American Policy Center » 2010

American Policy Center » 2010 » July

Freedom Action National Conference

Dear Friend,

The Freedom Action National Conference is sponsored by Tom DeWeese and the American Policy Center and 23 co-sponsoring organizations and will take place August 12, 13 and 14 at Valley Forge, PA.

29 Leading spokesmen of the Freedom movement; including Thomas Woods, Sheriff Richard Mack, Michael Badnarik; and workshops for local action; networking; organizing; preparing to limit the power and growth of the Federal government to restore the Republic. Join us!

Click on the link below for details and to register for the conference.   www.freedomactionconference.com

Hurry, Early Bird savings expire soon.

In Defense of Liberty,
Tom DeWeese

P.S. If you cannot attend the live event in PA, we are also offering a Live Video Stream from the conference. Get all the details here:   www.freedomactionconference.com

Smoking Doesn't Kill You The Government Does!

This year’s 4th of July did not leave small business owners in Wisconsin with a feeling that liberty was alive and well in America. In fact it left them with quite the opposite.

Of all days of the year the Wisconsin State Government chose Independence Day to tell small business owners that they were not free to choose whether or not their restaurants were smoke free environments. Smoking bans have been passed before and there has always been a small segment of the population (besides smokers) who recognizes it for what it is. Destruction of property rights. Well Sue Robinson did.

When a state government (or the federal government) starts deciding that they have the right to tell business owners what they can and can’t do with a legal substance on their premises it is time to say enough is enough. This is a clear violation of our rights.

Piggy Back Tax!

Piggy back rides are a whole lot of fun when you give one to your little brother. They are not however so much fun when the come from Big Brother. When the federal government decides to give a piggy back ride it usually does not result in a good time, especially not for tax payers. The newest piggy back tax in the arsenal is a plan to pass the Cap and Trade 2010 “clean energy initiative” bill. This would tax carbon emissions on companies and in turn is expected to raise fuel costs for consumers. This is a highly controversial bill which will not pass on its own. So politicians (being the sneaky liars that they are) decide to give us the old one two and piggy back their tax onto a bill that will pass. The Cap and Trade bill is now tacked onto the back of an “Oil Spill Response Bill”. This would garner the support of those Americans legitimately concerned about the Gulf of Mexico and in turn pass their Cap and Trade tax.

So just remember: a piggy back from Big Brother is never good news.

Publication Does Not a Scientist Make

“Climate Scientists” have come up up with another theory. This one is not however a crack pot theory about the climate, it is a crack pot theory about their fame. Climate Scientists, (so the story goes) because they have been published in more magazines, newspaper articles and blog posts than Scientists who dare to question climate change, must be better scientists.

For a long time in America fame has been seen as an indicator of success. Celebrities, Professional Athletes and Musicians have all been elevated to the place of gods on earth. So naturally since Climate Scammers have achieved (in general) more notoriety than their opponents they must be more successful, ergo, better scientists. What these “scientists” have overlooked is that the Scientific Community has blackballed non-climate scientists from all major publications. Obviously since the lobbyists are fed by the scientists, Washington fed by the lobbyists and the media fed by Washington, those who question the gospel of global warming don’t have very much pull in the society of social media.

Publication does not make you in any way a better or more correct scientist. Especially if your opponents have been effectively silenced by lack of coverage.

McDonald v. Chicago: The Great Misunderstanding Of State Sovereignty

One of my highly-esteemed colleagues, Wilton Strickland, who is an author, columnist, attorney in Florida and Montana, magna cum laude graduate of the college of William and Mary law school and a fond friend of liberty accurately described a major problem in America relative to restoring freedom in the States in his recently-released article entitled, Staying Away from the Federal Courthouse. In this article, Strickland rightly identifies as a serious error in political judgment our using the federal government to enforce “freedom” against the States, as though freedom can long exist at the elimination of state sovereignty. The supposed “victory” in the recently-decided McDonald v. Chicago case goes to the core of this issue and illustrates, yet again, that the U.S. Constitution operates to eliminate state sovereignty and to cement federal supremacy, the dreadful results of which we see more keenly and feel more obviously every day.

