More Assaults By The Food Police

May 24, 2011 by: BOB LIVINGSTON

The fascist government elites continued their assault on American liberty last week with separate raids on an Amish farm that was committing the “crime” of selling raw milk and a natural supplement company that violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling rules.

In Pennsylvania, armed Federal thugs wearing flak jackets swooped in on Rainbow Acres Farms and bashed in doors like they were raiding Osama bin Laden’s compound. The raid came after a months-long “investigation” that saw agents using assumed names and surreptitiously purchasing products from across State lines so they could apply the misused “interstate commerce clause” of the Constitution, according to a report in The Washington Times.

 In Oregon, the FDA, IRS and FBI raided Maxam Nutraceutics, a company that produces and sells nutritional supplements primarily for autism spectrum disorders and Alzheimer’s disease.

Maxam’s “crime” was using customer testimonials about its products. According to the medical fascists in the FDA, repeating what customers say about your products turns those products into unapproved drugs.

So the FDA’s position is that natural products — like raw milk, which man has consumed as far back as time can be recorded — are illegal and harmful, but falsely marketed drugs from Big Pharma, with at best dubious research on their effectiveness, are perfectly okay for consumers. And falsely labeling food products by claiming they contain fruit, even though they only contain artificial fruit concoctions and contain no fruit whatsoever, is legal, but using the words of actual customers to promote products is not.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA take the position that raw milk can be contaminated with harmful bacteria and that pasteurized milk provides all the nutrients of raw milk without the danger. The truth is, pasteurized milk is a dead food. All the benefits of the milk are removed in the pasteurization process. And there had been no complaints of anyone becoming ill from consuming Rainbow Acres Farms milk.

This is just another example of the medical tyranny and corporatocracy in which we now live.
Hat Tip: Naturalnews.com

 
SOURCE OF THE ABOVE MATERIAL

Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS for links to additional articles on food and gardening and many other topics.

IF THE U.N. IS SO WONDERFUL, WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY WARS?

The United States has long borne the bulk of the operating budgets of the United Nations organization through dues and voluntary contributions. The U.N. has also extracted more than money from us - it has led directly to the United States becoming the “policeman” of the world. Since WWII we have shed American blood in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and are now fighting in Libya, all without a constitutional declaration of war. Most of those wars were not based on U.S. security reasons or interests but were instead based on U.N. Resolutions.

The United Nations, which was sold to a war-weary world in 1945 as an organization that would end war and was man’s best hope for a peaceful world, has failed miserably. Especially in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid:

*  From 1945 to 1949 there were 13 wars, conflicts, insurgencies and civil wars with U.S. involvement in two.

* From 1950 to 1959 there were 16 wars, civil wars, invasions, revolutions, insurgencies, uprisings, retribution operations and crises with U.S. involvement in two.

* From1960 to 1969 there were 41 wars, civil wars, crises, invasions, rebellions, confrontations, conflicts, revolutions and incidents with U.S. involvement in five.

* From 1970 to 1979 there were 30 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.

* From 1980 to 1989 there were 27 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.

* From 1990 to 2002 there were 63 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.

* From 2003 to 2011 there were 47 similar actions with U.S. involvement in four.
SOURCE

America has paid in blood for many of the U.N. wars (or police actions). All told, more than 600,000 U.S. soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen have been killed or wounded on behalf of the U.N.

U.S. War Casualties (killed and wounded) since the U.N. came into existence:
Korea                        128,650
USSR cold war                   44
China cold war                    16
Vietnam War              211,254
Lebanon                                7
Bay of Pigs                            4
Dominican Republic           213
Iran                                     12
1986 bombing of Libya         2
Gulf War                        1,231
Kosovo                               22
Afghanistan                   12,035
Iraq                              36,395
               TOTAL      609,883
SOURCE

As horrific as these numbers are, they pale in comparison to the human suffering imposed on citizens world-wide who have been slaughtered or were allowed to be slaughtered by their own governments. Known as genocide, or murder by government, about 38 MILLION humans were slaughtered while the United Nations stood by, issuing worthless resolutions condemning the acts.

