have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under DSHEA and have and are being safely consumed by Americans.
(4) Since January 2007, FDA regulations governing dietary supplement manufacturer good manufacturing practices, dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and private sector voluntary testing and auditing for supplement quality and purity have improved postmarketing consumer safety. Before DSHEA, these mechanisms did not exist.
(5) There are DSHEA `grandfathered' supplements, dietary ingredients, and classified products which were on the market before October 15, 1994, and `generally recognized as safe' for human consumption. FDA regulatory policy, industry practices, and consumer marketplace paradigms have drastically changed over 17 years, but this policy has not.
(6) The definition of a new dietary ingredient in section 413 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350b) does not recognize the current safe market in supplements, nor how intensively supplements have been regulated over the 17 years since enactment of DSHEA to protect public health and safety, and should be updated to reflect this reality...
Section 413(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(d)) is amended by striking `October 15, 1994' each place it appears and inserting `January 1, 2007'.
Requires Court Approval of FDA Actions Against DSHEA Products H. R. 2044
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, and for other purposes.
... In General- The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless a Federal court in a final order following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that--
(1) the claim is false and misleading in a material respect; and
(2) there is no less speech restrictive alternative to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading...
Shifts FTC Burden of Proof H. R. 2045
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning the burden of proof in false advertising cases involving dietary supplements and dietary ingredients.
...EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATION AS ADVERTISING- No content of any publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act unless the content is intended by the seller of a product to promote the sale of that product and the content includes--
`(A) the name of the product offered for sale;
`(B) an express offer to sell the named product; and
`(C) a purchase price for the product.
No content excerpted in whole or part from a peer-reviewed scientific publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act.
`(3) NO IMPLIED CLAIMS- In any investigation commenced by the Commission and in any adjudicative proceeding in which the Commission is a party, the Commission shall not attribute to an advertiser accused of false advertisement any advertising statement not actually made by that advertiser.
`(4) NOTICE, OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR INVESTIGATION- Before the Commission authorizes an investigation of false advertisement by an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient, the Commission shall send the advertiser a written `Notice of Suspected Violation and Opportunity to Cure' informing the advertiser ...
... (5) BURDEN OF PROOF FOR FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CASES- In every proceeding before a court or the Commission in which an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient is charged with false advertising, the burden of proof shall be on the Commission to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the advertisement is false, that the advertisement actually caused consumers to be misled into believing to be true that which is false, and that but for the false advertising content the consumer would not have made the purchase at the price paid. If a claimed health benefit of a dietary supplement or dietary ingredient is alleged to be false advertising, the Commission must additionally establish based on expert scientific opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the claim is false. No order adverse to the advertiser shall be entered except upon the Commission satisfying this burden of proof.'...
Reasonable Belief About Foods Protected H. R. 2908
To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary supplements.
...Dissemination of Testimonials- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), and any other provision of law--
(1) no Federal official or employee may restrict dissemination of a testimonial containing a consumer's actual perception of the mitigative, preventive, or curative properties of any food or dietary supplement based on the consumer's experience with that food or dietary supplement; and
(2) if a person disseminating a testimonial reasonably believes that the dissemination is covered by paragraph (1), such dissemination shall not constitute a violation of any Federal law...
It is time to tell Congress that it must pay attention to our Health Freedom Rights! The FDA ignores Senators Harkin and Hatch, indicating that it is not interested in their views about dietary supplements and will continue its anti-nutrient policies.* We suggest it is time for the entire Congress to ACT! Please tell your congress-critters that is what you demand!http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplements
-----------------
* as reported: http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Regulation/FDA-silent-on-calls-from-Sen-Hatch-and-Harkin-to-withdraw-NDI-draft-guidance
Doctor Rima, Judge Napolitano, Counsel Ralph & General Bert
Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US Army, ret) President of the Natural Solutions Foundation (and the highest ranking retired office to be an Oath Keeper) has just completed the Estimate of Situation he developed as a result of our Third Annual War Council, held on January 8. 2012 here in New Jersey.