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the fourteenth amendment (which was ratified only three years after the War Between the States under not-so-favorable conditions of the Southern states and which supposedly created national citizenship for all citizens of the States) nationalizes the second amendment such that all the States are bound to the federal government’s enforcement of those limitations. In other words, the federal government was supposedly given the power to ensure that all the States not deprive their citizens the “privileges and immunities” of the constitution. In essence, the States would have no sovereignty regarding this subject matter to the extent the federal government denies them permission, or any other matter that the federal government deemed “incorporated” into the federal constitution through the fourteenth amendment. This political application is a serious error and its consequences contradict the meaning and purpose of creating a federation of states and of separating state and federal powers. Literally speaking, there is no way that we can “get back to the constitution” where the application of the fourteenth amendment exists in this manner, not to mention the myriad of other reasons we will never “get back to the constitution.”

I acknowledge right off the bat that my view in this article is not likely in the majority of “conservative” groups, especially when it comes to a matter that has recently favored their “conservative” view. But that is all the more reason to express what I believe is the truth of this matter, for it goes to the very heart of freedom’s future and without an understanding of what jurisdiction, sovereignty and limitations of power mean, freedom will never be restored and will continue to suffer. Furthermore, I acknowledge that for what I am proposing to be the correct form of government to take place, the States must revolutionize the way they handle their politics, especially their relationship to the federal government. I also admit that not all of the States in the union will do this. In fact, maybe only a small percentage will, but the people living in those States must capture this vision for freedom to prosper in their State.

Ironically, most conservatives who praise this “gun-rights victory” also claim that the only way freedom will be restored is if we “get back to the constitution,” not recognizing that the constitution of 1787 and the constitution of 1868 and the constitution of 2010 do not closely resemble each other, not even considering what the Anti-Federalists warned of the U.S. Constitution. This simply shows that their understanding is misguided, incoherent and conflicted. On one hand, they praise a “supreme law of the land” that nationalizes a matter which the constitution of 1787 originally and purposely left to the states in a federal form; but on the other, they complain that the federal government is too intrusive in our lives and would admit that the fourteenth amendment (of the constitution of 1868) has a large role to play to that end. They hate Peter when he robs them to pay Paul, but they love Peter when he robs Paul to pay them. This approach to federal politics does not produce freedom.

Let me make this abundantly clear: today, the federal constitution is no longer federal, but is national in its character and nature. Ever since the fourteenth amendment was “ratified,” the federal government has become more increasingly the national supreme government at the expense of state sovereignty and the tenth amendment. It matters not that the federal government appears to be doing a good thing. Their power is obtrusive, encroaching and limitless, all through the use and instrumentality of the constitution.

Freedom is not victorious when the federal government obtains more power and control over the States through the use of a constitution that was supposedly designed to leave to the States all powers not delegated to the federal government and not expressly waived by them. The tenth amendment is as integral to the meaning of the constitution as the second amendment, if not more so; yet it is swept aside. Those who opposed the U.S. Constitution in 1787 did so based upon the conclusion that the U.S. Constitution created a national form of government and all but eliminated the sovereignty of the States. They were apparently more astute in their assessment of the U.S. Constitution’s future than were the Federalists. They did not base their opposition to the constitution upon the fear that the States would retain too much power and thus would potentially deprive their citizens of fundamental rights.

The States had their own constitutions (and still do) to secure the blessings of liberty. In fact, Illinois’ state constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms without reference to the U.S. Constitution: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Everything not delegated to the federal government was deemed the inherent right of the States regarding internal polite. The people of the States did not need the federal government to protect them from themselves. If they thought otherwise, they would have formed a national form of government, just as Alexander Hamilton proposed in the constitutional convention. But this plan was rejected; yet somehow it now has a stronghold on our minds through a century of moral depravity, individual ill-virtue, philosophical expediency, religious despondency and political subterfuge.