Our “trading partner,” Communist China, from 1949 through 1976 murdered between 20 and 35 MILLION of its own people - a genocide of monumental proportions.

Genocide claimed between 100,000 and 200,000 Mayan and other Indians and “political enemies” in Guatamala.

About 300,000 Christians and “political enemies” of Uganda were claimed by genocide between 1971 and 1979.

The Khmer Rouge slaughtered TWO MILLION “educated persons” and political enemies in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.

And in 1994 the entire world watched in horror as the genocide of 800,000 Tutsi Tribesmen unfolded in Rwanda.
SOURCE

But have no fear, our valiant and gallant United Nations wrote several binding resolutions and imposed trade sanctions. The only “teeth” the U.N. has to enforce its resolutions and sanctions is spearheaded by the United States military.

The United States is seemingly always first in line to provide hurricane, flood and tsunami relief and we have shipped untold quantities of food to countries stricken by drought. Yet we continue to donate billions of dollars for the United Nations’ so-called humanitarian relief fund. Why?

The United Nations is the front organization for a one world order, or more appropriately, a world dictatorship under the leadership of the U.N. Former President George H.W. Bush confirmed that FACT with the following comments:

In a Sept. 11, 1990 televised address the elder Bush said, “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge .... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."

In a Jan. 9, 1991 press conference, Bush again referred to the United Nations and the new
world order in the same sentence when he said: “(The Gulf Crisis) has to do with a new world order. And that new world order is only going to be enhanced if, this newly activated peace-keeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective."

The power and might of the U.S. military proved that the “peacekeeping” function of the U.N. is indeed, effective. The question we must all answer is: Are we willing to participate in enslaving the entire human race through “peacekeeping” missions at the bequest of the United Nations? Or are we going to remain faithful to the precepts embodied in our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Are we going to be a tool for dominion and military conquest or are we going to renounce the U.N., defend liberty and justice for our brothers and sisters throughout the world and let freedom reign?

Click HERE to return to main article

Click HERE to return to table of contents

WE CAN CUT BILLION$ FROM U.S. BUDGET BY ELIMINATING THE UNITED NATIONS

The $14 trillion U.S. debt has American taxpayers asking, how did this happen? Where’s the money? Taxpayer money, that is - American money spent by federal politicians and bureaucrats with little or no oversight or review.

Let’s explore one prime example of total waste: the United Nations.

The United States pays 22 percent of the U.N. Operating “core or regular” Budget. But there are dozens of other ratholes built into the U.N. that suck up American dollars. For instance: Peacekeeping, the Tax Equalization Fund, the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program and other voluntary contributions.

The U.S. paid $5.2 billion for the U.N.s’ regular budget and the U.N. requested an additional $9.4 billion in “extra-budgetary” or voluntary funding for other projects. The U.S. contribution to that fund is hard to pin down since it is a variable.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees grew its budget by about 90 percent between 2008 and 2010, to $3.3 billion. The U.S. share of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in 2010 was $712 million, bigger than the next eight contributors combined.

Even though it is not planning on helping any more refugees than it did in 2009, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the world body's front-line humanitarian agency, has increased its planned spending to a little over $3 billion for next year — a 36 percent hike.

The spending increase for 2010 comes atop another whopping increase of 38.4 percent this year, a total jump of 88.2 percent. The combined hikes mean that UNHCR has virtually doubled its budget since 2008 — and intends to keep spending at roughly similar levels in 2011, unless additional refugee emergencies drive the price tag still higher.
SOURCE

IT GETS WORSE

Along the way, the agency hopes to add an additional 3,000 people to its payroll, raising the total number of staff from 4,824 in 2009 to 7,782 in 2010. Virtually all of these new positions, the agency says, will be located in the field, where UNHR does its relief work, rather than in its administrative headquarters. UNHCR will be a lot more expensive, but it claims it will also be a lot more efficient.

The spending spiral for UNHCR, which is funded by voluntary pledges, is bound to mean that the U.S., by far the refugee agency's biggest funder, will be writing even bigger checks — as it's already doing. So far this year, the U.S. had contributed about $639.8 million to UNHCR — up by about $129.6 million over 2008.