The Foundation trustees, General Bert, Doctor Rima and Counsel Ralph, met with Judge Andrew Napolitano the morning before the event, and brought his message to the attendees:
“The struggle for liberty goes far deeper than either the Republicans or Democrats imagined. Keep on doing what you are doing and don’t give up the struggle."
Among others, we heard from Foster Gamble (producer of the movie Thrive ), Tim Bolen, Sharry Edwards, Jordan Rubin, Dr. Hildy Staninger and members of the public, present at the meeting and via webinar.
We the people are under multiple economic, political, health and food attacks, mobilized and supported by certain globalist elements in the government(s) and powerful policy-setting multinational corporations which are designed to reduce the population by up to 90 percent; this is the Globalist Genocidal Agenda.
We address this EoS to all the people of the world — knowledge is power! This document is especially addressed to all of you who know there are increasing risks of a genomicidal nature that must be addressed. We acknowledge you and ask you to join us in this effort!
We invite you to share this EoS with all your contacts. Just as the First Annual War Council in 2010 recommended that we seek the ways and means to make social networking a powerful tool for freedom (resulting in the Free World Network) and the Second Annual War Council in 2011 sought to establish the ways and means to protect our natural product sources (resulting in the Fund for Natural Solutions) the Third Annual War Council recommends accelerated Push Back: http://tinyurl.com/PushBackHere.
12.28.11 Update: What appears a carefully orchestrated attack on Dr. Paul for "racism" has continued to build, based on out-of-context quotations and innuendos. Mike Laurrie deconstructs this misinformation here:
One response to this propaganda campaign is to pledge your vote to Ron:VoteRonPaul.us
Another Response is to be counted as one who is willing to Write In Ron Paul
Ron Paul in 2002 on Racism:
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
A Response to Addicting Info's Attacks on Dr. Paul & His Supporters
“For anyone that doesn’t support Ron Paul, and has ever tried to talk to his supporters, you’ve probably realized that they are unaware of all the things they are supporting by endorsing Ron Paul. Here’s a list of just 21 reasons someone might be a Ron Paul supporter...”
[As you review, below, the “reasons” alluded to above, as to why veterans, patriots, libertarians, Constitutionalists, peace activists, economists, students, 80%+ of his constituents and so many moderates and liberals support the good doctor from Texas, you will enter a strange mirror world of socialist meanderings that reasonable people thought had been left in the “dustbin of history” decades ago.
Dr. Paul, a gentle, courageous crusader for the Constitution, public morality and limited government, is portrayed as some sort of right-wind kook, rather than the perceptive student of history, politics and economics that he is. One would never guess, from the “21 Points” that Dr. Paul supported the restoration of our right to own gold bullion coins in the mid 1970s (of course, how could a socialist imagine such a right?), or that he garnered 320 bi-artisan House co-sponsors to his Audit the Fed Bill (the watered-down version that the leadership in Congress allowed to pass exposed the Fed Reserve's secret $14+ trillion bailout of foreign and domestic banks, above and beyond TARP, the stimulus and all that). Now, as Chair of House Monetary Policy, he has offered a trio of bills to reduce the debt by $1.7 trillion in one step, to return to Constitutional Money, and to finally END the Fed! In that, he stands with the Founders and with Andrew Jackson, ready to bring down the central bank fraud.
Below each distorted “reason” Ron Paul supporters are alleged to support him, we append some points that might be useful in refuting the allegations, assuming, of course, that such a “bourgeois” concept as “logical refutation” is accepted by the proponents of these hackneyed efforts at attack politics.
On the contrary, it appears politically correct in the chump parade to denigrate an appeal to reason and rely on collectivist “class warfare” propaganda that once-upon-a-time turned much of Eurasia into a death camp. Dr. Paul rejects the theories of statism, whether feudalistic, monarchist, merchantilist, crony corporatist, fascist or communist. Instead, he is the champion of Liberty and of the restoration of the Constitutional Republic.]
1. You’ve never researched Ron Paul’s voting record.
Dr. Paul is called “Doctor No!” because he always votes against any bill that increases govt power over people, all “homeland security” bills, all spending bills, all revenue bills, all war-supporting bills, all bills that cannot be justified under the 13 specific powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. His voting record is clear.