The founding generation wanted to leave to the States the sovereignty which they deservedly won fighting a bloody war against Great Britain, so that they could govern themselves as the people in those States deemed best. They rejected nationalism at every turning point, and it was for this reason that the tenth amendment was insisted upon: to protect State sovereignty and to draw that inviolable line against the federal government. The Bill of Rights had absolutely nothing to do with limiting the States regarding their internal affairs. Yet today, it is another federal government arrow in their quiver to shoot down State sovereignty, piercing the heart of the original union.

A constitution cannot maintain a federal nature of parallel lines of state and federal sovereignty while at the same time allowing the federal government to intrude on the states’ sovereignty retained in that same document. If our founders were so wise as to create a constitution of parallel lines of sovereignty and as to leave to the states all matters not delegated to the federal government, including those matters in the bill of rights, then why would we happily accept a principle that completely contradicts that understanding and intention? Why do we rejoice when a State’s sovereignty is destroyed by the weapons we supposedly locked away from the federal government for our own sake? Do we not recognize that the weapons they use to destroy one State on one issue can be used to destroy another state on a different issue?–that they are the sole distributer of “justice”?

That the founding generation did not want the federal government to be in control of those matters which most people willingly hand over to the federal government today, including the second amendment, is undeniable. If the answer to the question of federal power rests in a conclusion reached through the use of contemporary-standard application, such that you are happy when the federal government encroaches upon the lines of sovereignty retained by the States, then I advocate and propose a different contemporary standard–one that rests upon the maxims of self-government, limited government, state sovereignty and real federalism, not based upon national supremacy, encroachment and interposition.

I reject the principles of nationalism, which have created our demising situation and plight today. I would much rather accept the evils of my state than the evils from the federal government. Evidently, the founding generation felt the same way. However, such cannot be said of supposed “conservatives” today.

Part 2 of this article will discuss the anticipated objections to this article. For part two click below.

Click here for part —–> 2,

Obama is Also Using Global Warming to Destroy Jobs

President Obama has been very successful in destroying millions of jobs with his “stimulus” bill. Eight million jobs are gone, four million since the onset of Obama’s “stimulus” bill. Last week Joe Biden assured us that these jobs are not coming back.

Obama’s stimulus bill has been nothing more than his personal slush fund for reelection. With only 42% of the appropriated funds spent, Obama is keeping the majority of the money in reserve to buy votes and pay for union support in 2011 and 2012.

Promised massive tax increases in 2011 are keeping entrepreneurs and investors cautious and moving very slowly and carefully. Even the threat of tax increases curtails economic involvement and destroys jobs.

The EPA and other government bureaucratic regulators destroy jobs. The lack of action by Barack Obama, and the perpetual red tape and obstructions from the various regulatory organizations, has kept the economy from recovering. In banning deepwater oil exploration, Obama will successfully destroy more than 100,000 jobs.

Since the construction of new electric generating facilities and new refineries are not allowed, no one is hired to construct them. With no new electrical production, energy costs remain high, which stifles economic growth and new jobs.

The Global Warming Hoax is also a great economic depressor. Higher gasoline and electrical energy costs will greatly slow business growth and greatly increase energy costs for every family and business in America.

Obama hit a real home run in June when he managed to cancel a $600 million dollar equipment-building contract for Bucyrus of Wisconsin. Bucyrus makes mining equipment. An Indian coal mining company wanted to buy the equipment from Bucyrus rather than a Chinese or other company. Obama stopped the deal because it was for a coal mine, and Obama does not like coal. Obama is both pandering to the Far Left Environmentalists for votes and other support while killing jobs to support his Marxist agenda.

Due to public pressure and some adult supervision, the Obama Administration apparently backpedaled and the U.S. Export-Import Bank reconsidered the loan guarantees. We should remain concerned that the thousand Bucyrus jobs could still be lost.