To put that number in perspective, the hike in the U.S. contribution this year was bigger than the full contribution for the entire period of the next largest funder of UNHCR, the European Commission, which had kicked in $120.4 million. Indeed, U.S. funding for UNHCR in 2009 has been substantially more than that of the next eight contributors combined.

But even if the U.S. payout for 2010 stays proportionately in line with the contribution so far for 2009, the U.S. would be shelling out another $230.9 million extra — bringing the total to about $870.7 million. That number would be about 250 percent of what the U.S. was contributing to UNHCR just five years ago.
SOURCE

In an unbelievable turn of events, an exclusive article series by Fox News the week of April 20, 2011, revealed the U.S. has actually OVERPAID its financial obligations to the U.N. by millions of dollars, possibly even billions if anyone is capable of finding his way through the jumble of interlocking agencies, bureaus and programs.

Even so, supporters of congressional belt-tightening are hailing the U.N. spending reduction as an important first move in restraining the steep climb in U.S. spending to support the global organization, where the U.S. is far and away the biggest contributor—and also an important restraint on the Obama Administration’s open-handed generosity.

How generous? The U.N. savings figures offer an interesting example, especially in peacekeeping, where the U.S. already picks up $2.1 billion-- 27 percent of a tab that is expected to reach $7.8 billion-- in the 12 months ending in June, 2011.

About $156.8 million of the congressional cutbacks are actually the return of overpayments made to current peacekeeping accounts. Another $86 million is money due back to the U.S. from peacekeeping operations that have already gone out of business. The remainder of that sub-total comes from U.S. overpayments for U.N. peacekeeping stockpiles that are largely kept in Brindisi, Italy.

The peacekeeping surpluses are not the only wads of loose cash that the U.S. has allowed to accumulate in its U.N. accounts. The Obama Administration last summer was suddenly able to allow the use of $100 million, part of the surplus in another U.N. account, to upgrade security at the U.N. headquarters complex in New York City, currently under renovation. We were only liable for about $20 million of that upgrade, but the Obama administration decided to pick up the entire tab. That money should be immediately returned to U.S. taxpayers.
SOURCE

When the percentages the U.N. operates on were instituted the U.S. was the world’s leading economy. That is no longer true and the U.N.‘s budget figures should reflect that fact. China, for example, which held foreign exchange reserves of $2.62 trillion in December, 2010, contributes 4 percent to U.N. peacekeeping, vs. 27 percent for the U.S. India, with a quarter-trillion in foreign exchange reserves, contributes 0.1 percent. Saudi Arabia, you know, the country we buy part of our oil from, contributes less than 0.5 percent—the same level as near bankrupt Ireland.

The same goes for the “regular” U.N. Secretariat budget, where China pays a little more than 3 percent, vs. the U.S. 22 percent, India pays 0.5 percent, Russia pays 1.6 percent, and Saudi Arabia 0.83 percent (this time, ahead of Ireland, which is just under 0.5 percent.)

If we stay in the U.N., and I really think we should get out, the budget assessments in all areas must be changed. Let the bulk of the funding for the U.N. come from Russia, China, India, the Arab states and Japan.

One last thing. The U.S. contributes military muscle for peacekeeping on the American taxpayer’s seemingly endless credit card while China, Japan, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia contribute no troops at all.

Click HERE to see the abject failure of the U.N. to keep the peace

Click HERE to return to Table of Contents

OBAMA EMBRACES DEATH PANELS

While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday (April 13, 2011). Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers.” But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.

According to Barack Obama yesterday, the death panels “will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.”

We already know what they’ll recommend as “the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending”. Barack Obama’s own advisers have told us. They will prioritize giving health care to healthier people and let sicker people die. At end of life, they will deny people life sustaining treatment because, after all, they’re going to die anyway. Note his phrasing: “protecting access to the services seniors need.” Dying people, according to Obama’s advisers, need hospice not hope. They certainly do not need expensive treatments that may buy them time to see the birth of a new grandchild or other reasons.

Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS

U.S. FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING

United States Foreign Military Financing (FMF) which is separate from foreign aid was slightly more than $4.4 billion in 2006. Scroll down to read the list of 63 nations receiving military aid.

SOURCE

1. Israel                            $2,257,020,000
2. Egypt                            $1,287,000,000
3. Pakistan                           $297,000,000
4. Jordan                              $207,900,000
5. Columbia                            $89,100,000
6. Poland                                $29,700,000
7. Philippines                           $29,700,000
8. Bahrain                                $15,590,000
9. Turkey                                $14,850,000
10. Oman                               $13,860,000
11. Romania                           $12,870,000
12. Morocco                           $12,380,000
13. Georgia                             $11,880,000
14. Ukraine                             $10,890,000
15. El Salvador                         $9,000,000
16. Bulgaria                              $9,000,000
17. Bosnia and Herzegovina      $8,910,000
18. Yemen                                $8,410,000
19. Tunisia                                $8,410,000
20. Latvia                                  $5,940,000
21. Lithuania                              $4,460,000
22. Estonia                                $4,450,000
23. Slovakia                              $3,960,000
24. Macedonia                          $3,960,000
25. Djibouti                               $3,960,000
26. Azerbaijan                           $3,960,000
27. Armenia                               $3,960,000
28. Czech Republic                    $3,960,000
29. Lebanon                               $3,710,000
30. Kazakhstan                          $3,460,000
31. Albania                                 $3,460,000
32. Mongolia                              $2,970,000
33. Hungary                                $2,470,000
34. Liberia                                  $1,980,000
35. Ethiopia                                $1,980,000
36. Kyrgyzstan                           $1,880,000
37. Thailand                                $1,490,000
38. Sri Lanka                                 $990,000
39. Panama                                    $990,000
40. Nigeria                                     $990,000
41. Indonesia                                 $990,000
42. East Timor                               $990,000
43. Cambodia                                $990,000
44. Bangladesh                               $990,000
45. Haiti                                         $990,000
46. Dominican Republic                  $990,000
47. East. Caribbean                        $910,000
48. Honduras                                  $890,000
49. Nicaragua                                 $590,000
50. Jamaica                                    $590,000
51. Chili                                         $590,000
52. Tajikistan                                 $490,000
53. Senegal                                    $490,000
54. Moldova                                  $490,000
55. Ghana                                      $490,000
56. Slovenia                                   $490,000
57. Fiji                                           $490,000
58. Turkmenistan                            $300,000
59. Tonga                                       $250,000
60. Belize                                       $200,000
61. Suriname                                  $100,000
62. Guyana                                     $100,000
63. Bahamas                                   $100,000
______________________________________
                          TOTAL       $4,409,190,000 ($4.40919 billion)

Link to a 2005 report outlining how the United States supports repressive, often socialist or communist regimes by giving and selling arms. How many billions have we given away? We may never know.

Return to MAIN ARTICLE

Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE HIGH PRICE OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

International missions, such as the United Nations, come with high price. In addition to the financial burden on U.S. taxpayers, we have lost a great deal of our sovereignty and have become the "police force" for the world. The United States acknowledges being at least $241 million in arrears on dues payments to international organizations with missions ranging from global peacekeeping to the enforcement of fair labor standards. The debt is projected to grow in 2010 to $478 million. Current arrears include:

U.N. Peacekeeping Mission                            $159 million
U.N. regular dues                                           $51.2 million
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization          $9.9 million
U.N. International Labor Organization              $8.7 million
U.N. Educational, Scientific and
    Educational Organization (UNESCO)           $7.7 million
U.N. Organization for Economic Cooperation
   and Development (OECD)                            $4.5 million

TOTAL  $241,000,000
SOURCE

Return to MAIN ARTICLE

Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGHTING BACK - VICTORY GARDEN 2011

The government’s stance toward food and food production today is a far cry from the Victory Garden era of World Wars One and Two. Today, Victory Gardens might as well be called survival gardens, since our very existence may well depend on our own ability to feed ourselves.