2. You think it’s OK for businesses to discriminate against people based on their race, since Ron Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.
Dr. Paul's respect for privacy and community precludes any support by him for any fed govt intervention either domestically or internationally; it is as wrong to engage in “nation building” in the USA as anywhere else. He relies on voluntary private action to promote the nondiscriminatory values most of us share; he knows it was govt intervention, through the Jim Crow laws, for example, which created segregation in the first place. The proper role of govt is to get out of the way of social interaction.
3. You’re a supporter of the white supremacist organization StormFront.org, which has repeatedly endorsed and stated their support for Ron Paul.
Dr. Paul and his supporters reject all collectivist ideology, including racialist ideologies. The reason he has photos of Professors Rothbard and Mises (both Jewish intellectuals) on his DC office wall is that he rejects the Hegelian Dialectic and its erroneous belief in legal fictions such as “race” “class” “corporation” and “state.” Mises, the great philosopher of freedom, opposed the collectivist ideologies founded on Hegel's false theories (Communism, Nazism, Racism, Collectivism) with the theory of Human Action based on individual choice on the Free Market. This reality-based philosophy defends human dignity and rejects collective impositions. See: Mises.org.
4. You don’t care that Ron Paul was the ONLY congressman who voted against granting subpoena power to the independent panel responsible for investigating the BP oil spill.
When crimes are committed, the responsible response is to impanel a Grand Jury which has well-defined subpoena powers and is overseen by the independent Judiciary. Dr. Paul opposed this non-judicial investigation for the same reason he opposes Obama's assertion that “The President” can order the death of any American he chooses, without the constitutionally required Judge or Jury.
5. You don’t like clean air and water, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate the EPA.
Historically it was govt intervention that took from people the right to redress for the trespass of pollution, in the alleged “public interest.” The creation of layer upon layer of bureaucracy to undue the damages done by bureaucracy does not protect anyone from the results of govt mismanagement of the public trust.
6. You don’t want to have a safety net in place, in case your house is destroyed by a tornado, hurricane, or some other natural disaster, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate FEMA.
The same FEMA that pretended to protect people in New Orleans is better fitted to round up and incarcerate dissidents of all beliefs, rather than provide the type of assistance that NGOs like the Red Cross exist to provide. A govt strong enough to resolve all ills is a govt too strong to allow us the freedom we need to innovate and protect our local communities. The fed govt attacks on Raw Milk is just one example of the govt “protecting” us from ourselves. See: http://tinyurl.com/rawmilkfreedom.
7. You think all schools should be private, and that you should have to pay for your children to get an education, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education.
Libertarians believe that education is far too important to leave to the govt. Govt “education” stifles innovation and forces all to citizens to become “Good Germans” in the service of the state. We reject state education as strongly as we reject state religion. Parents must be responsible for their own children, as is their right. For those who cannot afford non-govt education (though it is often rather less expensive that the state monopoly school system), it would be far better to provide assistance so they too can receive an education, without govt control over the content of that education. Those who believe in a state monopoly on education are just one step from all the other evils of collectivism.
8. You think corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want, because Ron Paul wants to eliminate all regulations on corporations.
This is a false accusation. Corporations are creatures of the state and have always been regulated for the good of the state (not of people). Libertarians deny the “personhood” of corporations and seek radical restructuring of these monopolistic entities.
9. You are anti-choice, since Ron Paul believes that states should have the right to take away a woman’s choice over what she does with her body.
Dr. Paul does not find any provision in Article I, Section 8 giving Congress responsibility over reproduction choices. Thus, any such regulation must be left to the states. Most libertarians oppose state govt impositions on women's reproductive choices, while often having personal moral objections to denigrating the value of human life (and often disagree as to when that life begins). Dr. Paul helped thousands of woman deliver healthy babies. He highly values life and does not favor voluntary termination of pregnancy, from that perspective.
10. You support segregation, since Ron Paul doesn’t think schools should be forced to allow attendance based on race or ethnic background.
Dr. Paul understands it is collectivism of the grossest sort to believe that govt schools should ever take cognizance of anyone's race or ethnic background. This type of invidious discrimination must not be allowed in a free society.
11. You support guns on airplanes, since Ron Paul thinks that 9/11 could have been prevented, if citizens were allowed to carry guns on airplanes.
It is clear to Dr. Paul that declaring airplanes, schools or any other place of public accommodation “gun free zones” is the same as telling shooters they have free access to victims who cannot defend themselves. Anyone who believes that the govt will protect them is sadly mistaken. They will be long dead before the police arrive, unless, of course, armed guards are stationed everywhere. Those who oppose Dr Paul on this issue objectively want a police state.
12. You oppose equality for LGBT people, since Ron Paul doesn’t think the federal government should guarantee equal protection under the law for our LGBT brothers and sisters.
It is ludicrous to believe that only the fed govt can protect the equal rights of all citizens, without regard to sexual preference. Rather, LGBT people have successfully fought for equal rights in many states and will achieve equality as they assert personal privacy rights against the power of government.
13. You don’t have a problem with people carrying guns near schools, since Ron Paul want to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
See Answer 11. These guys and gals do seem obsessive about disarming people, though.
14. You oppose same-sex marriage, since Ron Paul was an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House of Representatives, in 2004.
The conservative view is that marriage is a matter that ought to be left to the states. Dr. Paul's position would not stop any state from legalizing any form of marriage, including same-sex or even polygamy. His stated ideal is even more libertarian, that marriage is a private contract and neither state nor federal govt ought to interfere. Dr. Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
15. You don’t like having a good relationship with other countries around the world, since Ron Paul wants the United States to pull out of the United Nations.
Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist; as such he apposes all entangling alliances. He stands with the Founders on offering friendship and trade to all; entangling alliances with none.
16. You think the middle-class should have a higher tax burden than the wealthy, since Ron Paul’s tax plan would disproportionately favor the rich.
The demographic reality is that the burden of excessive govt spending will always fall on the large middle class; even confiscating 100% of all earnings over a million dollars would only fund the deficit for a few months. Not everyone views “progressive” tax rates as fair, and even with a true flat-rate tax the “rich” will individually pay more taxes than others.
In any event, Dr. Paul never votes for increased taxes and always votes for exemptions. He is the only public figure who accurately predicted the govt-created housing bubble and bust, the 2008 economic disaster and the failure of the Bush/Obama billionaire bankster bailouts. He predicts the collapse of the Federal reserve fiat dollar and says the fed govt is bankrupt and the next president must manage that bankruptcy. He has proposed three specific bills to restore honest Constitutional Money and END the Fed, HR 1094, 1098 and 2768.
17. You want a President who would make more unilateral decisions and undo more progress in this country than George W. Bush could have ever hoped to accomplish.
Dr. Paul has spoken eloquently against presidential unilateralism. He would never seek to seize power over private persons or the states, unlike Bush and Obama. He rejects the imperial presidency, and will not exceed what he views as his limited Constitutional authority.
18. You think that poor students shouldn’t be allowed to go to college, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate federal student loans.
The allegation is illogical; opposing tax-funded education is not the same believing someone “shouldn't” be “allowed” an education! And why should blue collar workers be taxed to pay for some other, wealthier family's children's education?
19. You believe crazy conspiracy theories about globalization, and that the Zionists are trying to take over the world.
Those who fail to read history believe that “conspiracy theories” are “crazy” – those who read history see it is replete with real conspiracies. Once again, an objection to Dr. Paul based on false premises.
20. You think the 10th Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights, even though it’s last on the list.
The case of Bond v US, decided by a unanimous Supreme Court on June 16, 2011, allowed individuals to assert the 10th Amendment in defense of fed govt criminal action. This goes a long way to vindicating Dr. Paul's view that the 10th Amendment is a major “Check and Balance” against overwrought fed power.
21. You’re mad at Obama because you believed him when he said he would end the war immediately, and he didn’t because he didn’t have the support of congress, but you believe Ron Paul could get it done immediately.
Says Ron Paul, in support of an immediate end to war and world-wide military bases, “They marched in; they can just march out.”
The left-neocons, such as Obama, have the same hideous warfare state/welfare state mentality as the right-neocons like Bush. Only a “useful idiot” believes the Obama “Peace Laureate” propaganda.
Dr. Paul, the only veteran running for president, understands the overriding need to achieve peace and to reject war. He stands squarely in the patriot tradition of opposition to Empire. Those who persist in supporting the Bush/Obama imperial war policies are not friends of peace, or justice, or freedom.
“Thousands of lives and trillions and trillions of dollars wasted...” based on false propaganda of war; Dr. Paul now warns us that the drums of war are being beaten yet again, mesmerizing the unthinking and perhaps leading to disaster again.
With other GOP candidates vying to see who can support torture the most; who can see more preemptive war targets, while the Democrats consolidate and extend the war policy, extending it to Pakistan, and to any place on earth where an American "judged" without trial to be a "terrorist" might hide...
"Audit the Fed!" in 2009; the TEA Party 2010 election; the Arab Spring and Wall Street Occupancy of 2011; Ron Paul's 2012 campaign: anti-establishment political activism is on the rise. But not just activism; rather also, real root-cause analysis and willingness to explore ideas.
For example, there was a vibrant discussion on a TEA Party forum a few weeks ago about the Hegelian Dialectic and the prospects for Liberty. That discussion prompted me to think about the basis of the concept of Individual Liberty and to look at the historic roots of freedom from the Ancient City to the modern Internet.
At one point in the discussion, one of the posters opined that Hegelian philosophy was, in essence, very pessimistic. I replied:
That is certainly a depressing view of ‘it all’ -- but also certainly one consistent with the ‘dialectic’ and its belief in unending repeated cycles of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
That's why, in earlier postings on this thread, I've proposed the Misian alternative to the dialectic which is based on the Axiom of Human Action and which rejects the dialectic for what Mises sometimes referred to as an "evenly rotating economy."
We do not need to accept the premises of the ‘progressives.’ There is an entire intellectual tradition which has, for over a hundred years, rejected the dialectic and Marxian materialism.
That school of thought, sometimes referred to as the "Austrian School," or Free Market School, proposes Human Action, guided by individual choice on the market, as the primary subject of real philosophy, or what Mises calls "praxiology" -- the study of Human Action.
Just look through the chapter headings in Mises' monumental Human Action and see the scope of that school of thought. [1]
The dialectic represents a failed philosophy which ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Mises, Rothbard and the Free Market School are the proper basis for all future political philosophy. They have offered us a true “Prolegomena to any Future Political Philosophy.”
In a similar vein, my co-trustee at Natural Solutions Foundation, and its President, Oath Keeper Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US Army, ret.) engaged with Occupy Wall Street (#OWS) and sent a powerful Emergency Message on the occasion of World Food Day, October 16, 2011.
“War is not good for children or other living things…” said those who protested and resisted the Viet Nam war, at a time when I was commanding US Army intelligence units in the jungles of Viet Nam – and being doused with Agent Orange... Today we are at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and, increasingly involved in expansive, and expensive, imperial entanglements around the world. But there is another war being waged against US, right here at home. “Trillions and trillions wasted…” as Dr. Ron Paul says...”[2]
One major factor in common among all of these diverse anti-establishment stirrings: the idea that individuals matter; that individuals can come together and effectively demand liberty.
Advocates of liberty can look back to the earliest stirrings of human culture for the beginnings of the concept of self-ownership and the right to liberty which that entails. Early cuneiform written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash included the word “amagi” which is translated as “freedom.” Sixth Century BCE philosopher Lao Tse championed personal freedom of conscience and during the subsequent millennia the idea of freedom became ever more a driving force in the development of human culture.
But, we must not think of the Ancient City as a place of what Mises might have understood as Liberty. One extraordinary work exploring the governance of the Ancient City is the 1864 master work of jurist and scholar Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City.
There we find:
The city had been founded on a religion and constituted a church. Hence its strength; hence, also, its omnipotence and the absolute empire which it exercised over its members. In a society established on such principles, individual liberty could not exist. The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The religion which had produced the state, and the state which supported the religion, sustained each other, and made but one; these two powers, associated and confounded, formed a power almost superhuman, to which the soul and body were equally enslaved… There was nothing independent in man… Private life did not escape this omnipotence of the state… The state allowed no man to be indifferent to its interests… The ancients, therefore, knew neither liberty in private life, liberty in education, nor religious liberty…
It is a singular error, therefore… to believe that in the ancient cities men enjoyed liberty. They had not even the idea of it. They did not believe that there could exist any right as against the city and its gods… The government was called by turns monarchy, aristocracy, democracy; but none of these revolutions gave man true liberty, individual liberty. To have political rights, to vote, to name magistrates, to have the privilege of being archon, -- this was called liberty; but man was not the less enslaved to the state…[3]
In contradistinction to the ancient past, the past half millennium has seen very significant advances in liberty and, in the past century or so, a clear theory of human action, or praxeology, has developed which posits Freedom of Choice as a driving factor in the advance of human civilization, as “dissatisfied” individuals engage in human action.
Control over most humans has been maintained for millennia through the use of religious and, later, political ideologies that justify the dominance of the few over the many. Through the use of what early freedom theorists such as Lysandor Spooner saw as the great monopolies created by political power, this strict social control dominated human society. These included the monopolies over conscience (state religions), over the bodies of certain people (chattel slavery; caste systems), or the property rights of about half of the species (the legal “infirmities” of women) and over property through regal claims to “own” the land and economic activities of a territory (feudalism and mercantilism). But in more modern times, the structure of bureaucracy itself has been the control system; consider, for, example, how the regulatory structure of the Military Draft was used in the USA during the 1960s and ‘70s to “channel” students into certain fields, such as science, which were considered of benefit to the state.
During the past few centuries the King’s age-old monopolies have begun to break-down and disappear. The world-wide outlawing of chattel slavery and the movement toward equality for women and an end to caste systems have freed-up extraordinary level of human creativity. As a result, despite the enormous growth of government and the burden that system of coercion imposes on all people, human economic activity has reached new levels of organization and efficiency. More people live longer, healthier and wealthier lives than ever before in human history.
This powerful, world-wide movement toward greater liberty has met nearly equally powerful resistance among the beneficiaries of the monopolies. Fundamentalists among the three related monotheistic religions have especially resisted the equality of women. Politicians of various persuasions have many spurious arguments to make about economic controls that are just variations on the King’s Monopolies that had been rejected by the European Classical Liberal Tradition, from which the work of Mises and Rothbard arose.
The Twenty-First Century has enhanced intellectual tools to bring to the battle of ideas; the instantaneous communications of the Internet Social Networking universe allow no one to hide behind old, disproven ideas. Nonetheless, Hegelian concepts about “collectives,” echoed by the intellectual heirs of Hegel, the Nazis and the Marxists, and more recently taken up by collectivists of various more seemingly-modest varieties, are still raised in an attempt to impose “Politically Correct” restrictions on speech and intellectual inquiry, especially in the government’s “public” universities and other “public” spaces. Similarly, collectivist arguments are made by Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, against freedom of conscience and for government restrictions on freely chosen Human Action. Of course, against this we find many expressive association non-governmental organization (NGOs)[4] using the most advanced forms of Internet communication, to pursue the Liberty we have come to expect as of right.
Advocates of liberty see only one ethical limit on Human Action: non-coercion against non-coercers. In this way, libertarian political theory stands in direct opposition to the ideologies of the old Right/Left paradigm. The Misian approach counters arguments about legal fictions such as “peoples” – “races” – “nations” – “religions” – “classes” – “corporations”, with arguments about the root of Human Action – the Axiom of Human Action: individual dissatisfaction. These legal fictions cannot act in the real world. Only humans act; sometimes pretending to act on behalf of these fictions. It's time, though, to wake up from the mythic ancient city and assert the real roots of human culture, in Human Action. It's time to take responsibility for what is real.
“Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law.
The elucidation and the categorical and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race.” - Human Action, Pg 885.[4]
Thus, the line in the sand...
Mises, speaking to a group of then rather young libertarians at a Society for Individual Liberty conference in Philadelphia warned us all back in 1971. He wagged his finger at his long-haired audience (including a Nobel laureate's son; several future best-selling authors; even a congress-critter-in-the-making...) and told us, "You are eating your seed corn..."
And so we have been... but we have also been learning and communicating in ways that visionaries like Mises, or Buckminster Fuller, were just dimly perceiving just a few decades ago. It was Fuller who opined, just before his passing, that the then new computer media would make what he called "the secret government" impossible.
I firmly believe that the Tea Party #teaparty and Occupy Wall Street #OWS can constructively engage, in a transpartisan discussion - since both movements see the the same mis/non and malfeasance of the crony corporatists and their minions in govt.
However, "IMHO" it is the Ron Paul libertarians, who can "stand in both camps," who can best bridge to actual solutions to the problems, and an opportunity to teach a whole "progressive" generation that govt is not any solution!
The solution is to adopt the strong market-oriented reforms, such as Rep. Ron Paul, as House chair of Monetary Policy, has offered.
HR 1094, 1098 and 2768 are a comprehensive restructuring and de-socializing of the USA's centralized banking system. I wrote about that HERE. Similarly, he is offering a comprehensive Trillion Dollar Budget Reform that rapidly returns to a balanced budget, and a series of bills about health and food freedom, such as the Raw Milk Freedom Bill, HR.1830, about which I wrote, HERE, that, in his wording, would "Legalize freedom!"
It appears to some analysts, such as Gen. Stubblebine, that the globalists want to use #OWS as a counterfoil to what they perceive as a potential Tea Party Tsunami. The General thinks we need to outflank them by weening the movement from pro-govt stands to a truly radical rejection of the Left-Neocons that now control the White House.
A globalist "Genocidal Agenda" is discussed by Dr. Rima E. Laibow MD in this appearance at the School of Enlightenment, Yelm, WA.
In this new approach to politics, this transpartisan approach, once again Dr. Paul has shown extraordinary leadership. Examples include garnering over 320 House co-sponsors to his tough Audit the Fed bill in 2010, and the 2008 Joint Policy Statement what he calls the "Principled Third Parties" issued together, in an unprecedented "right/left" show of support for his leadership, about which I wrote HERE. Any wonder Dr. Paul has photos of Mises and Rothbard on his DC office wall?
These are, as the old Chinese curse has it, "exciting times..." they are times that cry out for concerted, well-considered Human Action.
Liberty rests on the restlessness of the individual; on our individual dissatisfaction, as we each seek to maximize our individual good…
Here is Dr. Paul on Pushing Back for Freedom:
To paraphrase Mises:
Only Individuals think.
Only Individuals plan.
Only Individuals engage in Human Action.
All the rest is political fiction. Any future politics must take this Truth into account.
----------------
[1] http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=3250&html=1
[2] Gen. Bert's Message:http://tinyurl.com/Bert2OWS
[2]Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, p 222 – 223, Doubleday Anchor Books, Library of Congress #55-12307 / https://archive.org/details/cu31924100532054
[3] Some of which are: www.GlobalFoodFreedom.org – www.OathKeepers.org – www.HealthKeepersOath.org – www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org – www.FoodFreedomeJournal.org – www.DownsizeDC.org and www.CampaignforLiberty.org
[4] http://mises.org/humanaction/chap39sec3.asp
“Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” –Thomas Jefferson
The Vitamin Consultancy - www.vitaminconsultancy.com -- I practiced law for 36 years in NJ (1971-2006), gaining a reputation as The Vitamin Lawyer, representing people in the Natural Products, Dietary Supplements and CAM (Complementary and Alternative Modalities) fields. Now I provide educational services and I consult with lawyers and other professionals, formulators, manufacturers and purveyors of natural and nutritional products, as well as with CAM enterprises and practitioners.
I started these blogs to comment on health and freedom issues and to provide an archive of information for my clients and associates. This is a private expressive association communication.
I have been a trustee of several NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) including the Natural Solutions Foundation - www.OpenSourceTruth.com - Institute for Health Research - www.InHeRe.org (of which I am President) and LifeSpirit Church - www.lifespirit.org