Socialism makes everything more difficult and illogical.

SAF sues to overturn North Carolina’s “emergency powers” gun bans

The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Grass Roots North Carolina – the state’s leading gun rights organization, and three private citizens, Michael Bateman, Virgil Green and Forrest Minges, Jr. Named as defendants in the federal lawsuit are North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue; Reuben Young, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Stokes County and the City of King. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit contends that state statutes that forbid the carrying of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also contend that a North Carolina law that allows government officials to prohibit the purchase, sale and possession of firearms and ammunition are also unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights as affirmed by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Second Amendment ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states.

SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association took the McDonald Case to the Supreme Court.

“Through this lawsuit in North Carolina,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb,” we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.”

SAF is once again being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who led the legal effort in the McDonald case and also won the historic Heller ruling that overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban in 2008. Local counsel are Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis with the firm of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLC in Raleigh.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.

SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association took the McDonald Case to the Supreme Court.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

The “Smart” State: Progressivism, Part II

Modern Progressives love the term “smart” to describe their approach to everything from zoning to energy. For them, attempts to expand the role of the State are smart, which means free markets must be “stupid.”

By the late nineteenth century, Progressives believed that scientific knowledge was so advanced that “experts” could govern American society better than corrupt politicians and business owners. Well-intentioned experts could direct economic activity in a “rational” way.

Although many Progressives did not openly embrace socialism, they believed that a market economy left to its own devices would lead to chaos and monopoly. To combat this problem they did not call for outright State ownership of most production, but rather regulation by federal commissions and bureaus.

Modern historians usually portray entities like the Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Food and Drug Administration as historical “progress.” They especially praise the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1914, which was supposed to end financial “panics” and do away with booms and busts in the economy.

Progressivism permeated all levels of government from local city councils to the White House. The first openly Progressive president was Theodore Roosevelt, who publicly despised the U.S. Constitution with its checks and balances and hated the legacy of Thomas Jefferson. Roosevelt believed that the president should have the power to do whatever seems necessary and that experts in powerful federal agencies should be authorized to carry out mandates to solve the various social and economic problems.

What They Left Out

However, Progressives left out the most important elements in planning: human nature and economic calculation. The rule of experts has not resulted in Nirvana. For example, the current “top economists” of the federal government, from Lawrence Summers to Ben Bernanke, have doctorates from some of the most prestigious institutions in the world, yet they have created an utter mess.

Why? “Experts” might have advanced learning, but that knowledge cannot replace what people need to make complex economic decisions. Many government economic experts are Keynesians, or at least apply Keynesian-style policies, and no matter how many complex mathematical models they might use to “solve” economic problems, their models are worthless because Keynesian analysis simply treats an economy as a homogeneous mass that suffers downturns occurs because spending is inadequate.

Many government-oriented experts seem almost incapable of understanding an economic argument. For example, the government pays them to find ways to make alcohol-based fuel from switch grass, yet just because they can produce this fuel does not mean it is economically feasible. Government planners tout it as a “fuel of the future,” yet it is vastly inferior to petroleum-based fuels in performance and in resources required to create and distribute it.

“Smart” policies have unforeseen consequences. For example, “smart growth” has resulted in forcing up housing prices to astronomical levels, with “Progressives” then demanding that government subsidize housing to make it “affordable.”

Furthermore, as experts become entrenched in powerful bureaucracies, they act like, well, bureaucrats focused on preserving their own jobs. Although Progressives believed that an expert-led government would bypass political behavior, that never has been the case. Government is inherently political, and government agents can be expected to act in their own political best interests.

Moreover, F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pointed out fatal flaws in any kind of government planning. In his classic “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” Hayek noted that general knowledge cannot replace the specific knowledge that government economic planners would need to “run” an economy, and the failure of the socialists states eloquently proves his point. Likewise, Mises noted that without prices, private ownership, and free markets, economic calculation was impossible, leading to “planned chaos.” Their wisdom contrasts with the destructive foolishness we see coming from Washington and elsewhere.

Green Machines Killed Tweety!

Wind Turbines. Saviors of mankind, if you were to believe the environmentalist faction. But what are they really? Well the Audobon society refers the them as “The Great Cuisinarts in the Sky”. These are bird killing machines. If you have a bird problem in your yard several of these butchers will fix you right up.

First off, the sheer volume of these machines that would be required to replace the system of “carbon based” power already in place would be massive. For instance the landmass required to fit each of these turbines to make up for the power missing in California currently, (note this is power missing not even to make up for power they have now that would be taken away) would be the size of Connecticut. The number of birds this would decapitate each year would be massive.

So far according to Conservancy spokesman Robert Johns approximately 100,000 – 300,000 birds are killed each year by wind farms. This is about 274 -822 birds each day in the United States. 80% of these are songbirds.

This incredible massacre of the bird population is massively more than have been killed in the BP oil spill. So what is more damaging to the environment: A coal plant that puts out carbon dioxide (which the plants use for energy) or miles and miles of deadly wind turbines? You decide, the birds already have.

July DeWeese Report Roundup

To view the full July DeWeese Report click here

International Baccalaureate Program is the UN on Steroids

By Beverly Eakman

Back in the 1950s, international private academies, such as those in Washington, DC and New York City featured the International Baccalaureate (“IB” for short) because it was the choice of diplomats and others of European extraction. Sometimes parents there merely had a tour of duty in the U.S., but because their kids were expected to go home and take the International Baccalaureate test, their youngsters’ future prospects for college and career depended upon a rigorous scholastic regimen, which surpassed anything in American K-12 programs at that time. Many students flunked the test first time around. They got two more shots. Then it was either off to university, to trade school or something far less appealing.

The IB had its basis in the Swiss educational system. The Europeans, for all their faults, didn’t mess around with the basics of schooling back then. The curricula foreign kids got were much tougher than in America, even at most private schools. Not even pictures in elementary textbooks existed. Switzerland was considered la crème of the educational universe. If a parent had real money, that’s where they sent their kids. Former presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, went to boarding school there. A common joke went: How do you tell a European student from an American pupil? Answer: The European kid takes three steps before his book-bag moves!
(more…)

The Killing of Aiyana Jones: Modern Police Tactics & the Demise of the Fourth Amendment

“Soon as they hit the window, I hit the floor and went to reach for my granddaughter. I seen the light leave out her eyes. I knew she was dead. She had blood coming out of her mouth. Lord Jesus, I ain’t never seen nothing like that in my life.”— Mertilla Jones, Aiyana’s grandmother
It was 12:40 am on Sunday, May 16, 2010. Twenty- five-year-old Charles Jones had just gone to bed after covering his 7-year-old daughter Aiyana with her favorite blanket. The little girl was asleep on the living room sofa, which was positioned under a window. Her grandmother was nearby. Suddenly, the silence of the night was shattered by a flash grenade thrown through the living room window, followed by the sounds of police bursting into the apartment and a gun going off. Rushing into the room, Charles found himself tackled by police and forced to lie on the floor, his face in a pool of blood. His daughter Aiyana’s blood.
(more…)

Ron Paul introduces “Private option health care Act”

In May, 2010, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the “Private Option Health Care Act” (H.R. 5444) which would completely repeal ObamaCare and replace it with free market solutions. Below is his speech presented on the floor of the House to introduce the bill, Statement of Congressman Ron Paul United States House of Representatives

Statement Introducing the Private Option Health Care Act
May 27, 2010

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Private Option Health Care Act. This bill places individuals back in control of health care by replacing the recently passed tax-spend-and-regulate health care law with reforms designed to restore a free market health care system.
The major problems with American health care are rooted in government policies that encourage excessive relianceonthird-partypayers.Theexcessiverelianceonthird-partypayersremovesincentivesforindividualpatients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from patients and physicians. Furthermore, the third-party payer system creates a two-tier health care system where people whose employers can afford to offer “Cadillac” plans have access to top quality health care, while people unable to obtain health insurance from their employers face obstacles in obtaining quality health care.
(more…)

“Oil Addiction” Lies

By Alan Caruba

Next to the huge international hoax about global warming allegedly caused by carbon dioxide, the biggest lie being told to Americans these days is that we are “addicted” to oil and that we must convert our economy and society away from its use.
The first time I recall hearing this was during George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Speech and, frankly, I was astounded to hear it from the son of a former President who made his fortune in oil. The latest to repeat the lie is President Barack Obama, but he is allied with environmental organizations that are anti-energy no matter what form it takes.

Americans and everyone else around the world are not “addicted” to oil or other energy sources such as coal and natural gas. They are used to maintain and enhance modern life.

(more…)

ObamaCare Forces One Company to Cancel All Its Policies; Others Leave The Individual Market Fewer Choices for Health Care Shoppers

DespiterecentWhiteHouseclaimsthat“Yes,YouCanKeepYourHealthPlan,”ObamaCarehascausedone insurance company to terminate all its policies and two others to leave the individual market.

nHealth in Richmond, Virginia, which sells HSA/high deductible to employers, will not sell any new HSA plans after June 1, 2010, and will terminate all its customers by December 31, 2010, because it cannot survive ObamaCare’s mandates and regulations.
(more…)

“Gitmo” Got More

by Tom DeWeese

Barack Obama just put out the order to his administration to find places to cut the budget. They may save a million or two, but one can make Vegas odds that nothing significant will come of it. It’s just not possible to stop government spending. It’s not in their genes.

Case in point. While the nation reels from massive deficits and the president rails against bonuses paid to bailed out executives, he should be kicking some government butt over the incredible waste that was just thrown at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (Gitmo).

(more…)

Green Jobs Don’t Exist in a Free Market

By Tom DeWeese

Al Gore stumps the nation spreading the virtues of going green, thrilled at the prospects of new industries that will crop up in the process. Of course, green jobs are the center of the scheme to enforce sustainable development. “We can shut down those old industries and yet be prosperous in the future as we protect the environment,” goes the mantra.

A large part of Obama’s $786 billion stimulus bill was devoted to green or renewable energy projects. Obama and his environmentalist hordes convinced Congress that the money would be used to create an army of home weatherizers, wind-turbine factory jobs and other employment opportunities that would help put to work the nearly 8 million people who have lost their jobs during the recession. “We know the jobs of the 21st century will be created in developing alternative energy,” Obama proudly proclaimed. This, of coursed, from a man who doesn’t know the difference between price and earnings or overhead and profit. Well, he doesn’t know shineola about the economy and job creation either.
(more…)

Is Salted Popcorn about to become a federal offense?

By Tom DeWeese

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is planning an assault on salt. The government intends to set regulations to limit the use of salt intake by Americans. The regulations would set “legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.”
Of course, the excuse is “protection” of the health of the American people. Say the feds, limiting salt would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease.

In a complicated process, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads, and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market.

The main culprits behind the effort to have the FDA regulate salt is the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has led a fight against salt for 30 years. CSPI wants the FDA to revoke salt’s GRAS statue (Generally Recognized As Safe).
CSPI is the undisputed leader among the food police. It has launched an all out campaign against the eating habits of Americans, attacking Italian, Chinese, fast foods, soft drinks, French fries, extra cheese pizza, and almost anything else that tastes good. You might guess that Michael Jacobson, the head of CSPI, is a rabid Vegetarian, horrified by nearly anything man chooses to eat.

(more…)

The Global Warming Gravy Train Ran Out Of Evidence

Here’s how the facts have changed since 2003, to the point that there is no evidence of global warming left.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale “hotspot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint. Something else caused the warming!

2. The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out.
Instead of carbon pushing up temperature, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window. Something else caused the warming!
(more…)

« Previous Page Next Page »