Back then the Victory Gardens, also called war gardens or food gardens for defense, were vegetable, fruit and herb gardens planted at private residences in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom during World War I and World War II to reduce the pressure on the public food supply brought on by the war effort. In addition to indirectly aiding the war effort these gardens were also considered a civil "morale booster" — in that gardeners could feel empowered by their contribution of labor and rewarded by the produce grown. Making victory gardens became a part of daily life on the home front.
                                                       

Amid regular rationing of canned food in Britain, a poster campaign ("Plant more in '44!") encouraged the planting of Victory Gardens by nearly 20 million Americans. These gardens produced up to 40 percent of all the vegetable produce consumed nationally.

It was emphasized to home front urbanites and suburbanites that the produce from their gardens would help to lower the price of vegetables needed by the US War Department to feed the troops, thus saving money that could be spent elsewhere on the military: "Our food is fighting", one poster read.

Basic information about gardening appeared in public services booklets distributed by the Department of Agriculture, as well as by agribusiness corporations such as International Harvester and Beech-Nut.

Victory gardens were planted in backyards and on apartment-building rooftops, with the occasional vacant lot "commandeered for the war effort!" and put to use as a cornfield or a squash patch. During World War II, sections of lawn were publicly plowed for plots in Hyde Park, London to publicize the movement. In New York City, the lawns around vacant "Riverside" were devoted to victory gardens, as were portions of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park.

In 1946, with the war over, many residents did not plant Victory Gardens in expectation of greater produce availability. However the added pressures of supplying liberated Europe meant that, in the UK, shortages remained, or in many cases got worse.

My mother got serious about her Victory Garden in 1942, the year I was born. Even after her only brother, my uncle, Harold, was shipped off to fight and die on Okinawa, she continued the tradition.

I've had gardens through the years, but I didn't really get serious until 2004. That's the year I realized that food shortages were imminent. That became obvious when fresh tomatoes jumped to about $1.50 each, (they are now up to $3.50 each - at times) and other fruits and vegetables carried a sticker that said, "Produce of Mexico."

Other food items continue to rise; asparagus (when you can find it) is about $3.50 a pound; apples average $1 each and other food products have also risen proportionally.

The lesson really came home to roost when I read a small article that even the Jolly Green Giant had farmed out corn production to Peru and when I traveled to Michigan for a two week visit with my mother she showed me acre after acre of asparagus that was to be plowed under since production of that vegetable was also being turned over to foreign growers.

Every year thousands of small farmers sell-out - no longer able to compete in the so-called global economy. Thus, in my humble opinion, the Victory Garden has become more than a way to pass time, it has become a necessity. Yet in spite of the obvious danger our food supply is in, homeowners more and more frequently turn luscious, fertile back yards into pet runs or even worse, cement or stone covered patios. A small 10' x 10' area can produce dozens of quarts of tomatoes, beets, pickles or other vegetables of your choice.

The following three videos tell some of the advantages of having your own food supply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-APWqoyw9Kw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_bVN_mI7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX-rL2-KgP4

What will happen to America, the land of plenty, if we wake up one day and find we are no longer able to feed ourselves? Please don’t snicker - that is a very real possibility as more and more of us are herded into cities where there is limited capability to grow even a small portion our own food and small family farms are being driven out.  

Every time a home gardener goes to his or her own pantry and pulls down part of the evening's meal, he or she deprives some foreign producer or government of a sale and thus the profits and control over our nation's food supply.

A lot of the food products our few remaining farmers produce, such as rice, is being shipped overseas because so many people in the "utopian global neighborhood" can't or won't feed themselves. In fact, as of April 24, 2008, rice was being rationed at such retail giants as Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. Rice is no longer being rationed but it should serve as a warning that it could happen again.

We are at war again and this war is much more deadly. We are at war not with Germany, Japan or Italy, but with radical Islam - and to a much larger degree - our own government. The sooner the American public wakes up and begins to assume some small control over its destiny, the better off we will all be. And that control may consist of nothing more than growing a little garden - a Victory Garden.

Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS